| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| So the questions remain, what evidence would you accept that an American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon? What evidence can you provide that something else hit the Pentagon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | So the questions remain, what evidence would you accept that an American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon? What evidence can you provide that something else hit the Pentagon? |
As no evidence was presented by the US government within six months of the incident and as I am not in control of the US government from what I have seen as being presented as their version of events there was no plane.
It was either a missile and a controlled explosion simultaneously.
When the secret archives of the US government are eventually opened up to the people we will know what happened. Until then secrecy prevails, but what you present as evidence isn't evidence in the conventional sense but propaganda much like the Dodgy Dossier on Iraq, or the evidence that Blair said he saw regarding 9/11.
You could have had an argument without the context of what was going on at the same time. We all know why the USA requires it to be attacked to start wars. Most of its population is divided and never feels there is any external threat due to its geographical position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
So as we cannot go back in time, and your arbitary six months time limit has expired, you appear to be saying that no evidence whatever would now convince you of the official story about what happened at the Pentagon, is that right?
And you have no evidence at all to offer us, that something else hit the Pentagon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think what he is saying is that1. any conceivable evidence for the official version will be dismissed as propaganda; and
2. no evidence whatsoever will be provided for an alternate theory. And based on this we will conclude that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the alternate theory, i.e. it was a missile or a bomb or a missile and a bomb, or whatever.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: |
If you are presenting
then I take a look at
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/image1/10sep02slo w.gif
which appears to show a much narrower band of damage than one would expect with a plane of that size. Hence it would appear that the damage was caused by something much smaller. The animation shows no engines and the wings appearing to disintegrate - presumably matching the column damage in the animation with the real column damage. Thus we are forced to believe that the engines also disintegrated.
So do you want to use this as evidence that a large plane hit the Pentagon or can I use it as evidence that a large plane didn't hit the Pentagon? |
Evidence at last 
As said earlier I'm not going to dismiss it. It doesn't matter if it's technically the same evidence presented as a case for a plane hitting, it's evidence at the end of the day.
Do we have any more evidence though, or is that it as far as the case for something other than a plane hitting goes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | So the questions remain, what evidence would you accept that an American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon? What evidence can you provide that something else hit the Pentagon? |
As no evidence was presented by the US government within six months of the incident and as I am not in control of the US government from what I have seen as being presented as their version of events there was no plane.
It was either a missile and a controlled explosion simultaneously. |
Now that is bizarre logic 
Thank god scientific practice does not follow the same train of thought though - the Age of Enlightenment would never have happened if it did for one thing! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
its intresting only evidence for the pentagon inccident is being requested here. i thought 9/11 had four crash sites and 3 collapses.
out of all the evidence i have seen i'd say the pentagon is the weakest link where proving a conspiracy is concerned and the strongest link where proving the offical storey is concerned.
but don't forget the pentagon was'nt the whole picture. its just a piece of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | its intresting only evidence for the pentagon inccident is being requested here. i thought 9/11 had four crash sites and 3 collapses.
out of all the evidence i have seen i'd say the pentagon is the weakest link where proving a conspiracy is concerned and the strongest link where proving the offical storey is concerned.
but don't forget the pentagon was'nt the whole picture. its just a piece of it. |
No problemo.
I think it can therefore be accepted that the only evidence which shows something other than a plane hit the Pentagon was the academic research of Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna which "appears to show a much narrower band of damage than one would expect with a plane of that size", although, in fairness, the same evidence has been put forward as evidence of a plane impact (not surprisingly as the conclusions of the academics who carried out those simulations was that the damage was completely consistant with a plane impact).
That's it though - the only evidence that something other than a plane hit the pentagon. Bit thin on the ground but there you go. If any of the conspiracy theorists have any additional evidence to produce they are still welcome to do so.
However, Marky if you aren't happy with the Pentagon damage and you want to produce evidence for some other conspiracy on 9/11 that's absolutely fine by me.
You're welcome to choose any conspiracy on 9/11 which you think the evidence has the "strongest link". Please then present evidence of that conspiracy. Remember it has to be evidence of a conspiracy though, not just a dismissal of official evidence or a discussion of motives. That shouldn't be difficult though as you have a completely free hand to choose the conspiracy for which the evidence is strongest.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | So as we cannot go back in time, and your arbitary six months time limit has expired, you appear to be saying that no evidence whatever would now convince you of the official story about what happened at the Pentagon, is that right?
