FBI Publishes 9-11 Pentagon Attack Photos on 3-23-17... With Faces Blacked Out

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, I say that your "reasonable doubts" are based on falsehoods. My more than reasonable doubts are based on the reality that there is no way the US government could play something like this and carry it out. Too much ineptness.

Exactly. Too much movies and TV, they think the government or a sector of the government is super intelligent, all powerfull, can do anything. It's just not reality.

Strawman fallacy with a dash of speculation. And you guys claim to stick with 'facts.'

Ha.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, I say that your "reasonable doubts" are based on falsehoods. My more than reasonable doubts are based on the reality that there is no way the US government could play something like this and carry it out. Too much ineptness.

The federal government is not inept when it comes to corruption and covering up their crimes. Your opinion is also not evidence.

A coverup would require them to have pulled it off in the first place. They couldn't is his point, and mine. And they're not so good at coverups either. Watergate? They couldn't even cover up Clinton's secret server.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, I say that your "reasonable doubts" are based on falsehoods. My more than reasonable doubts are based on the reality that there is no way the US government could play something like this and carry it out. Too much ineptness.

Exactly. Too much movies and TV, they think the government or a sector of the government is super intelligent, all powerfull, can do anything. It's just not reality.

Strawman fallacy with a dash of speculation. And you guys claim to stick with 'facts.'

Ha.

The fact is your perception of how powerful the government is is inaccurate. There's no evidence for this super government. There's tons of evidence for them #ing things up. You know this. At this point you've got to just be trolling. Nobody is actually this blind.

a reply to: face23785

Some investigations turn out to be useful distractions and are very easily controlled. Sometimes there is motive to have a 'meh' investigation that drags on and on and never leads to any charges.

Regardless, your opinion about what you think the federal government could get away with is not 'fact.'

Again, moving on. I am not interested in reading your opinions.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, I say that your "reasonable doubts" are based on falsehoods. My more than reasonable doubts are based on the reality that there is no way the US government could play something like this and carry it out. Too much ineptness.

Exactly. Too much movies and TV, they think the government or a sector of the government is super intelligent, all powerfull, can do anything. It's just not reality.

Strawman fallacy with a dash of speculation. And you guys claim to stick with 'facts.'

Ha.

The fact is your perception of how powerful the government is is inaccurate. There's no evidence for this super government. There's tons of evidence for them #ing things up. You know this. At this point you've got to just be trolling. Nobody is actually this blind.

Who mentioned a 'super-government?' I didn't.

More strawman fallacies. More opinion. Now, some ad hominem attacking, too.

*yawn*

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are right, my opinion about my reasonable doubt is not evidence. The facts, however, are. And the facts are, 19 hijackers took over four airliners, flew them into three buildings, causing devastation and the deaths of almost 3,000 people.

I will always doubt the OS. There is not enough evidence in my mind to convince me otherwise. We are told and shown what they want us to know and see. Show me a good video of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Show me that.

I know people don't want to think our own government would do something so terrible, but they would & they have for centuries.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are right, my opinion about my reasonable doubt is not evidence. The facts, however, are. And the facts are, 19 hijackers took over four airliners, flew them into three buildings, causing devastation and the deaths of almost 3,000 people.

"...19 hijackers took over four airliners..."

Shame you cannot prove it's a fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Xtrozero

yes it is.this is the hole

you can clearly see from this one that the windows don't start until 10 or 15 feet mayber even 20 up from ground level.

That doesn't look like the red circled area... but I can see it now...seems to be cleaned up a little. This is an easy thing to see if we were there... like looking at a bullet hole though walls standing away on an angle, where if we looked in the bullet hole we would see all the holes...hehe



Looking at this one I can tell now that there should be brick 15 feet below the windows in the green area and there is not. That tells us that there is a roof there at window level and the hole would be ground zero underneath it. I bet right where the blue line is there is another hole...

a reply to: neutronflux

What was there to investigate? Though clueless a week earlier, the Bush administration knew by the end of the day, probably before lunch, exactly who did what to whom, as Osama to Uncle Sam.

They already knew the whole story, what's to investigate that surveillance cameras from hotels need to be instantly confiscated?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are right, my opinion about my reasonable doubt is not evidence. The facts, however, are. And the facts are, 19 hijackers took over four airliners, flew them into three buildings, causing devastation and the deaths of almost 3,000 people.

That's not a fact, that is the result of 15 years worth of repetition of a falsehood to the American people.

It is not a fact that 19 hijackers did this or that, it is a story, meant for public consumption. Some of us have gotten beyond the fact that we were deceived.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

They collapsed because of human intervention. They collapsed because of controlled demolition.

originally posted by: Salander

It is not a fact that 19 hijackers did this or that, it is a story, meant for public consumption. Some of us have gotten beyond the fact that we were deceived.

