The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are making allegations of murder, fabricated evidence, laying eyewitness, and local first responders fabricating reports?

The burden of proof is on you.

And there are no regulations regarding the filling, documentation, and preserving government records? Please show how government regulations regarding backing up data does not pertain to the argument?

Thanks for an argument totally based on allegations and emotional.

No. I am saying I am not convinced by the motive presented in the official story. Given the targets of 9/11, I think the official investigation should have included anyone who may have profited financially from 9/11. It didn't. Al Qaeda was always the one and only target of the investigation. I have reasonable doubt and think others may have had more motive AND the means & opportunity to have pulled it off and covered it up via a well-designed scapegoat and controlled investigation.

I have reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the government and anyone else defending their version of events.

Geez, OJ was acquitted on far less reasonable doubt based on possible evidence tampering and bias.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Am I wrong in there was already reports filed with government agencies before 9/11 on the missing money?

Am I wrong there are records with government agencies that list who the pentagon can contract with?

Am I wrong there would be reports among the government agencies on year to year audits of the pentagon?

Am I wrong in that venders to the pentagon would have their own records in dealing with the pentagon?

How was the false narrative of a missile going to "delete" the financial paper trail again?

Wouldn't there be treasury accounts of money paid out in the pentagon's behalf.

Wouldn't there be records among banking transactions?


A little common sense?

Have no idea, there was no investigation into 9/11 beyond Al Qaeda and because Muslims hate our freedom.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You going to address any issues with evidence? Or just stand on a soap box to tell us how you feel?

Are you making serious allegations first responders were compliant in a plot of murder?

Asked for proof of laying eyewitness accounts?

And will you address....

Am I wrong in there was already reports filed with government agencies before 9/11 on the missing money?

Am I wrong there are records with government agencies that list who the pentagon can contract with?

Am I wrong there would be reports among the government agencies on year to year audits of the pentagon?

Am I wrong in that venders to the pentagon would have their own records in dealing with the pentagon?

How was the false narrative of a missile going to "delete" the financial paper trail again?

Wouldn't there be treasury accounts of money paid out in the pentagon's behalf.

Wouldn't there be records among banking transactions?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Am I wrong in there was already reports filed with government agencies before 9/11 on the missing money?

Am I wrong there are records with government agencies that list who the pentagon can contract with?

Am I wrong there would be reports among the government agencies on year to year audits of the pentagon?

Am I wrong in that venders to the pentagon would have their own records in dealing with the pentagon?

How was the false narrative of a missile going to "delete" the financial paper trail again?

Wouldn't there be treasury accounts of money paid out in the pentagon's behalf.

Wouldn't there be records among banking transactions?


A little common sense?

Have no idea, there was no investigation into 9/11 beyond Al Qaeda because Muslims hate our freedom.

How does that equate to the false narrative a missle at the pentagon would wipe out all treasury records regarding the pentagon, audits, bank transfers, and vender records?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Again, are you making allegations first responders were complicate in a plot of murder?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You going to address any issues with evidence?

No, because the burden of proof is on you.

I simply have reasonable doubt and I have ZERO burden of proof. I am not able to subpoena records or witnesses. Your side has had 16 years to do that. You are the one making official claims that must meet the test of 'reasonable doubt' and you should have access to all evidence supporting your claims.

I reasonably think others may have been behind 9/11.

It happens to be that those in charge of the response and investigation into 9/11 did not investigate themselves.

So, I have reasonable doubt and the freedom (as someone who must be convinced) to contemplate all kinds of alternatives that I think could be reasonable.

The burden is on you. I don't claim to have any absolute alternative answers. I just have reasonable doubts about the official story.


ETA: IOW, I am not trying any case in the court of pubic opinion. You are. I just have reasonable doubts about your 'official' case. You guys have failed, over and over, to prove your case. The low-flying aircraft videos posted in this thread are a testament to that considering that speed was admittedly never a factor in why any of them were chosen. Always conveniently dancing around the questions....

The OS has always reeked of that crap.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Burden of proof is on you to discredit the local citizens, local police, local firefighter's, local EMTs, local reports, and local corner that account to a passenger jet hitting the pentagon and the recovery of the dead crew and passengers.

Are these people complicate or part of a conspiracy of murder?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Burden of proof is on you to discredit the local citizens, local police, local firefighter's, local EMTs, local reports, and local corner that account to a passenger jet hitting the pentagon and the recovery of the dead crew and passengers.

Are these people complicate or part of a conspiracy of murder?

Nope. I have no burden of proof. I am hearing YOUR case...the official case. The case that has to be sold to the public.

And I have reasonable doubts.

I don't buy for one moment that so many people would have to be 'in on it' to give the accounts they gave. Those accounts could implicate other suspects, as well.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

How is giving great weight to individual citizen's accounts at the pentagon equate to believing the government? Accounts backed by data and evidence?

The burden to discredit local first responders, reporters, and citizens that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon is on you.

