The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

originally posted by: neutronflux

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? Agsin, prove theocal eyewitness are laying?

Because you have no basis whatsoever to believe any witnesses. Guilting and shaming people into believing them is not a valid method of vetting witnesses in a court of law where both a prosecution and defense case has been presented.

I don't have to prove anyone is lying. I just have to have reasonable doubt they are telling the truth or are accurate/exhaustive in the telling of their stories.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

I don't have to prove any of that. I just have to have reasonable doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon. And I do.

But even if it did, it still doesn't mean Al Qaeda was behind it.

Prove to me the select witnesses who support your version of events are telling the truth and that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. The burden of proof is on you making the claims. The test is reasonable doubt.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

A passenger jet hit the pentagon because....

A in flight pilot gave a real time account by radio of a silver passenger jet flying into the pentagon.

Local eyewitness accounts of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

A large upside down T shape hole in the outer wall of the pentagon before the collapse. The horizontal span of the hole made by the wings of a passenger which spanned at least four to five rows of windows. A missle would have punched out at most a circular hole 6 foot in diameter. A hole that would not even span across one row of windows.

The damage at the pentagon corresponds to a passenger jet over 150,000 pounds, not a missile weighing less than 16,000 pounds.

Missles don't have landing gear, passenger seats, passengers, nor passenger belongings.

The intact windows of the pentagon give proof a missle did not explode.

A missle did not explode is evident by no floors collapsing into the basement.

The radar and flight data back a passenger jet hit the pentagon.

The wreckage of a passenger jet inside and out side the pentagon.

The emergency responders accounts, coroner's accounts, the human remains, and DNA evidence backs the flight crew and passengers ended up dead in a passenger jet at the pentagon.

Individual accounts backed by physical data.

And you cannot prove the eyewitnesses are lying and you cannot prove the false narratives why the truth movement thinks the pentagon would be targeted by the pentagon?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

I don't have to prove any of that. I just have to have reasonable doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon. And I do.

But even if it did, it still doesn't mean Al Qaeda was behind it.

Prove to me the select witnesses who support your version of events are telling the truth and that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. The burden of proof is on you making the claims. The test is reasonable doubt.

I thought the allegations of this thread was eyewitness wrong about a passenger jet hitting the pentagon. The allegations of this thread was a missle used. The allegations of this thread, the USA conducted an overseas maritime theft of a Russian missile 3 foot in diameter, weighting 16,000 pounds?

a reply to: neutronflux

IOW, you cannot prove your case without relying on unvetted witnesses and data. And no jury has ever heard evidence of wreckage or human remains.

Your reliance on wreckage outside the Pentagon is absolutely laughable, too, btw.

You cannot overcome reasonable doubt...even after 16 years of having free reign to gather evidence and vet witnesses.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

I don't have to prove any of that. I just have to have reasonable doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon. And I do.

But even if it did, it still doesn't mean Al Qaeda was behind it.

Prove to me the select witnesses who support your version of events are telling the truth and that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. The burden of proof is on you making the claims. The test is reasonable doubt.

I thought the allegations of this thread was eyewitness wrong about a passenger jet hitting the pentagon. The allegations of this thread was a missle used. The allegations of this thread, the USA conducted an overseas maritime theft of a Russian missile 3 foot in diameter, weighting 16,000 pounds?

Correct. It's just another theory to cast reasonable doubt on the official story. I wasn't reading this thread expecting to find a thoroughly investigated, fleshed-out theory.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: neutronflux

IOW, you cannot prove your case without relying on unvetted witnesses and data. And no jury has ever heard evidence of wreckage or human remains.

Your reliance on wreckage outside the Pentagon is absolutely laughable, too, btw.

You cannot overcome reasonable doubt...even after 16 years of having free reign to gather evidence and vet witnesses.

Again, it's lawful to give any untruthful account?

So, you are back to eyewitnesses are lying. The burden of proof is on you.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

I don't have to prove any of that. I just have to have reasonable doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon. And I do.

But even if it did, it still doesn't mean Al Qaeda was behind it.

Prove to me the select witnesses who support your version of events are telling the truth and that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. The burden of proof is on you making the claims. The test is reasonable doubt.

