[Vote] Who did 911?

[BADecker]

... The likeliness of both building falling in the manner that they did is slim....

Not at all.   Given they were hit the same way, why would the structures not react in similar fashions?

You'd have a point if, say, one of the planes had been nearly empty of fuel and the other one nearly full.  But that wasn't the case.

Two planes knocked down three buildings

The third building, which was not hit by a plane, was wtc7.

....so WHAT?

For the quote in bold.

Both building were not identical.  Both planes couldnt have hit at the same angle or have the same mass.  There for the reactions were more then likely to be different.  I am also sure that the fuel levels were not identical either.

The main point being the structures of the buildings themselves.  They were different.  Again. From an engineers standpoint.  It wasn't possible or likely.  The materials used to build these building is also public record.  So you could see tinsel strength and heat tolerance.  Along with a make up o alloy or steel type used in construction.

If you look at what it would take to bring these down you would find these planes are unlikely of doing this even if they were to carry twice the amount of fuel.  These types of buildings are built to withstand a lot more then you think.  And there are building built way before these that have caught fire and had much higher temps and they did not fall.  If you lay all the evidence out on the table and look at it all.  I do not see how anyone could think that there is not something wrong with the picture.  I have only mentioned a few things.  There are many, many, many more.

If you want me to break everything down.  I have no problem.  people who question any of this I am guessing are the ones who believe everything they see on CNN.

Dump some jet fuel into a coffee can, and try to get it to ignite. If you can, it burns with a smoky, heat well under 1000 degrees F.

You need some form of air blast to make the fuel burn hot enough to do any damage. This kind of thing just doesn't happen automatically. You need to work at it.

There wasn't enough heat in the buildings to do any structural damage whatsoever.

You are correct.   I do have to say that it would have burned over 1000 degrees.  

Even if these buildings are totally square and have equal sides.  Elevator shafts placed in identical areas on all sides of the building making every side of the towers identical. The fuel would have not been distributed evenly.  One side would have received more fuel then the other.  Therefor theoretically you would of had one side hotter then another and a longer burn.  Which you would think would in turn make one side weaker then the other causing the building to topple.  Ever play Jenga?  You ever make it drop straight down?  No it always fall to one side or the other.  Anyone who has seen or delt with demolition would have to agree that these towers were in one way or another controlled.  You may have been lucky and had one drop in a fashion that looks like it dropped straight down like a controlled demolition but the likeness of both doing so is extremely slim. With the reports of secondary explosions and what was witnessed and reported.   There is no way it was not at least semi controlled.

"Semi controlled," nonsense.  That's replacing a simple explanation with a far, far more complex one.  Box structures certainly can fail straight downwards.

All you need do is talk to the professional demolition experts to see that bringing 3 buildings down like the Towers and Building 7 came down, is an extremely complex problem. Building collapses don't happen like this in a simple way.

[popcorn1]

here is a new theory   WATCH ALL THE VIDEOS ITS VERY INTERESTING

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gui_ATdfHx4

so what about building 7 no plane hit that building
they will keep trying to come up with some excuse.. spendy you can now use this evidence to fill peoples heads with bullshit.. BUT REMEMBER BUILDING 7 AND THE PENTAGON

Plus bush says in interviews that we will be grateful in 30 years time or history will judge when he is dead..he thinks history will love the decisions he has made not now but later..

watch these interviews watch them in order

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOGU_y4KRTA  

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6gA8hE-JLc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfexImaQ9FY

www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ukJlcpqEY

Now you have watched those videos ..Do you think bush was scared in case this was going to happen..
If you think about it how many would get involved with 9/11 if this was the case for the reason
plus many made money as well.. KILLING LOADS OF BIRDS WITH 1 STONE.. its called..
Think about it ..they made money.. they lower the population..they get rid of the threat ..and they stay in power.
JUST MY THOUGHTS..WHICH I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE..YOU MIGHT THINK I AM CRACKERS

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjVJjBiHzOA

WHO BENEFITS
All western countries
ATHEIST LIKE ME
womens rights
The jews
The gays
the christians
the people who make weapons and get government contracts..
 the saudi kings ..because it would of not been long before they get over thrown by there own people..
like france they over threw there kings and queens..because to many poor than rich..

