FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Official Conspiracy theory EVIDENCE?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ian neal wrote:
Once the official story and the evidence of the literally UNBELIEVABLE intelligence and defense 'failures' came out, then my suspicions were confirmed to my satisfaction.


I assume incompetence. IMO the US has a much longer and more obvious history of incompetence than anything to do with conspiracy. Incompetence could explain the failures pre and during 9/11, and also the ham-fisted attempts to avoid criticism afterwards. The NWO vision of the world seems to have no place for incompetence, where all failures are meant and planned meticulously by an omnipotent elite - that just doesn't add up with what I know of politics at any level.

Quote:
In my mind there is v little difference between intentional LIHOP and MIHOP. You seem to underplay the significance of a MIHOP conclusion ("some good will come of it"). Think of all the governments, journalists and so called experts whose credibility would be in tatters and who would have a great deal of explaining to do. I think you underestimate what this would mean.


It's a conspiracy theorists wet dream isn't it? If either LIHOP or MIHOP were true we could rip up most of what we call the establishment and start again - might well be a very good thing.

Quote:
When I criticise disinformationists for picking on strawmen and ignoring the really incriminating and incontrovertible evidence I'm referring to our critics in the media mostly and not you personally.


I agree with that. I think the only effective debunking has come from enthusiasts and not the media, who tend to just gloss over the issue - that is modern journalism unfortunately. I don't really believe in disinfo though - if anyone in the mainstream media is paid to discredit the truth movement they do a very good impression of ignoring it 99.9% of the time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:22 am    Post subject: Re: Official Conspiracy theory EVIDENCE? Reply with quote

Quote:
So you agree the FDR does not prove the official story and the various oddities of the raw data raise the suspicion that it may not be genuine.


Obviously I don't. I don't think it proves the official story on its own and I don't have any suspicion that it is a fake. The oddities of the raw data may not be in any way unusual - I am no expert in that field.

Are you suggesting that the FDR might have been faked? On what evidence?

Why would the FDR be faked but still be inaccurate? Surely they would make damn sure it was accurate. Any explanation why they would fake the FDR but make the info on it inaccurate?

Quote:
However nobody "official" will comment so there you are - you are 0/1.


Has anyone official been asked to comment? What should they comment on?

Quote:
The plane is observed via the CCTV images to be flying level when it hits the Pentagon...


Proof of this? That it is flying level?

Quote:
...and the punchout hole backs this up.


What is a punchout hole? Are you referring to the last hole made in the third ring of the building - the one that is supposed to have been made by the fireball? Does this prove that is was level? How?

Quote:
However the FDR shows the plane descending...


If the FDR was accurate, which I don't think it was. In fact I don't think either truthers or debunkers think it was accurate, because on its figures the plane would have hit the ground well before the building (if I remember rightly).

Quote:
...and by the time it would have hit the final light pole there would be no time to pull up and hit the building on a level.


Evidence of this?

Quote:
If the FDR is incorrect and the plane was flying level...


...Which I need to be persuaded of. The problem being that if the height readings on the FDR are not accurate, and we all agree they are not accurate, then how can we judge whether the plane was level at any time? The only info we have is witnesses and the few frames of CCTV.

Quote:
...then hitting the light poles on the level would not have the plane hitting at the bottom of the Pentagon.


Except (I think) we all agree the height readings are inaccurate, if indeed pilots for truth interpreted them correctly in the first place.

Quote:
So which part of this is faked?


I don't know.

Quote:
Or do you shy away from the detail and prefer the more broadbrush approach aka the "I'm easily fooled" tack.


I don't know what this means.

Quote:
Re: witnesses. The allegation is that a terrorist event was staged at the Pentagon, meaning there will be witnesses planted who may not be telling the whole truth - or may in fact be lying. Hence the Citgo witnesses and a few others. None of them choose the flight path of the light poles. Of course witnesses differ in the exact path they draw but when given the choice between left and right of the Citgo, they all have chosen the north side. Why would that be? Even the guy in the heliport had the plane coming in over the Navy Annex, to the right of the Citgo and he had a pretty good view.

To overcome those witnesses and provide your proof, you'd need some witnesses to state that they saw the poles struck - saw the taxi hit etc - while providing information that shows they were there at the right time to see it (for example their car featuring in the many photographs) and their story being straight. So no proof there yet.

Maybe you have some indisputable photographic evidence to put this beyond reasonable doubt?


I don't have any photos to share.