And you have no evidence at all to offer us, that something else hit the Pentagon? |
Getting a single Arab or Pakistani whatever Mouasourri is to plead guilty 4 years after the event is as significant as the Pope in Rome producing a circular 500 years after the event to say sorry about being Flat Earthers.
Time is working against Bush not for him. Loose Change has become one of the biggest hits in what is termed as the 'third world'.
As no evidence was presented withing a time frame that what logical all else that happened next and what you have presented as evidence is hogwash. Even you know that but being apologists you have to defend the indefensible and pretend lies, half truths and mysticism explains 9/11. It doesn't and it never will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jonnolad wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | So the questions remain, what evidence would you accept that an American Airlines plane hit the Pentagon? What evidence can you provide that something else hit the Pentagon? |
As no evidence was presented by the US government within six months of the incident and as I am not in control of the US government from what I have seen as being presented as their version of events there was no plane.
It was either a missile and a controlled explosion simultaneously. |
Now that is bizarre logic
Thank god scientific practice does not follow the same train of thought though - the Age of Enlightenment would never have happened if it did for one thing! |
Bizzare is the Bush regime whom you are an apolgist for.
I dont work to your made up timetable finding a single person after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo whom you use to present your evidence.
All the events regarding 9/11 are dodgy, from the purchasing of the towers to insuring them to paying off the victims relatives with millions of dollars.
Money does not buy you right or truth. It is good at generating lies, wars and invasions. Keep up the good work. One day if they send your children off to fight wars for the Texan gangsters just hope they come back in one piece... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | However, Marky if you aren't happy with the Pentagon damage and you want to produce evidence for some other conspiracy on 9/11 that's absolutely fine by me.
|
if i provide evidence for a claim, then all i ask is counter evidence is provided to either quash the claim or to give the other side of the coin. rather than people just claiming things without evidence. already we are back to critics requesting evidence rather than providing it.
i suggest if you want evidence on a certain thing or the whole picture, then start a new thread and give your case with evidence, then request the same from others. i know your doing that in this thread but it is somewhat lost amongst numerous other chat and very hard to follow.
as for the pentagon, i don't have proof of anything where the pentagon is concerned. all there is, is questions. questions i hope a new investigastion will answer so the pentagon inncident and others can be laid to rest.
questions nobody can answer without investigastion to get the answers. why no footage when footage was confiscated? for example. neither of us can answer it, we can only form a opinon. is there evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon? i don't know. ive certainly seen evidence a plane hit the pentagon, but nothing that identifys the plane itself.
why clean a crime scene up almost instantly by having employees pick up pieces of the lawn?
was the flightpath correct?
why does the blackbox data released under the FOI act not match up with the flight path etc?
there are only questions imo. nothing than can be provided to prove anything. therefore the offical story could well be correct where the pentagon is concerned.
but there will always be some doubt untill answers have been given by a proper investigastion, with well sourced information.
i simply have no problem where the pentagon is concerned, but at the same time i cannot prove the flight that hit the pentagon was flight 77. and the same is true at each scene. we get little hints which then rely on jumping to conclusions to fill in the blanks.
arab at airport - 2 planes seen hitting the towers. plane pieces at each scene. perfectly unburnt bandana found at the scene, oh it must be an arab! passort lands in the street of a arab, therefore he must of been the hijacker! or was he just on the plane? how does a passort survive such things?
it requires us to fill in the gaps and link it together rather than having proof that molds it all together to fit the offical version.
arabs go to airports all the time. arabs catch flights all the time. planes hitting buildings dos'nt prove which plane or flight it was. the pieces left over give no indication of which flight it was.
yet each plane has ID numbers on each part that links back to that flight only. why has none of this evidence been released to the public? especially when there are so many theorys releasing this evidence would disprove overnight? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | So as we cannot go back in time, and your arbitary six months time limit has expired, you appear to be saying that no evidence whatever would now convince you of the official story about what happened at the Pentagon, is that right?
And you have no evidence at all to offer us, that something else hit the Pentagon? |
Getting a single Arab or Pakistani whatever Mouasourri is to plead guilty 4 years after the event is as significant as the Pope in Rome producing a circular 500 years after the event to say sorry about being Flat Earthers.