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY ITS THE LITTLE PEOPLE WHO GET THE SHIT END OF THE STICK..
THE POOR ..and what i mean by the poor is you need to own 5 million dollars or more then you matter.
WE GET USED LIKE PAWNS ON A CHESS BOARD..
AND YES GOVERNMENTS KILL THERE OWN PEOPLE..
 I HAVE SOLVED THE PUZZLE NOW NO NEED TO POST ON SUBJECT ANY MORE I AM DONE..I WILL JUST READ FROM NOW ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE POST..
AV A NICE DAY AND GOOD BYE    www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9mEc-PEDs

[Betwrong]

Voted "I don't know but would like to know."

Surprised that so much ppl vote for US Gvmnt. Guys , you seriuos? If it was true don't you think a Snowden would tell the world already?

[J. J. Phillips]

Voted "I don't know but would like to know."

Surprised that so much ppl vote for US Gvmnt. Guys , you seriuos? If it was true don't you think a Snowden would tell the world already?

Oh, Snowden, why didn't I think of him yesterday. Theory 5:

5. Snowden did it. His motive was to help enact the surveillance state so that he could later reveal it and be considered both a hero and a villian. I suspect if we look hard enough at his teenage years, we'll find connections to Dick Cheney and Larry Silverstein. Go!

[Lenore]

here is a new theory   WATCH ALL THE VIDEOS ITS VERY INTERESTING

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gui_ATdfHx4

so what about building 7 no plane hit that building
they will keep trying to come up with some excuse.. spendy you can now use this evidence to fill peoples heads with bullshit.. BUT REMEMBER BUILDING 7 AND THE PENTAGON

Plus bush says in interviews that we will be grateful in 30 years time or history will judge when he is dead..he thinks history will love the decisions he has made not now but later..

watch these interviews watch them in order

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOGU_y4KRTA  

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6gA8hE-JLc

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfexImaQ9FY

www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ukJlcpqEY

Now you have watched those videos ..Do you think bush was scared in case this was going to happen..
If you think about it how many would get involved with 9/11 if this was the case for the reason
plus many made money as well.. KILLING LOADS OF BIRDS WITH 1 STONE.. its called..
Think about it ..they made money.. they lower the population..they get rid of the threat ..and they stay in power.
JUST MY THOUGHTS..WHICH I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE..YOU MIGHT THINK I AM CRACKERS

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjVJjBiHzOA

WHO BENEFITS
All western countries
ATHEIST LIKE ME
womens rights
The jews
The gays
the christians
the people who make weapons and get government contracts..
 the saudi kings ..because it would of not been long before they get over thrown by there own people..
like france they over threw there kings and queens..because to many poor than rich..

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY ITS THE LITTLE PEOPLE WHO GET THE SHIT END OF THE STICK..
THE POOR ..and what i mean by the poor is you need to own 5 million dollars or more then you matter.
WE GET USED LIKE PAWNS ON A CHESS BOARD..
AND YES GOVERNMENTS KILL THERE OWN PEOPLE..
 I HAVE SOLVED THE PUZZLE NOW NO NEED TO POST ON SUBJECT ANY MORE I AM DONE..I WILL JUST READ FROM NOW ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE POST..
AV A NICE DAY AND GOOD BYE    www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9mEc-PEDs

It is true if you look at the big picture.  They had more then enough reasons to do this.

I also agree that we get used like pawns on a chess board.  We do on a number of ways.
I just love how everyone complains about it.  But no one ever does anything.  And for  these people who say protest.  Since when does this work.  There are protests daily throughout the country.  Nothing changes.

Off topic here but this of the war on drugs.  How much money they have spent to fight it.  I am talking about marijuana here.  Which I hope is allowed on this forum.  I know some hate it.  But anyways. They have spent billion and billions fighting it.  Yet 80% give or take of the population want it to be legal.  It did start to be legalized I am sure some of you know. And may even live in one of those states.  The majority want to the change yet people our law makers still question it.  And seems even veto any bill that passes there desks.  Point is protests and such don't work.  Majority don't work in the US anymore.  You want change you have to fight for it.  You want answers you have to fight for it.

We will never know for sure what happened that day but anyone that states it just happened because of terrorists and that there wasn't information passed somewhere from with in our government.  Seriously needs to open there eyes and look at all the evidence.  Way to much leans towards more then what the new told you.

[Spendulus]

here is a new theory   WATCH ALL THE VIDEOS ITS VERY INTERESTING
......

It is true if you look at the big picture.  They had more then enough reasons to do this.