If we presented the evidence that exists to somebody independent to look through, do you seriously think they would come to the conclusion that there was no crash at the Pentagon and that the whole thing was faked?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
you started of by accusing truthers of only taking certain witness accounts and throwing out others, the ONLY reason for me linking witnesses was to get your reaction.
Again, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I SAID. I said you should not expect IDENTICAL testimony from all witnesses. It is troofers that pretend it is something shocking and unprecedented for witnesses to disagree, and that based on this we have to throw everything out and wring our hands in doubt (or at least only listen to the ones that give us what we want to hear). I have said that witnesses are not consistent, but we they all agree on one thing - a plane hit the pentagon - that is meaningful. I can say this a third time if you think it would help.

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a plane hittng the Pentagon, your doubts are not rational. You cannot provide witnesses, physical evidence, or even logic for how it could possibly make sense for plotters to hit the pentagon with anything other than a plane. Yet you keep trying.

_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message
Pikey
Banned
Banned


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All I asked for was EVIDENCE which substantiates the official conspiracy theory of 911. It can be anything, flight 77 hitting the Pentagon was just an example.

So far all this thread has produced is information wars and deviation from the subject matter of the thread


EVIDENCE

To date there are 429 topics and 14,564 posts in critics corner.

I dont have the time to go through all the information but if there is any evidence buried amongst it please post it here.

Please could those who support the demand for a professional independent inquiry refrain from making any response to the information wars and give our critics every opportunity to provide the evidence.

Many thanks.

_________________
Pikey

Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alternatively, why not suggest some evidence that we could realistically produce which you could not instantly reject.

Video? Faked! Physical evidence? Planted! Eyewitness? Liars! Engineering studies? Rejected by people with no relevant qualifications!

Its so easy to be a troofer.

_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Official Conspiracy theory EVIDENCE? Reply with quote

Pikey wrote:

My understanding was that the purpose of Critics corner(started in July 2006) was to provide those who believed that the Official conspiracy theory was the truth with the opportunity to produce EVIDENCE.

No, the official purpose is:
"For those who wish to criticise the 9/11 truth movement & key peace campaigners"

But if you would really like some evidence, here is plenty on what happened to the WTC NIST Report
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepik wrote:
Quote:
you started of by accusing truthers of only taking certain witness accounts and throwing out others, the ONLY reason for me linking witnesses was to get your reaction.
Again, EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I SAID. I said you should not expect IDENTICAL testimony from all witnesses. It is troofers that pretend it is something shocking and unprecedented for witnesses to disagree, and that based on this we have to throw everything out and wring our hands in doubt (or at least only listen to the ones that give us what we want to hear). I have said that witnesses are not consistent, but we they all agree on one thing - a plane hit the pentagon - that is meaningful. I can say this a third time if you think it would help.

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a plane hittng the Pentagon, your doubts are not rational. You cannot provide witnesses, physical evidence, or even logic for how it could possibly make sense for plotters to hit the pentagon with anything other than a plane. Yet you keep trying.


see you did it again. put words in my mouth like the liar you are. i never said anything about there being no evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon. i have only said WITNESSES do not prove it.

this thread is asking for evidence, no heresay by witnesses!

sorry, pikey this is my last response.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Official Conspiracy theory EVIDENCE? Reply with quote

Quote:
But if you would really like some evidence, here is plenty on what happened to the WTC NIST Report


Please Pikey, don't reply until you've read this important piece of evidence first Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:26 pm    Post subject: Re: Official Conspiracy theory EVIDENCE? Reply with quote

Alex_V wrote:
If we presented the evidence that exists to somebody independent to look through, do you seriously think they would come to the conclusion that there was no crash at the Pentagon and that the whole thing was faked?


From your extremely long post, it is clear that you haven't really looked into the Pentagon incident at all - yet you consider qualified to tell those of us who have that there is nothing suspicious about it (and I don't consider myself an expert on FDR data either but at least I make the effort to read about it). Or maybe you really think that fireballs can travel through concrete and make a nice round hole.

The devil is in the detail ...... and as Pikey says, you really have nothing to offer here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pikey wrote:
All I asked for was EVIDENCE which substantiates the official conspiracy theory of 911. It can be anything, flight 77 hitting the Pentagon was just an example.

So far all this thread has produced is information wars and deviation from the subject matter of the thread


EVIDENCE

To date there are 429 topics and 14,564 posts in critics corner.

I dont have the time to go through all the information but if there is any evidence buried amongst it please post it here.

Please could those who support the demand for a professional independent inquiry refrain from making any response to the information wars and give our critics every opportunity to provide the evidence.

Many thanks.


The evidence available so far are the following.

A still image of alleged hijackers at some US airport.

Pictures posted on the FBI's wanted list of alleged hijackers some of which have been found subsequently to be alive.