Discredit the local first responders that recovered the dead passengers and dead crew of a passenger jet at the pentagon.

Please show where it is a precedence that the burden of proof is on a eyewitness, and not on those claiming they are laying and part of a murder plot?

a reply to: neutronflux

I mean, seriously....do you think the OJ Simpson jury had to prove that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence framing OJ when they deliberated his guilt? No! They acquitted purely on the basis that they had reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the evidence.

They didn't have to prove their reasonable doubt. That's not the job of a jury.

The public is the jury on who was behind 9/11. The U.S. federal government did not make its case.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

How is giving great weight to individual citizen's accounts at the pentagon equate to believing the government? Accounts backed by data and evidence?

The burden to discredit local first responders, reporters, and citizens that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon is on you.

Discredit the local first responders that recovered the dead passengers and dead crew of a passenger jet at the pentagon.

Please show where it is a precedence that the burden of proof is on a eyewitness, and not on those claiming they are laying and part of a murder plot?

No, you are trying to frame my argument as something it isn't.

My argument is that some people who could 'frame' al Qaeda may have also been behind the events of 9/11 and have had more motive. I can't claim to prove my case because no one with the power to investigate ever investigated anyone except Al Qaeda.

All of the burden of proof is on YOU. Given that your version is the only one that was officially investigated.

All of it.

All I need to do is tell you when I have reasonable doubt. I don't have to prove my doubts.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then what chargrs are you leveling at the local citizen's, local police, local firefighter's, local EMTs, and coroner that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon and the recovery of the dead crew and passengers from the crashed jet?

Simple question?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then what chargrs are you leveling at the local citizen's, local police, local firefighter's, local EMTs, and coroner that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon and the recovery of the dead crew and passengers from the crashed jet?

Simple question?

None.

I think the government could have carried out 9/11 exactly as they claimed 19 hijackers did if they wanted to.

You're reaching to try to get me to implicate people who witnessed the events. Even if the events unfolded exactly as the official story says...it doesn't mean Al Qaeda was behind 9/11.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then what chargrs are you leveling at the local citizen's, local police, local firefighter's, local EMTs, and coroner that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon and the recovery of the dead crew and passengers from the crashed jet?

Simple question?

Oh, AND, any witnesses in an actual trial would be subject o vetting and questioning. Jurors are not expected to take every alleged witness at their word without any questions.

So, please. I scoff at your angle of argument. I scoff loudly.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's how it works in the U.S. YOU have not overcome the burden of proof. In fact, you have never had to overcome the burden of proof in court.

As if I have to prove anything to you or anyone. I am not defending the official version. I am only reasonably doubting it based on a total lack of CONVINCING evidence.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok?

Two simple points?

What proof do you have to discredit the citizen's accounts of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

How would a missle hitting the pentagon wipe out all the pentagon financial records, the records of the treasury for money moved on behalf of the pentagon to vendors, all the previous audits of pentagon finances at other government agencies, all the banking records, and all the vendor's own financial records?

The answer, a missle hitting the pentagon would not "delete" the pentagon's financial dealings. Not the audits, the treasury records, the records of payments and transfers, nor would it delete the financial records of the vendors or persons.

Just a little common sense goes a long way..,.,

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok?

Two simple points?

What proof do you have to discredit the citizen's accounts of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

None. Not my obligation.

Prove to me that AA77 hit the Pentagon without relying on any witnesses that haven't been fully vetted and questioned.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You do understand the pentagon does not keep cash. The pentagon is budget money then the treasurer cuts checks/transfers money as needed. The treasury pays the vendors that have contracts that were negotiated. The money doesn't go to the pentagon. The real records would be with the treasury department, the negotiated contracts, and the banking records.

You don't think vendors would have records of the contracts?

Is that a wrong statement.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You do understand the pentagon does not keep cash. The pentagon is budget money then the treasurer cuts checks/transfers money as needed. The treasury pays the vendors that have contracts that were negotiated. The money doesn't go to the pentagon. The real records would be with the treasury department, the negotiated contracts, and the banking records.

You don't think vendors would have records of the contracts?

Is that a wrong statement.

Provide a link that shows that's not only real, but that it completely eliminates some criminal financial motive.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok?

Two simple points?

What proof do you have to discredit the citizen's accounts of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

None. Not my obligation.

Prove to me that AA77 hit the Pentagon without relying on any witnesses that haven't been fully vetted and questioned.

Again. I am not defending the "official" narrative.

Why should I not believe the individual accounts of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon, the individual accounts of passenger jet wreckage on the pentagon lawn and inside, the individual accounts of the dead from the passenger jet being recovered, and the local coroner department's releasing of identified human passenger remains for a funeral?

Are you saying there are no laws agains giving false accounts? Again, prove the local eyewitness are laying?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So prove a missle hit the pentagon.

So prove why a missle would be used against the pentagon.

Prove why the local citizen's accounts of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon are false.