I also agree that we get used like pawns on a chess board.  We do on a number of ways.
I just love how everyone complains about it.  But no one ever does anything.  And for  these people who say protest.  Since when does this work.  There are protests daily throughout the country.  Nothing changes.
....

You sort of read like, "I'm unhappy with the way little people get used so therefore 911 was done by the government."

That makes NO SENSE.

[btcusury]

The problem with Larken Rose and most other Americans is this. They can't get it through their heads that stepping into the legal system is not the way to do it. The Preamble, and the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments show government that it cannot keep people from moving in the ways that they did before government was around, to get relief from someone who has wronged them.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Do you listen to anyone or anything other than your own thoughts?

(Or are you high? LOL)

Now you see. Someone shows you the black and white paperwork of foundational law in America, and all you can say is, What are you talking about?

I know it might be hard for you, a slave, to comprehend freedom, but try, if you want to know what I am talking about.

Alright, so please walk me through it again... how does a piece of paper somewhere, written by some slave-owning men some centuries ago, somehow have anything at all to do with the idea of "foundational law" (which, btw, is Natural Law)?

You are right. It doesn't have anything to do with anything. However, if some government people adhere to it, then it does for them. It is your job, should they think that you are also a member of that paperwork, show them that you are not. It is so much easier to do when you can show them that their paperwork even says that you don't have to be a member of their paperwork.

Here is the trick why Larken lost. Larken told them that he wasn't a member of their paperwork. But he told them from what appeared to be a position of membership within their paperwork. And he didn't rebut that membership when they presumed it against him. So, even though he may not have been a member of their paperwork, he lost, because he looked and acted like he was a member even though he was saying that he wasn't a member.

What you seem to be saying is that Larken's piece of paper "authorizing" him to rob you is valid and applies to you UNLESS you show him that it doesn't apply to you. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? You seem to have fallen for a 2-dimensional mind-trap wherein pieces of paper with symbols on them ("foundational law"?) override the 3/4-dimensional reality (Natural Law) that you are experiencing... If Larken doesn't do it, I bet Mark Passio will help clarify your belief system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgRjTuQ039g

I'll check out Karl Lentz though and get back to you on that.

[BADecker]

The problem with Larken Rose and most other Americans is this. They can't get it through their heads that stepping into the legal system is not the way to do it. The Preamble, and the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments show government that it cannot keep people from moving in the ways that they did before government was around, to get relief from someone who has wronged them.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Do you listen to anyone or anything other than your own thoughts?

(Or are you high? LOL)

Now you see. Someone shows you the black and white paperwork of foundational law in America, and all you can say is, What are you talking about?

I know it might be hard for you, a slave, to comprehend freedom, but try, if you want to know what I am talking about.

Alright, so please walk me through it again... how does a piece of paper somewhere, written by some slave-owning men some centuries ago, somehow have anything at all to do with the idea of "foundational law" (which, btw, is Natural Law)?

You are right. It doesn't have anything to do with anything. However, if some government people adhere to it, then it does for them. It is your job, should they think that you are also a member of that paperwork, show them that you are not. It is so much easier to do when you can show them that their paperwork even says that you don't have to be a member of their paperwork.

Here is the trick why Larken lost. Larken told them that he wasn't a member of their paperwork. But he told them from what appeared to be a position of membership within their paperwork. And he didn't rebut that membership when they presumed it against him. So, even though he may not have been a member of their paperwork, he lost, because he looked and acted like he was a member even though he was saying that he wasn't a member.

What you seem to be saying is that Larken's piece of paper "authorizing" him to rob you is valid and applies to you UNLESS you show him that it doesn't apply to you. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? You seem to have fallen for a 2-dimensional mind-trap wherein pieces of paper with symbols on them ("foundational law"?) override the 3/4-dimensional reality (Natural Law) that you are experiencing... If Larken doesn't do it, I bet Mark Passio will help clarify your belief system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgRjTuQ039g

I'll check out Karl Lentz though and get back to you on that.

You are finally coming close to understanding. Larken's piece of paper comes close to being the truth as it stands, because there is a claim of a man backing it. But the paper, itself, is only a means of showing the world. Larken would have to make a claim that he is willing to get on stand under oath, in his own court at the courthouse, before it standed a chance of being valid... in America, that is. If he did such, you better better be ready to, at some time, refute his claim in court. You would refute with a claim of your own, which would include that his false claim is costing you valuable time away from work... therefore money as compensation.