I thought the allegations of this thread was eyewitness wrong about a passenger jet hitting the pentagon. The allegations of this thread was a missle used. The allegations of this thread, the USA conducted an overseas maritime theft of a Russian missile 3 foot in diameter, weighting 16,000 pounds?

Correct. It's just another theory to cast reasonable doubt on the official story. I wasn't reading this thread expecting to find a thoroughly investigated, fleshed-out theory.

What a joke. On what proof is there a missle used at the pentagon? Claiming somebody would go to the trouble of a maritime theft to steal a saltwater / explosion damage missile, repair the missile (with what parts?), and create a secret lunch platform in not reasonable. It's absurd. Especially when you cannot cite proof the damage at the pentagon was missle related in the first place.

You expose a narrative for what it is by proof and evidence. Not spitballing Hollywood fiction. You don't get to the truth by replacing individual accounts by pure speculation.

What allegations are you leveling against the individual accounts of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Correct. It's just another theory to cast reasonable doubt on the official story.

Try to take 'theory' into court without verifiable proof to back it up.
Just because you personally didn't see the plane hit doesn't mean it didn't.

This 911 conspiracy is getting a bit long in the tooth.
We are sliding into 16 years without verifiable proof that something other than the official story took place.
People who use the basis of, 'this or that point couldn't have happened because . . . ' are wrong.
That's like saying laced up boots cannot come off of feet during a crash.
But ask any cop who has been to a motorcycle crash and they will tell you that laced boots come off.

Just look at all the theories that have been thrown out there in 15 years.
One by one they have all fizzled because there has never been any proof.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Correct. It's just another theory to cast reasonable doubt on the official story.

Try to take 'theory' into court without verifiable proof to back it up.

What court? It's the official story that has to pass the 'reasonable doubt' test. I don't have to prove anything.

You do....and beyond a reasonable doubt.

Did the OJ defense have to prove that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence? No. They just presented the theory and it was enough for the jury to find reasonable doubt.

The burden of proof is on those prosecuting the official story.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The burden of proof is on you to discredit individual eyewitness accounts that a passenger jet hit the pentagon. Eyewitness accounts backed by the damage to the pentagon, the wreckage, the human remains, personal items, flight data, and radar data that a passenger jet hit the pentagon.

Like to cite how the damage at the pentagon was from a missle? If you cannot, then there is no reasonable doubt a passenger jet hit the pentagon.

Like to discredit the eyewitnesses that give an account a passenger jet hit the pentagon? If you cannot, then there is no reasonable doubt.

Like to discredit the real time radio account of an inflight pilot that identified a silver passenger jet and watched it crash into the pentagon. If you cannot, then there is no reasonable doubt.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Correct. It's just another theory to cast reasonable doubt on the official story.

Try to take 'theory' into court without verifiable proof to back it up.

What court? It's the official story that has to pass the 'reasonable doubt' test. I don't have to prove anything.

You do....and beyond a reasonable doubt.

Did the OJ defense have to prove that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence? No. They just presented the theory and it was enough for the jury to find reasonable doubt.

The burden of proof is on those prosecuting the official story.

They were making allegations of murder against OJ. The whole innocent until proven guilty thing?


You are alleging the eyewitness lied and at least were complicate in murder. Or right out part of a murder plot.

Those individuals you are saying were part of a murderous plot, fabricated evidence, and eyewitness accounts are also innocent until proven guilty.

The burden of proof is on you!

By the way, was Mark Fuhrman ever convicted of planting evidence against OJ? FYI, the Fuhrman thing was more about race!

originally posted by: neutronflux
The burden of proof is on you!

By the way, was Mark Fuhrman ever convicted of planting evidence against OJ? FYI, the Fuhrman thing was more about race!

Nope. Fuhrman was never on trial. He was simply an impeachable witness and the defense's 'alternative theory' was enough to create reasonable doubt.

So let's suppose that Al Qaeda was prosecuted in a court of law for the events of 9/11. Lloyde England is on the stand testifying about his eyewitness experience at the Pentagon. The defense puts forth an alternative theory that Al Qaeda was not behind 9/11...instead it was a powerful, wealthy cabal of people that included people within the federal government and at the highest levels.

Imagine Lloyde England responding to defense questioning:

“When people do things and get away with it, eventually it’s going to come to me. And when it comes to me, it’s going to be so big. So it had to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small, you see, to keep it from spreading."

