The strangest Coincidence regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So you cannot provide anything to dispel there is more than reasonable doubt a missle hit the pentagon.

And you cannot prove eyewitnesses, who are innocent until proven guilty, conspired in any lies or falsehoods to further a murderous conspiracy?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So you cannot provide anything to dispel there is more than reasonable doubt a missle hit the pentagon.

And you cannot prove eyewitnesses, who are innocent until proven guilty, conspired in any lies or falsehoods to further a murderous conspiracy?

Well, given I have no authority to gather & examine evidence, question eyewitnesses, and do other critical investigative work...how the heII could I?

Still trying to shift the burden of proof on me -- someone you need to convince beyond a reasonable doubt.

The government has presented its one and only case...and they have even concealed evidence. They did not prove the official story beyond a reasonable doubt.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

In fact, where did I say the eyewitnesses were impeccable.

One, I am not the one accusing eyewitnesses of falsehoods, lies, nor conspiracy!

Two, I have said the eyewitness accounts are backed by evidence!

Three, accusing people that are innocent until proven guilty of falsehoods, lies, and conspiracy is not reasonable doubt.

Four, citing speculation and unfounded allegations of falsehoods is not responsible doubt in the face of eyewitness accounts backed by evidence.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Going to rant, or provide evidence of falsehoods by eyewitnesses consider innocent until proven guilty of falsehoods, lies, and murderous conspiracy?

a reply to: neutronflux

*eyeroll*

Prove your favorite witnesses are unimpeachable. It's your job to prove any various conflicts of interest are meaningless. Otherwise, I can only make a note of conflicts of interest that cast reasonable doubt.

Prove witnesses who worked at the Pentagon would never lie...witnesses that worked for Gannett would never lie...Lloyde England would never lie....etc...

You haven't and you cannot after 16 years of ignoring critical questions and pretending every witness that supported the OS was super-reliable.

One, please quote were I ever said the eyewitness were impeccable.

Two, why would I considered the eyewitness guilty of something in they were never found guilty of anything. Especially when you make allegations against innocent eyewitness (in that they are innocent until proven guilty of falsehoods, lies, conspiracy) because you say so? In fact, don't the individuals have a right to know you claim their accounts false?


You got evidence why I should believe your biased views of speculation over eyewitness accounts backed by evidence!

a reply to: neutronflux

How about YOU tell me the names of the 19 hijackers that were responsible for the events of 9/11.

Is that too much to ask? I mean if you think you have the kind of solid evidence that rises above reasonable doubt, surely you can tell me their names and provide evidence that they fit the profile of Islamic extremist terrorists, at the very least.

You can't.

Nope.

ETA: You think a jury would convict unknown suspects? Please.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

One, this is a thread about a missile used on the pentagon. (And I have read numerous articles and threads naming terrorists implicated in the 9/11 attacks. Their ability to fly, who went to pilot lessons, the simulators found at their homes, what passports were found, their last minute check ins, radio communications, etc.....)

So? I guess all the accounts of the men that flew flight 77 and their ability as pilots was wrong?

Not going to list them like I can spell thier names without looking them up. And I would conduct further studies on them if this thread was about the hijackers. So, nice lame attempt to break the thread!

Two, you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt the eyewitnesses that are innocent until proven guilty are guilty of falsehoods, lies, and conspiracy. People that have the right to face their accusers that their accounts are falsehoods, lies, and part of a murderous conspiracy.

In fact, to say the eyewitnesses are not truthful or credible without proof is slander? What proof have you cited I should not believe the eyewitness accounts?

Three, there is more than reasonable doubt a missle was used at the pentagon. As in zero evidence.

Like to cite why I should believe your biased views and speculations over accounts of eyewitnesses backed by evidence.

Like to cite why your argument is so weak on the stance of this thread that you thought to try to derail the thread with something off topic?

a reply to: neutronflux

One, this is a thread about a missile used on the pentagon. (And I have read numerous articles and threads naming terrorists implicated in the 9/11 attacks. Their ability to fly, who went to pilot lessons, the simulators found at their homes, what passports were found, their last minute check ins, radio communications, etc.....)

All while using stolen identities, that was confirmed by the head of the FBI Robert Muller.

I believe the information you are regurgitating came from fake News, all hearsay and what certainly looks like planted evidence, especially the nonsense the FBI said they found in some rental cars claiming they where the hijackers.

How on earth could a book and maps found in some rental car prove who the real identities of the alleged hijackers, when it was a well know fact that all the hijackers were using stolen identities?

Seriously who were the FBI matching the alleged DNA to?

You told me many times that eyewitness accounts are not credibal. You do not get to cherry pick what eyewitness you can pick, and then tell everyone else your witness are not credible, that is not how one is to debate.

Since you made the claim repeatedly to me, let's leave out "all eyewitness" and let's see what there is left?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

In a nutshell, after asking for proof over and over again of individual eyewitnesses falsehoods.

I believe the eyewitness accounts that a silver passenger jet hit the pentagon. If you cannot cite how the eyewitness accounts are not honest, not given to the best of an individual's ability, and wrong in their observation of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon, then you are on the edge of slander to promote your biased view.

I believe the eyewitnesses, you are at the least are implying were incompetent with no proof, had no desire to witness a passenger jet killing hundreds. (Implying is not proof or reasonable doubt!). People that have not used 9/11 for notoriety, started a YouTube channel, nor created a conspiracy website. Then for you to not cite how their accounts are not accurate, not competent, a lie, or part of a murderous conspiracy.........

Not a very honest or academic debate to claim it's all falsehoods and lies with no honest effort to provide evidence of individual's misconduct?

originally posted by: neutronflux

Not a very honest or academic debate to claim it's all falsehoods and lies with no honest effort to provide evidence of individual's misconduct?

