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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
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.