Time is working against Bush not for him. Loose Change has become one of the biggest hits in what is termed as the 'third world'.
As no evidence was presented withing a time frame that what logical all else that happened next and what you have presented as evidence is hogwash. Even you know that but being apologists you have to defend the indefensible and pretend lies, half truths and mysticism explains 9/11. It doesn't and it never will. |
I think we can take that rather jumbled message as meaning, "Yes, I cannot think of any evidence supporting the official story that I could not deny, but I have no evidence at all that anything else hit the Pentagon." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | So as we cannot go back in time, and your arbitary six months time limit has expired, you appear to be saying that no evidence whatever would now convince you of the official story about what happened at the Pentagon, is that right?
And you have no evidence at all to offer us, that something else hit the Pentagon? |
Getting a single Arab or Pakistani whatever Mouasourri is to plead guilty 4 years after the event is as significant as the Pope in Rome producing a circular 500 years after the event to say sorry about being Flat Earthers.
Time is working against Bush not for him. Loose Change has become one of the biggest hits in what is termed as the 'third world'.
As no evidence was presented withing a time frame that what logical all else that happened next and what you have presented as evidence is hogwash. Even you know that but being apologists you have to defend the indefensible and pretend lies, half truths and mysticism explains 9/11. It doesn't and it never will. |
I think we can take that rather jumbled message as meaning, "Yes, I cannot think of any evidence supporting the official story that I could not deny, but I have no evidence at all that anything else hit the Pentagon." |
Yeah and Bin Laden did it from a cave cos Bush said so.
After all lets not countenance conspiracy theories as Bush said.
He knew beforehand for if conspiracy wasn't part of 9/11 what was?
Only Bush can tell us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | Bizzare is the Bush regime whom you are an apolgist for.
I dont work to your made up timetable finding a single person after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo whom you use to present your evidence.
All the events regarding 9/11 are dodgy, from the purchasing of the towers to insuring them to paying off the victims relatives with millions of dollars.
Money does not buy you right or truth. It is good at generating lies, wars and invasions. Keep up the good work. One day if they send your children off to fight wars for the Texan gangsters just hope they come back in one piece... |
Classic Rant
When faced with logic (that old adversary of the conspiracy theory) just wheel out the old Bush apologist / Abu Ghraib / Guantanamo stuff - that tells the critic how it really is - surely! Back in the real world, all the critics I know (including me) think that Bush is by far the worst US president in living memory, think that we were taken to war on misleading intelligence, and think that both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are nothing short of a disgrace.
Why you continue to bring them up in debate is therefore a mystery?
This is a thread regarding evidence or the lack thereof from the side of a conspiracy. Do you have any evidence? Because the answer so far has to be a resounding no! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Quote: | However, Marky if you aren't happy with the Pentagon damage and you want to produce evidence for some other conspiracy on 9/11 that's absolutely fine by me.
|
if i provide evidence for a claim, then all i ask is counter evidence is provided to either quash the claim or to give the other side of the coin. rather than people just claiming things without evidence. already we are back to critics requesting evidence rather than providing it.
i suggest if you want evidence on a certain thing or the whole picture, then start a new thread and give your case with evidence, then request the same from others. i know your doing that in this thread but it is somewhat lost amongst numerous other chat and very hard to follow. |
With respect you seem to be swinging from one thing to the next as to what you want here (a little clarity would be handy for the purposes of debate).
First of all you said you said in your earlier post (on this thread):
"its intresting only evidence for the pentagon inccident is being requested here. i thought 9/11 had four crash sites and 3 collapses.
out of all the evidence i have seen i'd say the pentagon is the weakest link where proving a conspiracy is concerned and the strongest link where proving the offical storey is concerned.
but don't forget the pentagon was'nt the whole picture. its just a piece of it."
So I gave you the chance to choose the part of 9/11 for which you think the evidence of a conspiracy is strongest. I will then happily supply evidence to back up the official version of events and you can supply evidence of a conspiracy (please note again - no evidence dismissal or motive discussion just tangible evidence - photographs, documents, etc). Surely that can't be difficult since I have given you the opportunity to choose, from all the aspects of 9/11, which part you think the evidence of a conspiracy is strongest. I will gladly provide evidence once you have said which area of 9/11 you want to discuss (because you said you weren't happy with the Pentagon impact).