If you could grasp the concept of reasonable doubt you would get that you failed to prove your case. I am not stating any case. I am stating my reasonable doubts about yours. The burden of proof is on you.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

One, this is a thread about a missile used on the pentagon. (And I have read numerous articles and threads naming terrorists implicated in the 9/11 attacks. Their ability to fly, who went to pilot lessons, the simulators found at their homes, what passports were found, their last minute check ins, radio communications, etc.....)

All while using stolen identities, that was confirmed by the head of the FBI Robert Muller.

I believe the information you are regurgitating came from fake News, all hearsay and what certainly looks like planted evidence, especially the nonsense the FBI said they found in some rental cars claiming they where the hijackers.

How on earth could a book and maps found in some rental car prove who the real identities of the alleged hijackers, when it was a well know fact that all the hijackers were using stolen identities?

Seriously who were the FBI matching the alleged DNA to?

You told me many times that eyewitness accounts are not credibal. You do not get to cherry pick what eyewitness you can pick, and then tell everyone else your witness are not credible, that is not how one is to debate.

Since you made the claim repeatedly to me, let's leave out "all eyewitness" and let's see what there is left?

Exactly. The official story would fall apart in court. They couldn't present any evidence identifying many of the hijackers. How could a jury find *unknown persons* guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? They couldn't.

Also, that is very interesting neutron has claimed eyewitness accounts aren't credible/reliable....he expects me to believe they are credible (at least his favorites) unless proven otherwise. Figures he is a giant hypocrite about that.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The numerous eyewitnesses that witnessed a passenger jet hit the pentagon are discredited how?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Quote from my post were I ever said eyewitnesses are unreliable. I think the quote is eyewitness accounts not backed by physical data have no context. If I disagree with an account, I cite sources, evidence, and facts to support my argument.


So, start listing how the numerous eyewitness accounts( backed by evidence, recorded data, and inflight radio communications) that witnessesed a passenger jet hit the pentagon are discredited.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Quote from my post were I ever said eyewitnesses are unreliable. I think the quote is eyewitness accounts not backed by physical data have no context. If I disagree with an account, I cite sources, evidence, and facts to support my argument.


So, start listing how the numerous eyewitness accounts( backed by evidence, recorded data, and inflight radio communications) that witnessesed a passenger jet hit the pentagon are discredited.

They've never been established to be credible to begin with.

Contrast that with Lloyde England's responses to questioning by CIT. When confronted with discrepancies in his statements and probative questioning...his answers gave way to reasonable doubt about his official eyewitness account at the Pentagon.

I'd need to hear similar questioning of witnesses to decide if they are credible.

Reasonable questions and demands for evidence and more information have gone unmet by the federal government. They either can't prove their case or they don't want to...either way, they haven't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt and if they could...I have to assume they would have by now.

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't know if you have ever read the transcripts of the notorious cell phone calls, but I have. And they are interesting to say the least.

It's almost like reading lines from a stage play, especially if you happen to be an airline stewardess. The language and phrases are odd.

It doesn't sound like she just witnessed the cockpit crew having their throats slit, ya know? She was totally composed and using odd language. Play acting, for the story. And maybe some of them got paid to play along.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Quote from my post were I ever said eyewitnesses are unreliable.

I took Informer1958's eyewitness account as credible on that. I've seen enough of his posts to feel he is credible when he said:

You told me many times that eyewitness accounts are not credibal. You do not get to cherry pick what eyewitness you can pick, and then tell everyone else your witness are not credible, that is not how one is to debate.

Since you made the claim repeatedly to me, let's leave out "all eyewitness" and let's see what there is left?

And, I assume you feel he is credible, too, since you are trying to convince me that I should believe all eyewitnesses are credible.

Or maybe you have discredited him in the past. If that's the case, wouldn't you agree it's not wise to just assume eyewitness accounts are always credible without knowing more about the witness?

a reply to: Salander

...Or were told they were part of one of the various military training exercises that morning. I have considered that, myself.

No evidence to prove that theory, of course, but it just adds to reasonable doubt about the official story.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Your other list.

1) Please quote from my post where I said the pentagon eyewitnesses were impeccable. I have presented the premise the eyewitness accounts coincide with physical and recorded data. (Let's define impeccable as the accounts being honest and given to the best of the witnesses abilities. If you are raising allegations of their mentally abitily or honesty without cited proof, that is character assignation. For a lack of better statement, don't they have the right to know if you are calling them out in a legal sense?)

2) Please quote from my posts where I have stated eyewitness accounts are unreliable. I have stated eyewitness accounts not backed by physical evidence have no context. (I have asked this of the other person, please show we're they found the statement they are referring to.) When I see disagreement between witness statements, physical evidence, recovered data, and other accounts, I provide cited sources and facts.

4) Please stay on topic. This thread is about a missile used at the pentagon.

So, that is like 3 counts of boarder line intellectual dishonesty and attempts to derail this thread off topic.

5) Provide evidence and facts of the scores of individual eyewitness, backed by data and physical evidence, that you are using to discredit their witnessing of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Your other list.

1) Please quote from my post where I said the pentagon eyewitnesses were impeccable.

Let's just start with this...

Do you mean 'unimpeachable?" Because I think you are swapping my words 'impeachable'/'unimpeachable' with 'impeccable.' And that makes a real difference.

I cannot know whether a witness is unimpeachable unless they were questioned under penalty of perjury about the events they claimed to witness and any other possible relevant information that could cast more light on their statements.

"Did anyone ask you to lie?"

I'd like to at least have the answer to that question before I am willing to believe any eyewitness is credible.