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: 56
273
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

2) Please quote from my posts where I have stated eyewitness accounts are unreliable.


See this comment here for my response: Link

Also, plenty of evidence does not neatly fit with the official story, alone. Alternative conclusions are plausible given the scope of the various alternative theories. It's unreasonable to expect the public to rely purely on unvetted witness statements in drawing any conclusions about what the evidence, from 9/11, means.




posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.


Please learn that number 3 goes between numbers 2 & 4.
edit on 22-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Can you even prove who asked who to lie?

Can you use facts and evidence to outline your allegations, or you just going to make allegations of lies with no proof. More blind character assignation without giving them a chance for defense? You don't have the right to claim anyone is lying unless you can substantiate with facts.

The burden of proof to prove lies is on you!

Replacing speculation for eyewitness accounts backed by evidence is not responsible doubt.

Please provide the two requested quotes of the statements you alleged I have made.

Please provide evidence and proof that discredit the eyewitness that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

The burden of proof is on me? Funny I can list evidence and eyewitness counts that shows a passenger jet hit the pentagon.

What have you provided in the pursuit of honest debate?



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Can you even prove who asked who to lie?

Can you use facts and evidence to outline your allegations, or you just going to make allegations of lies with no proof. More blind character assignation without giving them a chance for defense? You don't have the right to claim anyone is lying unless you can substantiate with facts.

The burden of proof to prove lies is on you!

Replacing speculation for eyewitness accounts backed by evidence is not responsible doubt.

Please provide the two requested quotes of the statements you alleged I have made.

Please provide evidence and proof that discredit the eyewitness that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

The burden of proof is on me? Funny I can list evidence and eyewitness counts that shows a passenger jet hit the pentagon.

What have you provided in the pursuit of honest debate?


Take a deep breath and HEAR ME: I am not claiming to have proof of anything. I am claiming to have reasonable doubt. Alternative theories, like the topic of this thread, simply add to that reasonable doubt. It's not as if the federal government is disputing the alternative theories...AND IT'S THEIR CASE TO PROVE. No one disputing the official story has the benefit of a formal investigation into their claims...they are simply casting reasonable doubt on the official story.

That's how it works if you want to close the door and *prosecute* this case in the court of public opinion. No one except those supporting the official story has to prove jack squat. They simply have to present an alternative theory that meets the level of 'reasonable doubt.'

You've clearly spent too many years demanding 'truthers' prove a case they have no burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. They just need to cast reasonable doubt on YOUR case...the official story.

Blame the federal government for failing to prove their case.


edit on 22-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.


I am not even sure what you are asking for on this one.



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then you need to discredit all the individual eyewitness accounts backed by evidence that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

If you are alleging those accounts given by individuals in good faith are deficient in some way, then the burden to prove those allegations is on you!

What proof have you provided that discredit individuals witnessing a passenger jet hitting then pentagon?



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then you need to discredit all the individual eyewitness accounts backed by evidence that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

If you are alleging those accounts given by individuals in good faith are deficient in some way, then the burden to prove those allegations is on you!

What proof have you provided that discredit individuals witnessing a passenger jet hitting then pentagon?


No, I don't. I have no authority to question/cross-examine any of them under oath or penalty of perjury.

Dream on.

I am merely weighing the known evidence and witness statements that have been presented to the public. And there is reasonable doubt as to the credibility of witnesses who have never had their accounts & motives challenged.



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then you need to discredit all the individual eyewitness accounts backed by evidence that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

If you are alleging those accounts given by individuals in good faith are deficient in some way, then the burden to prove those allegations is on you!

What proof have you provided that discredit individuals witnessing a passenger jet hitting then pentagon?


No, I don't. I have no authority to question/cross-examine any of them under oath or penalty of perjury.

Dream on.

I am merely weighing the known evidence and witness statements that have been presented to the public. And there is reasonable doubt as to the credibility of witnesses who have never had their accounts & motives challenged.



You can challenge them in a civil suit right now?

So, then state how there is reasonable doubt raised by the accounts of individuals who witnessesed a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

If you cannot cite proof to discredit the scores of eyewitnesses that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon, you don't have a case.
edit on 22-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that.



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Something did damage at the pentagon. To raise reasonable doubt, you need to present a credible argument that is more compelling than a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

Here is a chance to pen your theory and back it with facts and arguments?



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

In fact, in your context there is responsible doubt eyewitnesses witnessed a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

In the context of most American's don't trust " the official narrative"

In the context the public won their court case against the EPA in their botched reporting on the toxicity of WTC dust.

It should be easy to start a go fund me page in the goal of starting a 9/11 pentagon civil suit fund, and discredit all those eyewitnesses who give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then you need to discredit all the individual eyewitness accounts backed by evidence that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

If you are alleging those accounts given by individuals in good faith are deficient in some way, then the burden to prove those allegations is on you!

What proof have you provided that discredit individuals witnessing a passenger jet hitting then pentagon?


No, I don't. I have no authority to question/cross-examine any of them under oath or penalty of perjury.

Dream on.

I am merely weighing the known evidence and witness statements that have been presented to the public. And there is reasonable doubt as to the credibility of witnesses who have never had their accounts & motives challenged.



You can challenge them in a civil suit right now?




Ha, ha...on what grounds could I challenge them in a civil suit? What legal injuries have I sustained that others haven't? What is my 'standing' to challenge them?

You really don't understand the justice system.

Even if I could challenge them in court (which I cannot), who has the resources to do such a thing?

All I can do is weigh the evidence the federal government has been willing to share against the evidence that ordinary folks have dug up and decide if the federal government has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. They haven't.