You say that there are big gaps in the evidence, that's fine, therefore what we are doing here is therefore presenting the evidence from both sides (the official vs the conspiracy) such that we can weigh up the conclusions.
Therefore which aspect of 9/11 do you want to choose to present evidence from both sides?
I will happily go first with the evidence from the official side once you have chosen the aspect. Remember again though this is just a presentation of evidence, not an evidence dismissal or discussion of motives exercise.
Incidentally I'm not going to start a new thread on "conspiracy evidence" as this is what this thread is precisely already about. It is up to you to decide the aspect of 9/11 for which all sides will present evidence, because you don't seem to be happy when a critic decides which aspect! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jonnolad wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: | Bizzare is the Bush regime whom you are an apolgist for.
I dont work to your made up timetable finding a single person after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo whom you use to present your evidence.
All the events regarding 9/11 are dodgy, from the purchasing of the towers to insuring them to paying off the victims relatives with millions of dollars.
Money does not buy you right or truth. It is good at generating lies, wars and invasions. Keep up the good work. One day if they send your children off to fight wars for the Texan gangsters just hope they come back in one piece... |
Classic Rant
When faced with logic (that old adversary of the conspiracy theory) just wheel out the old Bush apologist / Abu Ghraib / Guantanamo stuff - that tells the critic how it really is - surely! Back in the real world, all the critics I know (including me) think that Bush is by far the worst US president in living memory, think that we were taken to war on misleading intelligence, and think that both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are nothing short of a disgrace.
Why you continue to bring them up in debate is therefore a mystery?
This is a thread regarding evidence or the lack thereof from the side of a conspiracy. Do you have any evidence? Because the answer so far has to be a resounding no! |
The central premise of your argument thus far if I need to remind you once more as you suffer Alzheimers is that Mousaourri who pleaded guilty in a trial years after 9/11 was presented with such incontestable evidence at his trial that he couldn't have pleaded any other way.
I counterracted this argument analysing parts of the evidence as presented, then I spoke about motive of the participants.
Now I will present another case.
Even if Mousaourri was guilty he would have plead not guilty under the guise that he is involved in a war with America. An enemy combatant as is alleged by the Bush cabal wouldn't plead guilty for being at war. Logic dictates that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: |
The central premise of your argument thus far if I need to remind you once more as you suffer Alzheimers is that Mousaourri who pleaded guilty in a trial years after 9/11 was presented with such incontestable evidence at his trial that he couldn't have pleaded any other way.
I counterracted this argument analysing parts of the evidence as presented, then I spoke about motive of the participants.
Now I will present another case.
Even if Mousaourri was guilty he would have plead not guilty under the guise that he is involved in a war with America. An enemy combatant as is alleged by the Bush cabal wouldn't plead guilty for being at war. Logic dictates that. |
This discussion gets ever more bizarre.
Earlier on you weren't interested in the Moussaouri case:
"I wasn't referring to Mousaourri but the original 18/19 hijackers.
No evidence has been provided for them actually being where they are alleged to have been."
Hence we moved on. Now you are interested in the Moussaouri case - in fact that's all you want to discuss and suggest I have Alzheimers for not wanting to do so. Makes sense 
I have no problem re-visiting the Moussaouri case although I'm not entirely sure what your point is.
Here is the Moussaouri case as I see it:
1) This is the evidence presented by the prosecution:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Moussaoui_evidence_0801.html
There's quite a lot of it btw so it may take some going through (and subsequently counteract!), although I fear as before you won't even bother looking at any of it (which in itself is bizarre if you are "searching for the truth"!).
2) Moussaouri definitely pleaded guilty - no two ways about that.
Those seem to be the important facts in this case.
So the debate here seems to be his reason for pleading guilty. You claim:
"Even if Mousaourri was guilty he would have plead not guilty under the guise that he is involved in a war with America. An enemy combatant as is alleged by the Bush cabal wouldn't plead guilty for being at war. Logic dictates that."
Obviously you have absolutely no evidence to back up this - it's just a theory you've thought up. You also don’t give a reason why he pleaded guilty (which is something he definitely did) just a reason why he would plead not guilty (which he didn’t do).