This is exactly why the IRS tax is voluntary. Never, never, NEVER does the IRS come after you for taxes except that somebody suggests to them that you owe. It may be you when you file a W-4 and your boss sends a copy to the IRS. It may be when your boss sends an unverified W-2 with your income listed on it. It might be if you file a 1040 or some other form out of the blue. But they never come after anybody on their own.

YOU CAN MAKE ALL THE INCOME IN THE WORLD, AND UNTIL SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE, SENDS A FORM TO THE IRS STATING IT, THEY WILL NEVER COME AFTER YOU FOR TAXES. Even if you have a gigantic corporation, but never file paperwork expressing any money that you made with any word that the IRS uses that means income, they might ask you for the paperwork, but they will never come after you for money until somebody tells them an amount that they earned.

Anybody can do this to anybody. But if the claim is false, then damages are in line for the one who the claim was against... unless that person is to stupid to make a claim for damages arising from the false claim.

[Spendulus]

....

YOU CAN MAKE ALL THE INCOME IN THE WORLD, AND UNTIL SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE, SENDS A FORM TO THE IRS STATING IT, THEY WILL NEVER COME AFTER YOU FOR TAXES. Even if you have a gigantic corporation, but never file paperwork expressing any money that you made with any word that the IRS uses that means income, they might ask you for the paperwork, but they will never come after you for money until somebody tells them an amount that they earned.

Anybody can do this to anybody. But if the claim is false, then damages are in line for the one who the claim was against... unless that person is to stupid to make a claim for damages arising from the false claim.

Somehow I do have the impression that these are neither the words of an attorney, nor a tax accountant.

[BADecker]

....

YOU CAN MAKE ALL THE INCOME IN THE WORLD, AND UNTIL SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE, SENDS A FORM TO THE IRS STATING IT, THEY WILL NEVER COME AFTER YOU FOR TAXES. Even if you have a gigantic corporation, but never file paperwork expressing any money that you made with any word that the IRS uses that means income, they might ask you for the paperwork, but they will never come after you for money until somebody tells them an amount that they earned.

Anybody can do this to anybody. But if the claim is false, then damages are in line for the one who the claim was against... unless that person is to stupid to make a claim for damages arising from the false claim.

Somehow I do have the impression that these are neither the words of an attorney, nor a tax accountant.

Exactly, just as most of the words in the forum.   

[Spendulus]

....

YOU CAN MAKE ALL THE INCOME IN THE WORLD, AND UNTIL SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE, SENDS A FORM TO THE IRS STATING IT, THEY WILL NEVER COME AFTER YOU FOR TAXES. Even if you have a gigantic corporation, but never file paperwork expressing any money that you made with any word that the IRS uses that means income, they might ask you for the paperwork, but they will never come after you for money until somebody tells them an amount that they earned.

Anybody can do this to anybody. But if the claim is false, then damages are in line for the one who the claim was against... unless that person is to stupid to make a claim for damages arising from the false claim.

Somehow I do have the impression that these are neither the words of an attorney, nor a tax accountant.

Exactly, just as most of the words in the forum.  

It helps explain, but does not fully explain, why everything you believe on this subject is wrong.  I guess I would suggest you actually review IRS regulations.

Or review the case history on IRS fraud convictions.  Let's start with some basic concepts.

What exactly is tax fraud? Although the need to file a tax return is referred to as “voluntary compliance” – individuals must know the laws and must file when required to do so. Tax Fraud occurs when individuals working and earning income knowingly and intentionally fail to file their income tax return or falsify information on a tax return.

Failing to state the correct amount of earned income, overstating deductions and exemptions and falsifying documents are all possible elements of tax fraud and are punishable in both criminal and civil jurisdictions.

The process of concealing or transferring income and reporting personal expenses as business expenses are also examples of tax fraud and are actual violations of the law.

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/tax/tax-fraud-and-tax-evasion/tax-fraud-and-crimes.htm

Here's one example.

Kilpatrick violated his oath of office and the trust of the people of Detroit. Instead of acting in good faith as a state legislator and mayor as he swore he would, Kilpatrick relentlessly used his status to enrich himself at the expense of his constituents. Public corruption cannot and will not be tolerated and is one of IRS-CI’s highest priorities, and this case is a perfect example of how our agents followed the corrupt money trail, leading us straight to Kilpatrick and co-conspirators.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/10/10/judge-hands-down-very-nearly-the-longest-sentence-ever-to-public-official-for-corruption-and-tax-fraud/

Not to say that the IRS is your friend or ally.  Far, far from it.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/09/the-irs-scandal-day-864.html

[BADecker]

....