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then you need to discredit all the individual eyewitness accounts backed by evidence that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon.

If you are alleging those accounts given by individuals in good faith are deficient in some way, then the burden to prove those allegations is on you!

What proof have you provided that discredit individuals witnessing a passenger jet hitting then pentagon?


No, I don't. I have no authority to question/cross-examine any of them under oath or penalty of perjury.

Dream on.

I am merely weighing the known evidence and witness statements that have been presented to the public. And there is reasonable doubt as to the credibility of witnesses who have never had their accounts & motives challenged.



You can challenge them in a civil suit right now?




Ha, ha...on what grounds could I challenge them in a civil suit? What legal injuries have I sustained that others haven't? What is my 'standing' to challenge them?

You really don't understand the justice system.

Even if I could challenge them in court (which I cannot), who has the resources to do such a thing?

All I can do is weigh the evidence the federal government has been willing to share against the evidence that ordinary folks have dug up and decide if the federal government has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. They haven't.


Then what case do you have to discredit eyewitness accounts, backed by evidence and recorded data, that are credible in their account of a passenger jet and gives rise to reasonable doubt.

Make your case using facts to supersede the fact a passenger jet hit the pentagon. Or even list facts that support this threads opening premise?
edit on 22-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed passenger to pentagon



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

list specific reasons why you cannot pursue a civil case if there is reasonable doubt in the commission's conclusions?



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
Make your case using facts to supersede the fact a passenger jet hit the pentagon. Or even list facts that support this threads opening premise?


I have stated, again and again, that I am not making a case. I am deliberating YOURS...the official story...and I find all kinds of reasonable doubt. If the federal government was willing to present all the available evidence to lay all reasonable doubt to rest, they should do so. (For example, there is speculated to be 86 possible security videos of the Pentagon attack. Let's see them...even if the cameras didn't catch anything. Lay the speculation to rest. If the cameras, in question, weren't directed at the impact site, then why wouldn't they be made public? If they were, then why wouldn't they be made public?)

As it stands the federal government can't even tell me who the 19 hijackers were so how on earth I can review evidence about them and declare their guilt?



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

list specific reasons why you cannot pursue a civil case if there is reasonable doubt in the commission's conclusions?



Because I cannot find any tort, statute, or law that says I have the standing to file a civil claim against someone because I am not satisfied they are a credible witness in a criminal case that has nothing to do with me in particular.

ETA: Even jurors don't have standing to file suit against witnesses that they want questioned further.

edit on 22-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The topic of this thread is what crashed into the pentagon!!!!

Here is my list why a passenger jet hit the pentagon and not a missile. Again.

Care to rebuttal with a logical argument how the damage at the pentagon was not from a passenger jet.

For you to supersede the damage at the pentagon was from a crashed passenger jet, you needed a more credible theory to cast reasonable doubt!

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, 23 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Hear say, hear say, hear say, she said this, he said that, yet no physical evidence is available to support the OS.

The government only has to lie to me once, why should I believe in anything they have to tell me? Using fake mainstream media is what gave us most of the os narratives, now they all been proven liars.

Most Americans scoff at the OS of 911, I been reading thousands of comments all over the internet for many years, very few believe in the OS of 911.

In fact, I did a poll many years ago on ATS, and most ATSer's did not believe in the OS hands down.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Consensus means little.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

Hear say, hear say, hear say, she said this, he said that, yet no physical evidence is available to support the OS.

The government only has to lie to me once, why should I believe in anything they have to tell me? Using fake mainstream media is what gave us most of the os narratives, now they all been proven liars.

Most Americans scoff at the OS of 911, I been reading thousands of comments all over the internet for many years, very few believe in the OS of 911.

In fact, I did a poll many years ago on ATS, and most ATSer's did not believe in the OS hands down.


The topic of the thread is a missile used at the pentagon.

Like to quote what eyewitness accounts I said were unreliable. I think my statements were eyewitness accounts with no physical evidence have no context. I kindly ask that when you post about me to reply to other posting individuals, you use quotes. Not implied speculation.

It's also a true statement most American's don't trust the truth movement too.

Lastly. Are you making allegations the individual's that witnessed and give accounts a passenger jet hitting the pentagon are deficient, lying, or part of a conspiracy.

If you are making a case of eyewitness accounts not coinciding with other accounts, not with physical evidence, nor with data, then outline a factual and logical argument.

If you are accusing the eyewitnesses that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon are lying, then those individuals have a right to know you are calling them out. Saying they are lying, or part of a conspiracy with no evidence, is pushing into the territory of slander.

edit on 23-3-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


It's also a true statement most American's don't trust the truth movement too.


False.

Your "opinion".

I have never read anywhere of any poll done against the 911 Truth movement. Care to show such a poll?


If you are accusing the eyewitnesses that give an account of a passenger jet hitting the pentagon are lying, then those individuals have a right to know you are calling them out. Saying they are lying, or part of a conspiracy with no evidence, is pushing into the territory of slander.


That door swings both ways here, you care to call out those eyewitness that do not support the OS of the Pentagon? I know for a fact there was over hundreds of eyewitness accounts who went on the written record about the WTC that were suppressed and hidden by the FBI, because what they witnessed did not support the OS narratives of the WTC demize.

The fact is the NYT sued the NY government for the release of those testimonies. That said there are different credible eyewitness about the Pentagon attacks that do not support the OS narratives of the Pentagon attacks as well. Because you have demonstrated by cherry picking eyewitness accounts that only support the OS narratives, could it be that you are also demonstrating a conspiracy with no evidence by pushing into the territory of slander? See how that works.
edit on 23-3-2017 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
273
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join