I'd suggest a more logical theory for pleading guilty would be:
He was more likely to be facing the death penalty if he pleaded not guilty but was subsequently found guilty than if he pleaded guilty. Therefore he had to weigh up whether he would be found guilty based on the evidence presented. He obviously thought so and pleaded guilty and as it turned out he didn't get the death sentence and was given a life sentence with no chance for parole instead. Tellingly on hearing his sentence he said "America, you lost... I won".
Obviously mine is just a theory the same as you, but Moussaouri did plead guilty which definitely follows my theory rather than yours. However if you have another reason why he pleaded guilty then I'm all ears. Any direct evidence relating to Moussaouri to back this theory would of course be helpful.
It is worth bearing mind of course that Moussaouri is spending the rest of his life behind bars, and it seems a little odd that any of your theories weren't obvious to him as well when it came to a reason to plead guilty or not.
That aside I'm happy to hear your own theory as to why he pleaded guilty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Therefore which aspect of 9/11 do you want to choose to present evidence from both sides? |
well i did say but you snipped the rest of my post of.
evidence that the plane pieces found at the scene/'s is indeed from the said flights.
this sould be easy as any investigastion which has been carried out properly would ensure all the data is correct and everything matches up.
it would also simply debunk every theory to a large degree apart from the offical one.
currently i cannot find any evidence that plane parts match with the said flights, can you find any?
a plane number or part number that checks out as flight 93, or 77 which was found at the scene?
i cannot find anything so have nothing to offer in way of evidence to tie each flight being the ones that hit the said targets.
| Quote: | | I will happily go first with the evidence from the official side once you have chosen the aspect. |
well good luck, i hope you have more luck than i did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Quote: | | Therefore which aspect of 9/11 do you want to choose to present evidence from both sides? |
well i did say but you snipped the rest of my post of.
evidence that the plane pieces found at the scene/'s is indeed from the said flights.
this sould be easy as any investigastion which has been carried out properly would ensure all the data is correct and everything matches up.
it would also simply debunk every theory to a large degree apart from the offical one.
currently i cannot find any evidence that plane parts match with the said flights, can you find any?
a plane number or part number that checks out as flight 93, or 77 which was found at the scene?
i cannot find anything so have nothing to offer in way of evidence to tie each flight being the ones that hit the said targets.
| Quote: | | I will happily go first with the evidence from the official side once you have chosen the aspect. |
well good luck, i hope you have more luck than i did. |
It's nice that you are trying to find evidence to back up the official version of 9/11, but that isn't exactly what we are trying to achieve here. This is a balance of evidence comparison (I supply evidence for the official side, you supply evidence for the conspiracy side).
However let's take the aspect you want to cover:
"a plane number or part number that checks out as flight 93, or 77 which was found at the scene"
Now, as a quick response, here is a photograph of the recovered cockpit voice recorder from flight 77 (this evidence is collated into a interactive executable along with other evidence):
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecuti on/flights/P200054.html
There you go; evidence.
As we've stated before this isn't an evidence dismissal or motive discussion, and this is the important bit, you now have to present evidence which indicates that any of the plane or part numbers comes from anything other than flight 77 (or flight 93). That after all is the aspect you have chosen, and is therefore the aspect that is strongest "where proving a conspiracy is concerned" (your words not mine).
So there you go, present the evidence, and prove a conspiracy. It shouldn't be difficult as you have chosen the strongest area |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jonnolad wrote: |
This discussion gets ever more bizarre.
Earlier on you weren't interested in the Moussaouri case:
"I wasn't referring to Mousaourri but the original 18/19 hijackers.
No evidence has been provided for them actually being where they are alleged to have been."
Hence we moved on. Now you are interested in the Moussaouri case - in fact that's all you want to discuss and suggest I have Alzheimers for not wanting to do so. Makes sense
I have no problem re-visiting the Moussaouri case although I'm not entirely sure what your point is.
Here is the Moussaouri case as I see it:
1) This is the evidence presented by the prosecution:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Moussaoui_evidence_0801.html
There's quite a lot of it btw so it may take some going through (and subsequently counteract!), although I fear as before you won't even bother looking at any of it (which in itself is bizarre if you are "searching for the truth"!).
2) Moussaouri definitely pleaded guilty - no two ways about that.
Those seem to be the important facts in this case.