YOU CAN MAKE ALL THE INCOME IN THE WORLD, AND UNTIL SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE, SENDS A FORM TO THE IRS STATING IT, THEY WILL NEVER COME AFTER YOU FOR TAXES. Even if you have a gigantic corporation, but never file paperwork expressing any money that you made with any word that the IRS uses that means income, they might ask you for the paperwork, but they will never come after you for money until somebody tells them an amount that they earned.

Anybody can do this to anybody. But if the claim is false, then damages are in line for the one who the claim was against... unless that person is to stupid to make a claim for damages arising from the false claim.

Somehow I do have the impression that these are neither the words of an attorney, nor a tax accountant.

Exactly, just as most of the words in the forum.  

It helps explain, but does not fully explain, why everything you believe on this subject is wrong.  I guess I would suggest you actually review IRS regulations.

Or review the case history on IRS fraud convictions.  Let's start with some basic concepts.

What exactly is tax fraud? Although the need to file a tax return is referred to as “voluntary compliance” – individuals must know the laws and must file when required to do so. Tax Fraud occurs when individuals working and earning income knowingly and intentionally fail to file their income tax return or falsify information on a tax return.

Failing to state the correct amount of earned income, overstating deductions and exemptions and falsifying documents are all possible elements of tax fraud and are punishable in both criminal and civil jurisdictions.

The process of concealing or transferring income and reporting personal expenses as business expenses are also examples of tax fraud and are actual violations of the law.

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/tax/tax-fraud-and-tax-evasion/tax-fraud-and-crimes.htm

Here's one example.

Kilpatrick violated his oath of office and the trust of the people of Detroit. Instead of acting in good faith as a state legislator and mayor as he swore he would, Kilpatrick relentlessly used his status to enrich himself at the expense of his constituents. Public corruption cannot and will not be tolerated and is one of IRS-CI’s highest priorities, and this case is a perfect example of how our agents followed the corrupt money trail, leading us straight to Kilpatrick and co-conspirators.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/10/10/judge-hands-down-very-nearly-the-longest-sentence-ever-to-public-official-for-corruption-and-tax-fraud/

Not to say that the IRS is your friend or ally.  Far, far from it.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/09/the-irs-scandal-day-864.html

The clincher is that you need to be within the IRS taxable area or system before their taxing authority has any control over you. For example. The IRS doesn't arbitrarily have taxing authority over a person in some other country, say, Brazil. There must be something that binds a Brazilian to the IRS in some way before the IRS has authority.

The same is with anybody in America. If there is no binding agreement between an American and the IRS, there is no taxation for any purpose. In all cases where an American lost to the IRS, there came into being an agreement between the IRS ahead of time, and the person lost to the IRS based on the terms of the agreement.

See Karl Lentz, here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twn96nj0jfw&index=10&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D.

[Spendulus]

....

YOU CAN MAKE ALL THE INCOME IN THE WORLD, AND UNTIL SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE, SENDS A FORM TO THE IRS STATING IT, THEY WILL NEVER COME AFTER YOU FOR TAXES. Even if you have a gigantic corporation, but never file paperwork expressing any money that you made with any word that the IRS uses that means income, they might ask you for the paperwork, but they will never come after you for money until somebody tells them an amount that they earned.

Anybody can do this to anybody. But if the claim is false, then damages are in line for the one who the claim was against... unless that person is to stupid to make a claim for damages arising from the false claim.

Somehow I do have the impression that these are neither the words of an attorney, nor a tax accountant.

Exactly, just as most of the words in the forum.  

It helps explain, but does not fully explain, why everything you believe on this subject is wrong.  I guess I would suggest you actually review IRS regulations.

Or review the case history on IRS fraud convictions.  Let's start with some basic concepts.

What exactly is tax fraud? Although the need to file a tax return is referred to as “voluntary compliance” – individuals must know the laws and must file when required to do so. Tax Fraud occurs when individuals working and earning income knowingly and intentionally fail to file their income tax return or falsify information on a tax return.