A passport found of one alleged hijacker AFTER the planes exploded.

On their own they would not stand up in court in front of a judge and jury.

The only evidence of a couple of alleged hijackers is the one at the airport which links them to the scene of a crime.

But again there is no supplementary proof that they had motive or that body parts were recovered from the scene of the crime as would normally be required.

NO OTHER EVIDENCE HAS EVER BEEN PRESENTED BY THE POWERS THAT BE OR WILL THEY EVER BE...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

conspiracy analyst wrote:

NO OTHER EVIDENCE HAS EVER BEEN PRESENTED BY THE POWERS THAT BE OR WILL THEY EVER BE...

Not entirely true, actually. Here for instance are the documents and exhibits given in evidence at the Moussaoui trial.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
conspiracy analyst wrote:

NO OTHER EVIDENCE HAS EVER BEEN PRESENTED BY THE POWERS THAT BE OR WILL THEY EVER BE...

Not entirely true, actually. Here for instance are the documents and exhibits given in evidence at the Moussaoui trial.


I have had a look at the evidence.

Its identical to what I wrote about before.

A still image of a couple of Arabs at an airport. Proof once more of nothing.

Motive, bodyparts, fingerprints, passenger manifests, shooting order for fighter jets, picture of plane hitting the Pentagon or falling into the ground where are they?


A picture of a 99p pen knife which was intact allegedly AFTER the explosions!!

Harry Potter still aint found em 6 year after the event?



Is that your best shot Bushlicker?

Try harder. Everyone is laughing with your evidence Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well seeing as you can't suggest any conceivable evidence that couldn't be casually dismissed, you're making it a bit obvious that this "open minded" approach is a sham.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

conspiracy analyst wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
conspiracy analyst wrote:

NO OTHER EVIDENCE HAS EVER BEEN PRESENTED BY THE POWERS THAT BE OR WILL THEY EVER BE...

Not entirely true, actually. Here for instance are the documents and exhibits given in evidence at the Moussaoui trial.


I have had a look at the evidence.

Its identical to what I wrote about before.

A still image of a couple of Arabs at an airport. Proof once more of nothing.

Motive, bodyparts, fingerprints, passenger manifests, shooting order for fighter jets, picture of plane hitting the Pentagon or falling into the ground where are they?


A picture of a 99p pen knife which was intact allegedly AFTER the explosions!!

Harry Potter still aint found em 6 year after the event?



Is that your best shot Bushlicker?

Try harder. Everyone is laughing with your evidence Very Happy

But you see, once again you are quite wrong. The evidence presented at his trial was so convincing that Moussaoui pleaded guilty to some, and eventually all of the charges concerning his involvement with 9/11.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:

But you see, once again you are quite wrong. The evidence presented at his trial was so convincing that Moussaoui pleaded guilty to some, and eventually all of the charges concerning his involvement with 9/11.


Pleading guilty at a trial is no evidence of anything.
Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 did the same.

You can use a human get him to plead guilty to a lesser chargeto push through your agenda.

But going back to the evidence for 9/11?

A picture of a boxcutter and a couple of still images at an airport.

Is that it?

Like I have said before if no evidence was presented 6 months after 9/11 the reason is simple there was no evidence.

Everything since is hearsay.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

conspiracy analyst wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:

But you see, once again you are quite wrong. The evidence presented at his trial was so convincing that Moussaoui pleaded guilty to some, and eventually all of the charges concerning his involvement with 9/11.


Pleading guilty at a trial is no evidence of anything.
Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 did the same.

You can use a human get him to plead guilty to a lesser chargeto push through your agenda.

But going back to the evidence for 9/11?

A picture of a boxcutter and a couple of still images at an airport.

Is that it?

Like I have said before if no evidence was presented 6 months after 9/11 the reason is simple there was no evidence.

Everything since is hearsay.

No, the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four did not plead guilty, at their trials they repudiated their earlier police statements in which they confessed on the grounds that they had been beaten out of them by police. Moussaoui did not plead guilty to lesser charges, he initially pleaded not guilty, admitted his involvement with al-Qaeda, but claimed he was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. Later he admitted all charges, and the jury decided against the death penalty on the basis that his involvement was minor. After sentencing, he went back to his original story. Therefore a lot of evidence was presented at his trial, some of which is the documentation displayed on that web site. Hearsay evidence is what a witness at a trial say that someone else, who is not called as a witness, said on an earlier occasion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
conspiracy analyst wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:

But you see, once again you are quite wrong. The evidence presented at his trial was so convincing that Moussaoui pleaded guilty to some, and eventually all of the charges concerning his involvement with 9/11.