So the debate here seems to be his reason for pleading guilty. You claim:
"Even if Mousaourri was guilty he would have plead not guilty under the guise that he is involved in a war with America. An enemy combatant as is alleged by the Bush cabal wouldn't plead guilty for being at war. Logic dictates that."
Obviously you have absolutely no evidence to back up this - it's just a theory you've thought up. You also don’t give a reason why he pleaded guilty (which is something he definitely did) just a reason why he would plead not guilty (which he didn’t do).
I'd suggest a more logical theory for pleading guilty would be:
He was more likely to be facing the death penalty if he pleaded not guilty but was subsequently found guilty than if he pleaded guilty. Therefore he had to weigh up whether he would be found guilty based on the evidence presented. He obviously thought so and pleaded guilty and as it turned out he didn't get the death sentence and was given a life sentence with no chance for parole instead. Tellingly on hearing his sentence he said "America, you lost... I won".
Obviously mine is just a theory the same as you, but Moussaouri did plead guilty which definitely follows my theory rather than yours. However if you have another reason why he pleaded guilty then I'm all ears. Any direct evidence relating to Moussaouri to back this theory would of course be helpful.
It is worth bearing mind of course that Moussaouri is spending the rest of his life behind bars, and it seems a little odd that any of your theories weren't obvious to him as well when it came to a reason to plead guilty or not.
That aside I'm happy to hear your own theory as to why he pleaded guilty |
It only gets bizarre as evidence was requested on behalf of the Bush CT'ers and what was presented wasn't the 9/11 Commission Report but what happened years later in the Mousaourri case.
What evidence do you have within 6 months of the event occurring. Not years later...
Now you say he pleaded guilty because he didn't want to hang.
So how can someone who hasn't got a problem committing suicide for his cause now be frightened of ...hanging.
Are you implying the US state cannot have characters working for the prosecution? Ie plants who plead guilty? Like Abu Hamza here for instance who has been reported to have stated that everything he ever said was vetted by the British security services?
I mean if the army gets involved in planting bombs and blaming it on the enemy are you implying they cant have characters who work by doing this for a living? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: |
about a bizarre idea that Moussaoui is a plant who pleads guilty and is willing to spend the rest of his life in jail as a way of earning a living |
You see this is why evidence is important, otherwise you are just making up whatever pops into your head at the time, in this case without relating it in any way to the real Moussaoui in the real world, who is actually a living person, not some comic book charactor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jonnolad wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Quote: | | Therefore which aspect of 9/11 do you want to choose to present evidence from both sides? |
well i did say but you snipped the rest of my post of.
evidence that the plane pieces found at the scene/'s is indeed from the said flights.
this sould be easy as any investigastion which has been carried out properly would ensure all the data is correct and everything matches up.
it would also simply debunk every theory to a large degree apart from the offical one.
currently i cannot find any evidence that plane parts match with the said flights, can you find any?
a plane number or part number that checks out as flight 93, or 77 which was found at the scene?
i cannot find anything so have nothing to offer in way of evidence to tie each flight being the ones that hit the said targets.
| Quote: | | I will happily go first with the evidence from the official side once you have chosen the aspect. |
well good luck, i hope you have more luck than i did. |
It's nice that you are trying to find evidence to back up the official version of 9/11, but that isn't exactly what we are trying to achieve here. This is a balance of evidence comparison (I supply evidence for the official side, you supply evidence for the conspiracy side).
However let's take the aspect you want to cover:
"a plane number or part number that checks out as flight 93, or 77 which was found at the scene"
Now, as a quick response, here is a photograph of the recovered cockpit voice recorder from flight 77 (this evidence is collated into a interactive executable along with other evidence):
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecuti on/flights/P200054.html
There you go; evidence.
As we've stated before this isn't an evidence dismissal or motive discussion, and this is the important bit, you now have to present evidence which indicates that any of the plane or part numbers comes from anything other than flight 77 (or flight 93). That after all is the aspect you have chosen, and is therefore the aspect that is strongest "where proving a conspiracy is concerned" (your words not mine).