Failing to state the correct amount of earned income, overstating deductions and exemptions and falsifying documents are all possible elements of tax fraud and are punishable in both criminal and civil jurisdictions.

The process of concealing or transferring income and reporting personal expenses as business expenses are also examples of tax fraud and are actual violations of the law.

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/tax/tax-fraud-and-tax-evasion/tax-fraud-and-crimes.htm

Here's one example.

Kilpatrick violated his oath of office and the trust of the people of Detroit. Instead of acting in good faith as a state legislator and mayor as he swore he would, Kilpatrick relentlessly used his status to enrich himself at the expense of his constituents. Public corruption cannot and will not be tolerated and is one of IRS-CI’s highest priorities, and this case is a perfect example of how our agents followed the corrupt money trail, leading us straight to Kilpatrick and co-conspirators.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/10/10/judge-hands-down-very-nearly-the-longest-sentence-ever-to-public-official-for-corruption-and-tax-fraud/

Not to say that the IRS is your friend or ally.  Far, far from it.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/09/the-irs-scandal-day-864.html

The clincher is that you need to be within the IRS taxable area or system before their taxing authority has any control over you. For example. The IRS doesn't arbitrarily have taxing authority over a person in some other country, say, Brazil. There must be something that binds a Brazilian to the IRS in some way before the IRS has authority.

The same is with anybody in America. If there is no binding agreement between an American and the IRS, there is no taxation for any purpose. In all cases where an American lost to the IRS, there came into being an agreement between the IRS ahead of time, and the person lost to the IRS based on the terms of the agreement.

See Karl Lentz, here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twn96nj0jfw&index=10&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D.

Wrong again.  They exert their taxing authority over Americans over the entire world.  There are a few exceptions, where the local country does not play ball with the US.  An example is IIRC Venezuela.

You need to stop reading and believing people who tell you wrong stuff.  More important than that, stop repeating wrong stuff.  Believe anything you want.

[BADecker]

....

YOU CAN MAKE ALL THE INCOME IN THE WORLD, AND UNTIL SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE, SENDS A FORM TO THE IRS STATING IT, THEY WILL NEVER COME AFTER YOU FOR TAXES. Even if you have a gigantic corporation, but never file paperwork expressing any money that you made with any word that the IRS uses that means income, they might ask you for the paperwork, but they will never come after you for money until somebody tells them an amount that they earned.

Anybody can do this to anybody. But if the claim is false, then damages are in line for the one who the claim was against... unless that person is to stupid to make a claim for damages arising from the false claim.

Somehow I do have the impression that these are neither the words of an attorney, nor a tax accountant.

Exactly, just as most of the words in the forum.  

It helps explain, but does not fully explain, why everything you believe on this subject is wrong.  I guess I would suggest you actually review IRS regulations.

Or review the case history on IRS fraud convictions.  Let's start with some basic concepts.

What exactly is tax fraud? Although the need to file a tax return is referred to as “voluntary compliance” – individuals must know the laws and must file when required to do so. Tax Fraud occurs when individuals working and earning income knowingly and intentionally fail to file their income tax return or falsify information on a tax return.

Failing to state the correct amount of earned income, overstating deductions and exemptions and falsifying documents are all possible elements of tax fraud and are punishable in both criminal and civil jurisdictions.

The process of concealing or transferring income and reporting personal expenses as business expenses are also examples of tax fraud and are actual violations of the law.

http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/tax/tax-fraud-and-tax-evasion/tax-fraud-and-crimes.htm

Here's one example.

Kilpatrick violated his oath of office and the trust of the people of Detroit. Instead of acting in good faith as a state legislator and mayor as he swore he would, Kilpatrick relentlessly used his status to enrich himself at the expense of his constituents. Public corruption cannot and will not be tolerated and is one of IRS-CI’s highest priorities, and this case is a perfect example of how our agents followed the corrupt money trail, leading us straight to Kilpatrick and co-conspirators.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/10/10/judge-hands-down-very-nearly-the-longest-sentence-ever-to-public-official-for-corruption-and-tax-fraud/

Not to say that the IRS is your friend or ally.  Far, far from it.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/09/the-irs-scandal-day-864.html

The clincher is that you need to be within the IRS taxable area or system before their taxing authority has any control over you. For example. The IRS doesn't arbitrarily have taxing authority over a person in some other country, say, Brazil. There must be something that binds a Brazilian to the IRS in some way before the IRS has authority.