Pleading guilty at a trial is no evidence of anything.
Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 did the same.

You can use a human get him to plead guilty to a lesser chargeto push through your agenda.

But going back to the evidence for 9/11?

A picture of a boxcutter and a couple of still images at an airport.

Is that it?

Like I have said before if no evidence was presented 6 months after 9/11 the reason is simple there was no evidence.

Everything since is hearsay.

No, the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four did not plead guilty, at their trials they repudiated their earlier police statements in which they confessed on the grounds that they had been beaten out of them by police. Moussaoui did not plead guilty to lesser charges, he initially pleaded not guilty, admitted his involvement with al-Qaeda, but claimed he was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. Later he admitted all charges, and the jury decided against the death penalty on the basis that his involvement was minor. After sentencing, he went back to his original story. Therefore a lot of evidence was presented at his trial, some of which is the documentation displayed on that web site. Hearsay evidence is what a witness at a trial say that someone else, who is not called as a witness, said on an earlier occasion.


I have asked you for evidence for 9/11 involvement of Arabs.
You presented me with a series of pictures (still images from an airport and a picture of a 99p pen knife)

You then go on to lie and say the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 did not plead guilty. Within the same breath you assert whilst having pleaded guilty they reneged on the guilty plea whilst in court. But they did plead guilty its a matter of police record. This was presented at the trial. Whether the confession was beaten out of them or all their families threatened is neither here nor there. A guilty plea is no EVIDENCE OF GUILT.

But Moussaoui is a straw man. Years later I can find you an Arab and pin 50 crimes on him. Irrelevant to the original post.

What evidence exists of the 19 named hijackers having anything to do with 9/11? None. There never was any there never will be any.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

conspiracy analyst wrote:
You then go on to lie and say the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 did not plead guilty. Within the same breath you assert whilst having pleaded guilty they reneged on the guilty plea whilst in court. But they did plead guilty its a matter of police record. This was presented at the trial. Whether the confession was beaten out of them or all their families threatened is neither here nor there. A guilty plea is no EVIDENCE OF GUILT.
You seem to be getting severely mixed up with the concepts of "pleading guity" and "admitting guilt". They are very much different things (especially in legal proceedings).

Pleading guilty is a term used for a trial. Not surprisingly this is usually in response to the question "how do you plead" at the start of the trial? The trial then proceeds accordingly, i.e. if the defendent has pleaded guilty then there is no need to present the evidence against them. People usually plead guilty when the evidence against them is undeniable; which is what Moussaoui did.

Admitting guilt is a completely separate thing and can cover many scenario's. In the case of the Birmingham Six they "apparently" admitted guilt under police questioning. However when the case came to trial they pleaded not guilty (as opposed to pleading guilty) because the evidence against them was deniable (a dubious confession).

No-one pleads guilty unless the evidence against them is undeniable. Moussaoui obviously thought it was, hence the guilty plea. You on the other hand claim the evidence is non-existent. Don't you think it's a tad bizarre that you could have a completely different view to the person who was actually facing a lifetime in jail because of this evidence. It's strange that he couldn't see the complete lack of evidence like you can!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

conspiracy analyst wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
conspiracy analyst wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:

But you see, once again you are quite wrong. The evidence presented at his trial was so convincing that Moussaoui pleaded guilty to some, and eventually all of the charges concerning his involvement with 9/11.


Pleading guilty at a trial is no evidence of anything.
Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 did the same.

You can use a human get him to plead guilty to a lesser chargeto push through your agenda.

But going back to the evidence for 9/11?

A picture of a boxcutter and a couple of still images at an airport.

Is that it?

Like I have said before if no evidence was presented 6 months after 9/11 the reason is simple there was no evidence.

Everything since is hearsay.

No, the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four did not plead guilty, at their trials they repudiated their earlier police statements in which they confessed on the grounds that they had been beaten out of them by police. Moussaoui did not plead guilty to lesser charges, he initially pleaded not guilty, admitted his involvement with al-Qaeda, but claimed he was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. Later he admitted all charges, and the jury decided against the death penalty on the basis that his involvement was minor. After sentencing, he went back to his original story. Therefore a lot of evidence was presented at his trial, some of which is the documentation displayed on that web site. Hearsay evidence is what a witness at a trial say that someone else, who is not called as a witness, said on an earlier occasion.


I have asked you for evidence for 9/11 involvement of Arabs.
You presented me with a series of pictures (still images from an airport and a picture of a 99p pen knife)

You then go on to lie and say the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 did not plead guilty. Within the same breath you assert whilst having pleaded guilty they reneged on the guilty plea whilst in court. But they did plead guilty its a matter of police record. This was presented at the trial. Whether the confession was beaten out of them or all their families threatened is neither here nor there. A guilty plea is no EVIDENCE OF GUILT.