So there is no empirical evidence supporting any of this to suggest fact? You could debate all different ways in a cave why the sky is not blue, be totally convinced the sky is not blue, and then one day you walk outside and look...lol

What happened could not be faked past 99% of the official record. You and other armchair quarterbacks take all this to some kind of WAG assumption when in fact there is plane wreckage, planes missing, people missing, 1000s of eyewitness reports, accurate historical data of the 19 hijackers, missing people, aircraft, pictures/film and so on, and on, and on...

One day please go outside and look at the sky...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Salander

It is not a fact that 19 hijackers did this or that, it is a story, meant for public consumption. Some of us have gotten beyond the fact that we were deceived.

So there is no empirical evidence supporting any of this to suggest fact? You could debate all different ways in a cave why the sky is not blue, be totally convinced the sky is not blue, and then one day you walk outside and look...lol

What happened could not be faked past 99% of the official record. You and other armchair quarterbacks take all this to some kind of WAG assumption when in fact there is plane wreckage, planes missing, people missing, 1000s of eyewitness reports, accurate historical data of the 19 hijackers, missing people, aircraft, pictures/film and so on, and on, and on...

One day please go outside and look at the sky...

Do you have the data on your 99% figure? I'd like to know how you arrived at that number...unless you pulled it out of thin air, that is.

Also, quarterbacks have nothing to do with hearing and deliberating the evidence presented by those pushing the official story. Did you mean to say armchair jurors? Because virtually anyone can be a juror.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

Also, quarterbacks have nothing to do with hearing and deliberating the evidence presented by those pushing the official story. Did you mean to say armchair jurors? Because virtually anyone can be a juror.

The problem is you do not accept the evidence even when it is over whelming, there is no deliberating at all. As example...the aircraft wreckage at the pentagon is just easily explained away as...oh they planted it... You all create your own evidence as to what seems to fit your narrative.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

Also, quarterbacks have nothing to do with hearing and deliberating the evidence presented by those pushing the official story. Did you mean to say armchair jurors? Because virtually anyone can be a juror.

The problem is you do not accept the evidence even when it is over whelming, there is no deliberating at all. As example...the aircraft wreckage at the pentagon is just easily explained away as...oh they planted it... You all create your own evidence as to what seems to fit your narrative.

It's called 'reasonable doubt.' That is the test. The burden is on you to overcome it as someone attempting to prosecute the official story.

In re Winship (1970) establishes that the doctrine also applies to juvenile criminal proceedings, and indeed to all the essential facts necessary to prove the crime: "[W]e explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."

Link

You may find the evidence is overwhelming, but I do not believe "every fact necessary to constitute the crime " has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

It's called 'reasonable doubt.' That is the test. The burden is on you to overcome it as someone attempting to prosecute the official story.

The key word is "reasonable", people doubt just to doubt no matter what evidence is before them. There is no burden here...after 15 plus years the unofficial story is still smoke and mirrors never advancing past the hypothesis stage with zero related facts support it. And here we are nothing new...

a reply to: Xtrozero

There is no evidence to prove any of those hijackers boarded those particular airplanes. From Day One, the Boston Globe(?) reported conflicting information about exactly which gates were used to board the aircraft. Those who have gone over tower and ground control frequencies show UA175 callsign was used by 2 different airplanes, separated in time by about 15 minutes.

So if that story cannot be proved, why should I believe? That their names were eventually put on the passenger records
does not mean they walked through the door of that aircraft. I reject that story because there is so much more about the story that stinks too.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Three of the four airliners had communications which identified the seats the hijackers were in. Photos of hijackers were shown to the gate agents who closed out the airliners. These gate agents identified the photos as being the men they checked in......There is more evidence of the 19 hijackers than there is not. Your doubt, is unreasonable....and the type that let OJ go free.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Three of the four airliners had communications which identified the seats the hijackers were in. Photos of hijackers were shown to the gate agents who closed out the airliners. These gate agents identified the photos as being the men they checked in......There is more evidence of the 19 hijackers than there is not. Your doubt, is unreasonable....and the type that let OJ go free.

I hate that OJ was acquitted, but I also know that Mark Furhman had NO BUSINESS handling an investigation or evidence after he allowed himself to be recorded saying blatantly racist things. I don't hate the jury for having reasonable doubt. It was justified -- many were black. I hate Mark Fuhrman for compromising the evidence of that case and potentially many others.

Since the U.S. government is one of the possible 'suspects' (see the poll I posted earlier), then any investigation done by them is inherently tainted. There is inherent 'reasonable doubt.' And then there is other reason to doubt, too.

Sorry, but you cannot tell me the federal government is "inept," in one breath, and then tell me their investigation is above reasonable doubt, in the next. It's laughable.

Any conduct of a person indicating a consciousness of guilt, such as flight or concealment, is admissible evidence for whatever value the jury decides to give.

I give the concealment of a lot of evidence, from 9/11, a lot of weight considering the power and reach of the federal government. From the shipping away of the steel from the towers to the classified nature of all videos that may or may not shed light on the events of 9/11...it's up to me to give it some or no value.

I give it value.

I am allowed to draw my own conclusions based on the totality of the evidence I have been presented...or have not been presented.