The same is with anybody in America. If there is no binding agreement between an American and the IRS, there is no taxation for any purpose. In all cases where an American lost to the IRS, there came into being an agreement between the IRS ahead of time, and the person lost to the IRS based on the terms of the agreement.

See Karl Lentz, here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twn96nj0jfw&index=10&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D.

Wrong again.  They exert their taxing authority over Americans over the entire world.  There are a few exceptions, where the local country does not play ball with the US.  An example is IIRC Venezuela.

You need to stop reading and believing people who tell you wrong stuff.  More important than that, stop repeating wrong stuff.  Believe anything you want.

Ever heard of treaties? It's all based on agreement. In America, if you have an agreement with the IRS, you had better live up to the terms of the agreement.

[btcusury]

The problem with Larken Rose and most other Americans is this. They can't get it through their heads that stepping into the legal system is not the way to do it. The Preamble, and the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments show government that it cannot keep people from moving in the ways that they did before government was around, to get relief from someone who has wronged them.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Do you listen to anyone or anything other than your own thoughts?

(Or are you high? LOL)

Now you see. Someone shows you the black and white paperwork of foundational law in America, and all you can say is, What are you talking about?

I know it might be hard for you, a slave, to comprehend freedom, but try, if you want to know what I am talking about.

Alright, so please walk me through it again... how does a piece of paper somewhere, written by some slave-owning men some centuries ago, somehow have anything at all to do with the idea of "foundational law" (which, btw, is Natural Law)?

You are right. It doesn't have anything to do with anything. However, if some government people adhere to it, then it does for them. It is your job, should they think that you are also a member of that paperwork, show them that you are not. It is so much easier to do when you can show them that their paperwork even says that you don't have to be a member of their paperwork.

Here is the trick why Larken lost. Larken told them that he wasn't a member of their paperwork. But he told them from what appeared to be a position of membership within their paperwork. And he didn't rebut that membership when they presumed it against him. So, even though he may not have been a member of their paperwork, he lost, because he looked and acted like he was a member even though he was saying that he wasn't a member.

What you seem to be saying is that Larken's piece of paper "authorizing" him to rob you is valid and applies to you UNLESS you show him that it doesn't apply to you. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? You seem to have fallen for a 2-dimensional mind-trap wherein pieces of paper with symbols on them ("foundational law"?) override the 3/4-dimensional reality (Natural Law) that you are experiencing... If Larken doesn't do it, I bet Mark Passio will help clarify your belief system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgRjTuQ039g

I'll check out Karl Lentz though and get back to you on that.

You are finally coming close to understanding. Larken's piece of paper comes close to being the truth as it stands, because there is a claim of a man backing it. But the paper, itself, is only a means of showing the world. Larken would have to make a claim that he is willing to get on stand under oath, in his own court at the courthouse, before it standed a chance of being valid... in America, that is. If he did such, you better better be ready to, at some time, refute his claim in court. You would refute with a claim of your own, which would include that his false claim is costing you valuable time away from work... therefore money as compensation.

You are presuming the legitimacy of man-made law systems, when that whole idea is a distortion of the real law, which is Natural Law. In other words, you are operating under the assumption of moral relativism, not understanding what Natural Law is. You seem to be saying, for instance, that the Vatican owns your soul, because a papal decree (i.e. a piece of paper somewhere) says so, and you haven't done anything to refute the claim. Did you watch that video by Mark Passio?

Can you answer this: From where does the IRS, or any other gang of thugs, derive/obtain/acquire its supposed "authority"?

[BADecker]

The problem with Larken Rose and most other Americans is this. They can't get it through their heads that stepping into the legal system is not the way to do it. The Preamble, and the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments show government that it cannot keep people from moving in the ways that they did before government was around, to get relief from someone who has wronged them.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Do you listen to anyone or anything other than your own thoughts?

(Or are you high? LOL)

Now you see. Someone shows you the black and white paperwork of foundational law in America, and all you can say is, What are you talking about?

I know it might be hard for you, a slave, to comprehend freedom, but try, if you want to know what I am talking about.

Alright, so please walk me through it again... how does a piece of paper somewhere, written by some slave-owning men some centuries ago, somehow have anything at all to do with the idea of "foundational law" (which, btw, is Natural Law)?