But Moussaoui is a straw man. Years later I can find you an Arab and pin 50 crimes on him. Irrelevant to the original post.

What evidence exists of the 19 named hijackers having anything to do with 9/11? None. There never was any there never will be any.

It is not my fault if you do not understand either the English language or legal procedure. "Pleading" is what you answer to the charge in court NOT what you say to the police in a statement. The Birmingham Six and Guildford Four did not plead guilty in court so they did not plead guilty at all.

There is overwhelming evidence of the involvement of the 19 hijackers, as set out on this page.

If you prefer to believe that it was just a coincidence that those innocent Arabs happened to be on those flights and that those who had flying training were not interested in take-offs or landings and that video wills were faked as were connections to al Qaeda, then that is up to you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why is it so hard for you to suggest something which we could present which would be convincing?

Because no evidence could exist which couldn't be easily dismissed by someone determined not to accept it.

The request for proof is not serious if you yourself cannot even conceive of any evidence which you would find convincing.

_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message
James C
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepik wrote:
Why is it so hard for you to suggest something which we could present which would be convincing?

Because no evidence could exist which couldn't be easily dismissed by someone determined not to accept it.

The request for proof is not serious if you yourself cannot even conceive of any evidence which you would find convincing.


It's good of you to criticize Bushwacker's post. You are reffering to his words are you not since you give no name and your post follows his? I see exactly what you are saying even if you do sound like Mr Rumsfeld.

"As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know."

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, I was asking Conspiracy Analyst. Had you actually been following the topic it would have been quite obvious as I had already asked him once.

I didn't refer to him by name because I hadn't anticipated that anyone could get confused by something so simple and obvious.

_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Bushwacker wrote:



I have asked you for evidence for 9/11 involvement of Arabs.
You presented me with a series of pictures (still images from an airport and a picture of a 99p pen knife)

You then go on to lie and say the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 did not plead guilty. Within the same breath you assert whilst having pleaded guilty they reneged on the guilty plea whilst in court. But they did plead guilty its a matter of police record. This was presented at the trial. Whether the confession was beaten out of them or all their families threatened is neither here nor there. A guilty plea is no EVIDENCE OF GUILT.

But Moussaoui is a straw man. Years later I can find you an Arab and pin 50 crimes on him. Irrelevant to the original post.

What evidence exists of the 19 named hijackers having anything to do with 9/11? None. There never was any there never will be any.



It is not my fault if you do not understand either the English language or legal procedure. "Pleading" is what you answer to the charge in court NOT what you say to the police in a statement. The Birmingham Six and Guildford Four did not plead guilty in court so they did not plead guilty at all.

There is overwhelming evidence of the involvement of the 19 hijackers, as set out on this page.

If you prefer to believe that it was just a coincidence that those innocent Arabs happened to be on those flights and that those who had flying training were not interested in take-offs or landings and that video wills were faked as were connections to al Qaeda, then that is up to you.
[/quote]

The police presented the signed confession of the Irish imprisoned as evidence of a guilty plea when they presented their side of the case.
To a jury surrounded by the ever so 'impartial' British media they were guilty after having signed a confession.

You presented a similar arguement saying why would Mouassaouri plead guilty if he wasn't. Logically if he was guilty he would have not pleaded guilty...

You then present the passenger manifests which were uploaded on this site in 2007?

The original timeline was the following. 18 names were stated to be found in the debris. But 19 appeared on the list...

Quote:
On September 13, the FBI says there were 18 hijackers, and releases their names. Hani Hanjour’s name is not on the list. (CNN 9/13/2001) On the morning of the next day, CNN announces on the air that “CNN managed to grab a list of the names of the 18 suspected hijackers that is supposed to be officially released by justice sometime later today.” An announcer reads the list, which actually contains 19 names. It is the same list as the day before, except for one new name: Mosear Caned. (Note that the name is a very rough phonetic spelling from a CNN transcript.) (CNN 9/14/2001) Later in the day, the list is revised. Caned is gone and is replaced by Hani Hanjour. It is never explained who Caned is, how he got on the list, or even how his name is correctly spelled. No name even remotely similar to his appears on any of the released manifests of the hijacked 9/11 flights. (CNN 9/14/2001; Barakat 9/14/2001) A few days later, it is reported that Hanjour’s “name was not on the American Airlines manifest for [Flight 77] because he may not have had a ticket.” (Washington Post 9/16/2001)


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?startpos=1600&printerf riendly=true&timeline=911timeline

I have learnt to drive a car but I doubt whether I have the technical skills to take a submarine on a spin.