So there you go, present the evidence, and prove a conspiracy. It shouldn't be difficult as you have chosen the strongest area |
can anyone else confirm if the link dos'nt work. it aint working when i click it.
page not found.
is it just me with the problem?
| Quote: | Now, as a quick response, here is a photograph of the recovered cockpit voice recorder from flight 77 (this evidence is collated into a interactive executable along with other evidence):
|
i have not seen your link yet, but going by what you say here, this was not the evidence i needed.
we are told the blackbox came from flight 77. but wheres the evidence that confirms it. a plane number or plane part number that can be checked out and which relates to the said flight only. does the picture of the blackbox have a number on it that can be checked out? i have not seen it yet so i don't know.
surely they have this information, especially if the offical version is true.
| Quote: | | So there you go, present the evidence, and prove a conspiracy. It shouldn't be difficult as you have chosen the strongest area |
you seem mistaken. i was including all four crash sites, and i stated that the pentagon is the weakest link where proving a conspiracy is concerned.
therefore if i had choosen the pentagon i would of choosen the weakest link, not the strongest link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle
Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity
by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government...................more
http://physics911.net/georgenelson
seriously read the whole link before replying, the point of linking this is so you understand what i am hoping critics can provide inorder to prove wrong this article.
and no doubt others saying something simular.
as i have already said before, i have been unable to prove it wrong so far, maybe critics are aware of something that confirms what the article is asking for, postive identifaction of each plane.
it would end most conspiracy theorys/and answer a lot of questions imo.
what hit the pentagon? would be gone for a start, the evidence dos'nt match a crash site in shankville! would also be put to an end.
all that would be left to debate and prove wrong would be the building collapses, everything else would not beable to be disputed at all.
but while ever this information is missing, then we are all basically being asked to just trust what we are told is true rather than the evidence confirming it without a doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: |
about a bizarre idea that Moussaoui is a plant who pleads guilty and is willing to spend the rest of his life in jail as a way of earning a living |
You see this is why evidence is important, otherwise you are just making up whatever pops into your head at the time, in this case without relating it in any way to the real Moussaoui in the real world, who is actually a living person, not some comic book charactor. |
According to MNBC some US channel at least 25% of the witnesses used by the US state as witnesses regarding Al Quaeda involvement are a product of torture. I would say this is an understatement as it it probably nearer 100%.
But nevertheless even if we take the 25% figure and follow the dots and discount these statements I bet the whole roadshow doesn't stick. But then again you would believe Bush if he told you aliens arrived. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: |
about a bizarre idea that Moussaoui is a plant who pleads guilty and is willing to spend the rest of his life in jail as a way of earning a living |
You see this is why evidence is important, otherwise you are just making up whatever pops into your head at the time, in this case without relating it in any way to the real Moussaoui in the real world, who is actually a living person, not some comic book charactor. |
According to MNBC some US channel at least 25% of the witnesses used by the US state as witnesses regarding Al Quaeda involvement are a product of torture. I would say this is an understatement as it it probably nearer 100%.
But nevertheless even if we take the 25% figure and follow the dots and discount these statements I bet the whole roadshow doesn't stick. But then again you would believe Bush if he told you aliens arrived. |
Your insistance those who do not believe 9/11 was an inside job do so on the basis of what Bush has said, or are Bush supporters, simply shows your intellectual bankruptcy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
Your insistance those who do not believe 9/11 was an inside job do so on the basis of what Bush has said, or are Bush supporters, simply shows your intellectual bankruptcy. |
If the war in Iraq had gone according to plan the Bush supporters wouldn't have even played the 'I disagree with the war in Iraq line' to create a fake anti-Bush persona, which is your raison d'etre to the unsuspecting.
Bankruptcy is what the leader of the 'free world' is bringing down upon us.
Mysticism in the explanations provided by your non-ideological relatives in the form of explaining 9/11 dont simply show an intellectual bankruptcy, but a sociopathic disorder bordering on insanity. For only modern Rasputins sell such nonsense to a collapsing empire and believe people are gullible enough to believe it as they do... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | evidence confirming it without a doubt. |
Without a doubt?
You know why criminal cases require you to prove beyond "reasonable doubt" to "reasonable people"? Because without a doubt is an impossible standard. It is not a standard for people who are actually open minded, it is for people who want to make proof impossible, like yourself.
