It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

page: 54
292
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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.


If you cannot discredit the numerous accounts of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon, then why wouldn't I believe eyewitness accounts backed by evidence vs your biased speculation?
edit on 21-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that

edit on 21-3-2017 by neutronflux because: More stupid typis




posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
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!


I don't have to prove a missile hit the Pentagon. I only have to decide if there is reasonable doubt that AA77 hit it. IMO, there is.

I have no idea what hit the Pentagon based on the evidence I've seen.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What allegations of crime am I making?

So if the burden of proof is on me? Then you are not making any allegations and then it stands a passenger jet hit the pentagon.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What allegations of crime am I making?

So if the burden of proof is on me? Then you are not making any allegations and then it stands a passenger jet hit the pentagon.


D'uh...you are alleging the official story: 19 hijackers carried out the events of 9/11 because, as Muslim extremists, they hate our freedom.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
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!


I don't have to prove a missile hit the Pentagon. I only have to decide if there is reasonable doubt that AA77 hit it. IMO, there is.

I have no idea what hit the Pentagon based on the evidence I've seen.


What. There is more than reasonable doubt a missle hit the pentagon. As in no evidence a missle hit the pentagon. The burden of proof to prove it wasn't a passenger as given by eyewitnesses and evidence is on you.

You can start building a credible case by citing what hit the pentagon!



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So if the burden of proof is on me? Then you are not making any allegations and then it stands a passenger jet hit the pentagon.



I am not making any specific allegations. There's been no official investigation into some of the alternative theories that I find plausible.

And, no...AA77 hitting the Pentagon has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There are alternative theories that cast reasonable doubt on the official story.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
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!


I don't have to prove a missile hit the Pentagon. I only have to decide if there is reasonable doubt that AA77 hit it. IMO, there is.

I have no idea what hit the Pentagon based on the evidence I've seen.


What. There is more than reasonable doubt a missle hit the pentagon.



And if the government tried to push the theory that a missile hit the Pentagon, you might have a relevant point.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Start listing CREDIBLE items that caused the damage at the pentagon.

There is no reasonable doubt a passenger jet hit the pentagon, no reasonable doubt the eyewitnesses gave anything other than truthful and accurate accounts in that a passenger jet hit the pentagon, and no reasonable doubt that the evidence does anything than back eyewitness accounts.

Start citing why the above is wrong with facts, not speculation.

Speculation in the face of eyewitness accounts is not reasonable doubt. So start your parade of evidence and facts!

That's the trouble! You don't understand speculation is not evidence!

Again, you are making the allegations of conspiracy among eyewitnesses. The burden to prove your allegations of crimes is on you!
edit on 21-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

When there is an investigation into other theories -- including the examination of evidence and witnesses -- perhaps, I will have enough facts to declare what I think hit the Pentagon.

Until then, I only have reasonable doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon because the official story has never been proven beyond that.
edit on 21-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
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!


I don't have to prove a missile hit the Pentagon. I only have to decide if there is reasonable doubt that AA77 hit it. IMO, there is.

I have no idea what hit the Pentagon based on the evidence I've seen.


What. There is more than reasonable doubt a missle hit the pentagon.



And if the government tried to push the theory that a missile hit the Pentagon, you might have a relevant point.


This is a thread about a missile used at the pentagon. If you don't think it was a missile, then how does the missile theory provide reasonable doubt?
edit on 21-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Whole commissions on 9/11? Is that wrong?

Start citing evidence on what other than a passenger jet crashing into the pentagon happened at the pentagon.

Again, citing speculation in the face of eyewitness accounts backed by evidence is not reasonable doubt.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Reasonable doubt why the damage at the pentagon was not from a missile or planted explosives.

An 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 jet which spanned at least four to five rows of windows along the outer wall of the pentagon. 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.

Cite from what is listed as being inaccurate and proves something other than a passenger jet hit the pentagon?




edit on 21-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
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!


I don't have to prove a missile hit the Pentagon. I only have to decide if there is reasonable doubt that AA77 hit it. IMO, there is.

I have no idea what hit the Pentagon based on the evidence I've seen.


What. There is more than reasonable doubt a missle hit the pentagon.



And if the government tried to push the theory that a missile hit the Pentagon, you might have a relevant point.


This is a thread about a missile used at the pentagon. If you don't think it was a missile, then how does the missile theory provide reasonable doubt?


How does it not? The hole in the Pentagon was very small. Too small for a 757, according to some experts. More in keeping with a missile, according to some experts.

Hence...reasonable doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Whole commissions on 9/11? Is that wrong?

Start citing evidence on what other than a passenger jet crashing into the pentagon happened at the pentagon.

Again, citing speculation in the face of eyewitness accounts backed by evidence is not reasonable doubt.


Your evidence and eyewitness accounts are not unimpeachable. And you have had 16 years to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. There has been a concealment of evidence, and that does nothing to prove your case.

If the alternative theory that people in the highest levels of government were behind 9/11, then evidence and conclusions that came from the 9/11 commission and any official investigation are inherently flawed and not above reasonable doubt.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then I dare you to find a photo of the entrance hole made by flight 77 on the outside of the pentagon before the outer ring segment collapsed, count the remaining windows above, provide a link to what you find, and tell me how a 3 foot diameter missile punched out the large upsidedown T shaped hole.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then I dare you to find a photo of the entrance hole made by flight 77 on the outside of the pentagon before the outer ring segment collapsed, count the remaining windows above, provide a link to what you find, and tell me how a 3 foot diameter missile punched out the large upsidedown T shaped hole.


I know you would really love to shift the burden of proof on me...the juror.

I bet every prosecutor would love if the jury had to prove all their reasonable doubts beyond a reasonable doubt...without any resources to investigate and no opportunity to investigate.

But the burden of proof is entirely yours.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This is what I found on the other hole.



www.popularmechanics.com...

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You know perfectly well that for every expert you trot out to support the official story, there is another expert that disputes it. It's endless.

At some point, you have to deliberate the evidence, witness statements, and expert opinions and come up with a verdict. I find the official story is chock full of reasonable doubt.


edit on 21-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then I dare you to find a photo of the entrance hole made by flight 77 on the outside of the pentagon before the outer ring segment collapsed, count the remaining windows above, provide a link to what you find, and tell me how a 3 foot diameter missile punched out the large upsidedown T shaped hole.


I know you would really love to shift the burden of proof on me...the juror.

I bet every prosecutor would love if the jury had to prove all their reasonable doubts beyond a reasonable doubt...without any resources to investigate and no opportunity to investigate.

But the burden of proof is entirely yours.



What to rant or prove your allegations of conspiracy, lies, and murder? Allegations you are making against local eyewitnesses, local first responders, local reporters, the local coroner's department, and families that buried remains who are considered innocent of falsehoods, lies, and conspiracy of murder to proven otherwise. Individuals who are innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt of crimes?


Funny I answer questions, cite sources, and list facts. Here is your list.....

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Reasonable doubt why the damage at the pentagon was not from a missile or planted explosives.

An 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 jet which spanned at least four to five rows of windows along the outer wall of the pentagon. 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.

Cite from what is listed as being inaccurate and proves something other than a passenger jet hit the pentagon.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Oh, good lord. These topics have been answered to by 'truthers,' for years. I have no interest in rehashing any of it.

I've heard the official story and many alternative theories. I have reasonable doubts about the official story.

Sorry it bugs you so much. You are not going to bring any new info to light rehashing this stuff after 16 years. You didn't prove your case to me and millions of other people.



edit on 21-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
292
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join