Last edited by conspiracy analyst on Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:20 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh dear, even worse confusion!!!!!

I suggest you read Jonnolad's excellent post further up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jonnolad wrote:
conspiracy analyst wrote:
You then go on to lie and say the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 did not plead guilty. Within the same breath you assert whilst having pleaded guilty they reneged on the guilty plea whilst in court. But they did plead guilty its a matter of police record. This was presented at the trial. Whether the confession was beaten out of them or all their families threatened is neither here nor there. A guilty plea is no EVIDENCE OF GUILT.
You seem to be getting severely mixed up with the concepts of "pleading guity" and "admitting guilt". They are very much different things (especially in legal proceedings).

Pleading guilty is a term used for a trial. Not surprisingly this is usually in response to the question "how do you plead" at the start of the trial? The trial then proceeds accordingly, i.e. if the defendent has pleaded guilty then there is no need to present the evidence against them. People usually plead guilty when the evidence against them is undeniable; which is what Moussaoui did.

Admitting guilt is a completely separate thing and can cover many scenario's. In the case of the Birmingham Six they "apparently" admitted guilt under police questioning. However when the case came to trial they pleaded not guilty (as opposed to pleading guilty) because the evidence against them was deniable (a dubious confession).

No-one pleads guilty unless the evidence against them is undeniable. Moussaoui obviously thought it was, hence the guilty plea. You on the other hand claim the evidence is non-existent. Don't you think it's a tad bizarre that you could have a completely different view to the person who was actually facing a lifetime in jail because of this evidence. It's strange that he couldn't see the complete lack of evidence like you can!


So getting an Arab to confess guilty in court occurred because of the overwhelming evidence presented in that court case?

A picture of a boxcutter and still images from an airport camera?

Evidence of the 18 or was it 19 hijackers as even that bit of info changed is what? Mousaourris guilty plea!!

The US government uses informants in prison or about to go to prison to plead to anything they want this is a standard practice.

As well as releasing prisoners to go fight their imperial oil wars.

Mousaouri is a government stooge, the trial he was involved in was a farce and the evidence presented by you all is still non-existent.

Going back to the 19 hijackers or was it 18 what evidence exists of them being on any planes on that day? Indeed two of the four planes cant even be seen as crashing on any video, still image, or camera.

Did they ever exist in the first place...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

conspiracy analyst wrote:
So getting an Arab to confess guilty in court occurred because of the overwhelming evidence presented in that court case?

A picture of a boxcutter and still images from an airport camera?

Evidence of the 18 or was it 19 hijackers as even that bit of info changed is what? Mousaourris guilty plea!!

The US government uses informants in prison or about to go to prison to plead to anything they want this is a standard practice.

As well as releasing prisoners to go fight their imperial oil wars.

Mousaouri is a government stooge, the trial he was involved in was a farce and the evidence presented by you all is still non-existent.


Going back to your very first point "getting an Arab to confess guilty in court" - it's a minor point but you still seem to be confused - he actually pleaded guilty in court, he didn't "confess" guilt as such (obviously pleading guilty implies guilt but confessing and pleading are still entirely different things).

Now on to your main points, firstly a claim that "A picture of a boxcutter and still images from an airport camera" was the only evidence against him. If you honestly think that then you need to have a look again at the link supplied detailing the evidence. Here is a different link which is perhaps clearer on the evidence:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Moussaoui_evidence_0801.html

As you can clearly see, in addition to the picture of a boxcutter and still images from an airport camera, there is also a large number of emails, Western Union money transfer documents, a large amount of application documents for flight training and documents pertaining to flight training, various id's of the terrorists recoved from the crashed sites, seat assignments for the flights, telephone calls from the planes, photographs from the crash sites (including photo's of passenger body parts inside the pentagon) and then photographs of the victims. Whichever way you look at it, this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, simply "A picture of a boxcutter and still images from an airport camera"!

Now comes the most bizarre of your claims; "Mousaouri is a government stooge". Now if we can put aside for one moment your complete lack of evidence to substantiate your claim, let's look at this logically - what could the government possibly offer Moussaouri in order for him to plead guilty? This is a man who has received 6 life sentences with absolutely no possibility of parole, therefore what do you think he got in return? A nice cell with a view? A paper delivered every morning? What could he possibly get which would be of any use to someone locked up for the rest of their life which would be worth getting locked up for the rest of their life?