The plane was headed for the Pentagon. Witnesses saw an identical plane hit the pentagon. Nobody saw the plane go somewhere else. Personal effects from passengers and DNA and flight recorders were recovered. Plot organisers confirmed the hijacking and crash. Yet you are apparenly mystified about what happened to the plane. This is not a "reasonable" doubt, this is a silly, contrived, fake doubt.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | evidence confirming it without a doubt. |
Without a doubt?
You know why criminal cases require you to prove beyond "reasonable doubt" to "reasonable people"? Because without a doubt is an impossible standard. It is not a standard for people who are actually open minded, it is for people who want to make proof impossible, like yourself.
The plane was headed for the Pentagon. Witnesses saw an identical plane hit the pentagon. Nobody saw the plane go somewhere else. Personal effects from passengers and DNA and flight recorders were recovered. Plot organisers confirmed the hijacking and crash. Yet you are apparenly mystified about what happened to the plane. This is not a "reasonable" doubt, this is a silly, contrived, fake doubt. |
the usual rubbish from pepik.
the plane serial numbers would prove without a doubt that:
a) 4 planes did indeed crash at the 4 sites.
b) the said planes were indeed the planes found at each site.
it would end all the theorys(baring building collapses), and the evidence would leave no doubt. no need for pentagon footage, no doubting the flight 93 crash scene which many think looks nothing like a plane crashed there.
unless of cause you think plane parts proves which plane was involved? they do with serial numbers. without them it could be any flight that hit, or parts could of been placed there for all i know that have nothing to do with the said flights.
if that evidence has not been shown or put on public display i see no reason why people should just assume it because somebody just told us and asked us to trust them and did'nt bother doing a proper investigastion to collect and prove all the data.
the fact remains that no proof has been shown that proves the said flights were indeed the planes/or parts found at each scene.
why is this information important? ask your no planes sidekicks, they see it as proof no planes hit each target.
as usual i'll expect you to argue with this known fact and pretend the offical theory is convincing or has covered all evidence needed to prove the offical story is correct to anybody who actually took time to think about it and look over the evidence.
| Quote: | | The plane was headed for the Pentagon. Witnesses saw an identical plane hit the pentagon. Nobody saw the plane go somewhere else. Personal effects from passengers and DNA and flight recorders were recovered. Plot organisers confirmed the hijacking and crash. Yet you are apparenly mystified about what happened to the plane. This is not a "reasonable" doubt, this is a silly, contrived, fake doubt. |
no, your making links and then assuming. that is'nt how proof works.
it is not fake doubt, it is something that has not been proven. it relys on assumptions.
a bit like the bandana from flight 93. it could of been anyones on the flight, or could of already been at the scene, yet its given as evidence. we have to make the links because no proof is given.
just as you demonstrated.
| Quote: | | The plane was headed for the Pentagon. Witnesses saw an identical plane hit the pentagon. |
was it the same plane? or do we have to assume it was?
| Quote: | | Personal effects from passengers and DNA and flight recorders were recovered. |
so we are told. the serial numbers would link them to the said flight and prove the dna came from the scene and not elsewhere.
the point your missing altogether or just playing dumb about, is that if there was a conspiracy then evidence can be fabricated. and there are a array of different theorys knocking about.
which serial numbers would disprove in an instant. because they link all the evidence together and rely on no assumptions at all and prove there was no conspiracy or fabrication of any of the evidence.
serial numbers are always matched even in a normal plane accident even when they know which flight it was and what people were onboard. its standard pratice, barring 9/11 where a lot of things were not standard pratice all of a sudden.
why not explain why they put serial numbers on every part? and even go to the trouble of ensuring each new part fitted has a corrosponding serial number that only links to that one flight? then tell me if it should be easy or hard for them to prove.
afterall they track every plane and know which flight went missing or which flight turned of its transponder, so why would they bother to match serial numbers in every other crash? why just not on 9/11? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
But why are serial numbers suddenly so important to you, why would you accept those when you will not accept that DNA matched or the FDR was recovered?
You ask how the DNA can be shown not to be from elsewhere, but exactly the same applies to the parts with serial numbers. You could just as easily ask how it can be shown that they were not from elsewhere, even if you were taken to the warehouse where the FBI told the French newspaper Liberation that parts of the plane were stored and the numbers had been matched. After all, if the plane was not at the Pentagon it was elsewhere, and parts could be stripped off it.
I suggest that whatever evidence is provided, you would simply dismiss it as possibly faked, and ask for something else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