You are right. It doesn't have anything to do with anything. However, if some government people adhere to it, then it does for them. It is your job, should they think that you are also a member of that paperwork, show them that you are not. It is so much easier to do when you can show them that their paperwork even says that you don't have to be a member of their paperwork.

Here is the trick why Larken lost. Larken told them that he wasn't a member of their paperwork. But he told them from what appeared to be a position of membership within their paperwork. And he didn't rebut that membership when they presumed it against him. So, even though he may not have been a member of their paperwork, he lost, because he looked and acted like he was a member even though he was saying that he wasn't a member.

What you seem to be saying is that Larken's piece of paper "authorizing" him to rob you is valid and applies to you UNLESS you show him that it doesn't apply to you. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? You seem to have fallen for a 2-dimensional mind-trap wherein pieces of paper with symbols on them ("foundational law"?) override the 3/4-dimensional reality (Natural Law) that you are experiencing... If Larken doesn't do it, I bet Mark Passio will help clarify your belief system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgRjTuQ039g

I'll check out Karl Lentz though and get back to you on that.

You are finally coming close to understanding. Larken's piece of paper comes close to being the truth as it stands, because there is a claim of a man backing it. But the paper, itself, is only a means of showing the world. Larken would have to make a claim that he is willing to get on stand under oath, in his own court at the courthouse, before it standed a chance of being valid... in America, that is. If he did such, you better better be ready to, at some time, refute his claim in court. You would refute with a claim of your own, which would include that his false claim is costing you valuable time away from work... therefore money as compensation.

You are presuming the legitimacy of man-made law systems, when that whole idea is a distortion of the real law, which is Natural Law. In other words, you are operating under the assumption of moral relativism, not understanding what Natural Law is. You seem to be saying, for instance, that the Vatican owns your soul, because a papal decree (i.e. a piece of paper somewhere) says so, and you haven't done anything to refute the claim. Did you watch that video by Mark Passio?

Can you answer this: From where does the IRS, or any other gang of thugs, derive/obtain/acquire its supposed "authority"?

Did you ever watch a lion attack some other animal... perhaps on TV, or a DVD, or some video on Youtube? The lion uses the laws of nature to attack. If the other animal doesn't use the laws of nature that he has, to resist the attack, or if he hasn't positioned himself to be out of harms way in the first place (again, according to the laws of nature), he will almost certainly lose.

If the IRS or the Pope attack you, and you do not properly resist, you may and probably will lose. Law of nature.

[Rumichbit]

Us government did it

And will do it again

[Spendulus]

....
Did you ever watch a lion attack some other animal... perhaps on TV, or a DVD, or some video on Youtube? The lion uses the laws of nature to attack. If the other animal doesn't use the laws of nature that he has, to resist the attack, or if he hasn't positioned himself to be out of harms way in the first place (again, according to the laws of nature), he will almost certainly lose.

If the IRS or the Pope attack you, and you do not properly resist, you may and probably will lose. Law of nature.

No I have not seen a lion attack a TV or a DVD or a Youtube video.

I think he may have trouble using a keybaord.

[BADecker]

....
Did you ever watch a lion attack some other animal... perhaps on TV, or a DVD, or some video on Youtube? The lion uses the laws of nature to attack. If the other animal doesn't use the laws of nature that he has, to resist the attack, or if he hasn't positioned himself to be out of harms way in the first place (again, according to the laws of nature), he will almost certainly lose.

If the IRS or the Pope attack you, and you do not properly resist, you may and probably will lose. Law of nature.

No I have not seen a lion attack a TV or a DVD or a Youtube video.

I think he may have trouble using a keybaord.

Obviously, you have trouble reading.

In the '70s, it became evident that many college students needed to take a course in English just to be able to enter college. Now you are proving that it is the same thing today. The question is, how in the world did you ever get in?

[BADecker]

NEW 2015! Solving 9/11 - Christopher Bollyn Live in Dallas TX Feb 12, 2015

More unheard truth about the 9/11 tragedy? Absolutely.

In this live presentation in Dallas, Texas on February 12, 2015, Christopher Bollyn reveals little-known and rarely heard facts about the real perpetrators of one of the biggest crimes of the century.

One of the first Investigative Journalists to tackle the 9/11 tragedy, Christopher Bollyn has put together the most comprehensive, fact-filled presentation you'll ever see. He has written over 135 articles since September 2001 about this tragedy. Think you've heard it all when it comes to 9/11?

Think again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVHstSrC1CQ