Additionally, it begs the question, if he was a government stooge why did they feel the need to present any evidence?

Surely you must see this stooge claim is ridiculous to the point of being laughable? Surely?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jonnolad wrote:
conspiracy analyst wrote:
So getting an Arab to confess guilty in court occurred because of the overwhelming evidence presented in that court case?

A picture of a boxcutter and still images from an airport camera?

Evidence of the 18 or was it 19 hijackers as even that bit of info changed is what? Mousaourris guilty plea!!

The US government uses informants in prison or about to go to prison to plead to anything they want this is a standard practice.

As well as releasing prisoners to go fight their imperial oil wars.

Mousaouri is a government stooge, the trial he was involved in was a farce and the evidence presented by you all is still non-existent.


Going back to your very first point "getting an Arab to confess guilty in court" - it's a minor point but you still seem to be confused - he actually pleaded guilty in court, he didn't "confess" guilt as such (obviously pleading guilty implies guilt but confessing and pleading are still entirely different things).

Now on to your main points, firstly a claim that "A picture of a boxcutter and still images from an airport camera" was the only evidence against him. If you honestly think that then you need to have a look again at the link supplied detailing the evidence. Here is a different link which is perhaps clearer on the evidence:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Moussaoui_evidence_0801.html

As you can clearly see, in addition to the picture of a boxcutter and still images from an airport camera, there is also a large number of emails, Western Union money transfer documents, a large amount of application documents for flight training and documents pertaining to flight training, various id's of the terrorists recoved from the crashed sites, seat assignments for the flights, telephone calls from the planes, photographs from the crash sites (including photo's of passenger body parts inside the pentagon) and then photographs of the victims. Whichever way you look at it, this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, simply "A picture of a boxcutter and still images from an airport camera"!

Now comes the most bizarre of your claims; "Mousaouri is a government stooge". Now if we can put aside for one moment your complete lack of evidence to substantiate your claim, let's look at this logically - what could the government possibly offer Moussaouri in order for him to plead guilty? This is a man who has received 6 life sentences with absolutely no possibility of parole, therefore what do you think he got in return? A nice cell with a view? A paper delivered every morning? What could he possibly get which would be of any use to someone locked up for the rest of their life which would be worth getting locked up for the rest of their life?

Additionally, it begs the question, if he was a government stooge why did they feel the need to present any evidence?

Surely you must see this stooge claim is ridiculous to the point of being laughable? Surely?



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.

Now getting people to plead guilty in court is as old as courts themselves.

Half the organisers of the Russian Revolution pleaded guilty in Stalin's courts in the 1930's to crimes ranging from attempting to blow up railways to mass poisoning of city water systems.

Are you implying nearly 80 odd years later after years of occupation of an Arab country they cant find a SINGLE ARAB to pin 9/11 on? You expect me to take you seriously?

Taking into account that the CIA has organised coups and assasinations in almost every continent over the past 50 years then surely finding an Arab to pin 9/11 on must be an impossibility in your line of reasoning. I mean 'extraordinary rendition' Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo haven't really occurred and there isn't a ready made supply of Arabs to find and threaten via their families back home. The occupation in Iraq is occurring according to plan and there is no way Mouassaouri could not be invented.

I doubt that is even his real name or that he has even gone to prison. Now you say there are Western Union money transfers (I mean who owns Western Union?) and there are also copies of intact passports and pictures of plane parts. I haven't seen any on two of the four sites.

As is common with most liars that commit murder when they lie they continue in the same vein. I haven't met a single person in my life even those who believe 9/11 was done by Arabs that a passport could have been found intact after the collapse of the towers. Now we find the CIA has presented even more... passports.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You seem to think you are quite clever because you can reject any evidence we present (when presented with a huge list of evidence, you casually dismiss it all in one fell swoop, without so much as the tiniest attempt at explanation). But anyone can do that, its easy. That's why I asked you to try to imagine some evidence which could not be flippantly rejected. You pretended you didn't hear that because you know that there is no such thing.

Your logic has even sunk to the level of "well the CIA does covert stuff, so basically anything anywhere at any time could be a CIA covert op" (as if the CIA were the only organisation on the planet conduction covert activity). It is hard to believe anyone would subscribe to logic that facile.

_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pepik wrote:
You seem to think you are quite clever because you can reject any evidence we present (when presented with a huge list of evidence, you casually dismiss it all in one fell swoop, without so much as the tiniest attempt at explanation). But anyone can do that, its easy. That's why I asked you to try to imagine some evidence which could not be flippantly rejected. You pretended you didn't hear that because you know that there is no such thing.