“This is too big for me man. This is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening. I’m just a small man. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I’m not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff. Well, I'm not supposed to be involved with this, I don’t have nothing."

“People with money – this is their thing. This is for them.”

“History is ‘his story.’ It’s not the truth. It has nothing to do with the truth.”

...and then quickly turn into a hostile witness and refuse to answer further questions.

It would be a prosecutor's nightmare.

That, alone, would be enough to create reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury. And consider how many government/intelligence failures took place on 9/11, allowing the events to unfold unimpeded. A defense team could spend weeks on those alone to support their *alternative* theory...and never have to prove their theory.They just have to establish reasonable doubt.

I have reasons to doubt the veracity of other 9/11 witnesses, too...but I think I made my point. A defense team would only have to establish doubt about a witness' veracity. That's easily done using only the occupations/employers of many of them.

There is plenty of reasonable doubt about the official story. If it was prosecuted in a court of law, it would result in an acquittal, IMO. The number of 'Truthers' is a testament to that. A jury would never unanimously agree on a guilty verdict.

I have reasonable doubts and I don't have to *prove* them. I am the jury, not the prosecutor. Jurors don't have to *prove* their reasonable doubt.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are right out backwards!!!!!!!!

Reasonable doubt only works for allegations of crime. Is that wrong.

You are accusing eyewitnesses of false accounts and testimonies before commissions. You must prove them false.

The reasonable doubt in the case of the pentagon is the eyewitnesses are truthful and right. It is up you to prove the allegations you level at them of being inaccurate or lies.

Again, you are accusing individuals of murder and lying.

You provide no examples of how the eyewitness are wrong.

You provide no evidence that the wreckage at the pentagon wasn't from flight 77, how personal items from flight 77 ended up at the pentagon, how the crew and passengers ended up dead at the pentagon, nor have you discredited the flight data and radar data.

You don't understand reasonable at all. The only thing you provide is an absence of evidence for your allegations of false eyewitnesses, and speculation for the accounts given by eyewitnesses.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

In a nut shell.

In your narrative of allegations, or the fact there is no reason to doubt the eyewitnesses, reasonable doubt only applies to the eyewitnesses. The reasonable doubt is that there is no reason for the eyewitnesses to lie and the accounts are accurate to the best of the eyewitnesses' ability.

The burnen to prove your allegations of falsehoods is on you!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Unless you can go account by account, listing the falsehood of each person giving an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon, and how the eyewitness accounts don't coincide with the physical evidence, you have no argument! Just a sad and blind rant.

originally posted by: neutronflux
The reasonable doubt is that there is no reason for the eyewitnesses to lie and the accounts are accurate to the best of the eyewitnesses' ability.

You have absolutely no basis for making such a claim.

I'm not obligated to assume certain witnesses are honest and on-the-level because they support the OS.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sorry, the is more than reasonable doubt a missle hit the pentagon. As in zero evidence a missle hit the pentagon. So by your logic, the proof is on you to prove a missle hit the pentagon!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are right out backwards!!!!!!!!

Reasonable doubt only works for allegations of crime. Is that wrong.

You are accusing eyewitnesses of false accounts and testimonies before commissions. You must prove them false.

The reasonable doubt in the case of the pentagon is the eyewitnesses are truthful and right. It is up you to prove the allegations you level at them of being inaccurate or lies.

Again, you are accusing individuals of murder and lying.

You provide no examples of how the eyewitness are wrong.

You provide no evidence that the wreckage at the pentagon wasn't from flight 77, how personal items from flight 77 ended up at the pentagon, how the crew and passengers ended up dead at the pentagon, nor have you discredited the flight data and radar data.

You don't understand reasonable at all. The only thing you provide is an absence of evidence for your allegations of false eyewitnesses, and speculation for the accounts given by eyewitnesses.

Clearly, you don't understand how the criminal justice system works. I'm not prosecuting any case...you are: the Official Story. I am merely finding reasonable doubt in considering it.

The burden of proof is entirely on you. I have no idea if YOUR witnesses have a motivation to lie or not. I can only assume they might...and that amounts to reasonable doubt.

You haven't proven your case or that all the witnesses you really super-like are honest and forthcoming.

Convince me beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, they get the same treatment as anyone else who is a stranger to me personally: I have no reason to trust them.