Your logic has even sunk to the level of "well the CIA does covert stuff, so basically anything anywhere at any time could be a CIA covert op" (as if the CIA were the only organisation on the planet conduction covert activity). It is hard to believe anyone would subscribe to logic that facile.


The premise of your arguement has been so far not what happened on 9/11 and what evidence has been presented since but the trial of Mouassouari.
And the main issue has been why did he plead guilty.

I answered the points this isn't the first or last time people may plead guilty to being the ...emperors of China, aliens, bombers or whatever you want them to say.

No evidence of any planes have ever been presented for a crash site at the Pentagon.
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

There are web sites offerring money around $1 to claim.
Why dont you use the Mousaourri evidence to test them and claim the money instead of trying to convince me that they cant find an Arab to confess all and sundry which is the basis of your arguements?

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:cc5ihNcyzDcJ:911sig.blogspot.com/ 2006_06_01_archive.html+9/11+%241million+pentagon+boeing&hl=en&ct=clnk &cd=3&client=firefox-a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jonnolad
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

conspiracy analyst wrote:

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.

Now getting people to plead guilty in court is as old as courts themselves.

Half the organisers of the Russian Revolution pleaded guilty in Stalin's courts in the 1930's to crimes ranging from attempting to blow up railways to mass poisoning of city water systems.

Are you implying nearly 80 odd years later after years of occupation of an Arab country they cant find a SINGLE ARAB to pin 9/11 on? You expect me to take you seriously?

Taking into account that the CIA has organised coups and assasinations in almost every continent over the past 50 years then surely finding an Arab to pin 9/11 on must be an impossibility in your line of reasoning. I mean 'extraordinary rendition' Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo haven't really occurred and there isn't a ready made supply of Arabs to find and threaten via their families back home. The occupation in Iraq is occurring according to plan and there is no way Mouassaouri could not be invented.

I doubt that is even his real name or that he has even gone to prison. Now you say there are Western Union money transfers (I mean who owns Western Union?) and there are also copies of intact passports and pictures of plane parts. I haven't seen any on two of the four sites.


This debate is obviously entering the surreal when we have reached a point of "who owns Western Union"?!! As pepik points out, with this way of thinking any evidence, no matter how compelling, can just be rejected. Your train of thought could just as easily be, for example; who runs the legal system, who runs the prisons, who owns the flight schools, who owns the airline companies etc ad infinitum. If that is your rationale then no evidence, no matter how definitive or compeling will ever point in your mind to the terrorists having committed 9/11.

However, just to prove that's not the case and you do not have a closed mind on this already; what evidence would you need to see which would prove to you that the terrorists named committed the acts on 9/11?

Now aside from this huge point (which really does need addressing to have any meaningful debate), you seem to have three conflicting view points:

1) You were not actually interested in Moussaouri (presumably because there has been a huge amount of evidence presented to show his guilt).

2) "Getting people to plead guilty in court is as old as courts themselves", giving reference to the Great Purge in Russia in the 30's, and also 80+ years occupation of Arab countries, which would therefore give the oppurtunity to find an Arab to pin this on (i.e. Moussaouri).

3) You doubt Moussaouri is his real name or he has actually gone to prison.

So - which one is it? Surely you must see that giving three completely conflicting opinions of this, it gives the impression that you are simply making it up as you go along. In relation to points 2 and 3, do you actually have a single coherent theory on Moussaouri? Do you have any evidence to back up this theory? For instance do you have any evidence that Moussaouri was framed, or do you have any evidence that Moussaouri isn't his real name or he isn't in prison? I'll obviously not hold my breath on any of those.

It is worth bearing in mind if you think either points 2 or 3 are worth any more thought, that the prosecution of Moussaouri had absolutely no benefit to any alledged conspiracy. If anything, if there was a conspiracy, it gave the need to present evidence that didn't exist - which is something which would obviously be a pain in the arse for any conspirators. It would also bring a huge risk of a conspiracy being proved, i.e. by proving the evidence is fake or proving Moussaouri wasn't in prison / wasn't his real name or had been forced to admit something he hadn't done. All huge risks and for what gain to a conspiracy?

Now with reference to your very first point; "the original 18/19 hijackers". I can only assume that you haven't actually looked at the evidence presented (twice now!) against Moussaouri. If you had you would know that much of this evidence pertains to the 19 hijackers. Just click on that link I posted (go on - it won't do you any harm) and search on the page for "Mohamed Atta" or "Waleed Al Shehri" - the evidence is there against these people and it's much more than just "a picture of a boxcutter and still images from an airport camera".

Of course my guess is you won't do this, but the evidence is there should you actually look.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 2 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group