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.

 

Where were those 'puddles of jet fuel' at Shanksville?

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You have seen all the photos I have seen of the crash sites. That is currently what is in the public domain. If you don't think they are sufficient then that is your burden. Find better.


If you are going to state that they are photos of the crash site then they should also have the proper sources to prove it.


Witness testimony is not always supported by crime scene photos, and now that you mention it, there was a trial, some photos were entered into evidence and now are in the public domain, the suspect was found guilty and sentenced.


Do you really think he was not going to be found guilty even without the so called evidence?

If the evidence at this trail was so good why does the FBI and DOJ both state thier is not enough evidence to charge OBL with being beind 9/11?



[edit on 3-1-2010 by REMISNE]


Admitted into evidence in a court of law without objection.




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Admitted into evidence in a court of law without objection.


But still was not good enough to charge OBL with being behind 9/11.

If that evindece was brought to court to support the officail story it would torn apart by any half decent lawyer.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Admitted into evidence in a court of law without objection.


But still was not good enough to charge OBL with being behind 9/11.

If that evindece was brought to court to support the officail story it would torn apart by any half decent lawyer.



So that is your best retort? Even though the photos were entered into evidence in a federal court of law, in a capital criminal case and all that entails with regard to chain of custody, etc. You think that would have been all rendered moot had there been a decent defense attorney in the room? So exactly how would you have proceeded when the photos were entered into evidence? How would you have challenged them?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You think that would have been all rendered moot had there been a decent defense attorney in the room?


No i am saying it might have been just good enough in that case but it would not hold up in a new case, since it was not good enough to charge OBL.



[edit on 3-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You think that would have been all rendered moot had there been a decent defense attorney in the room?


No i am saying it might have been just good enough in that case but it would not hold up in a new case, since it was not good enough to charge OBL.



[edit on 3-1-2010 by REMISNE]


Am I missing some bit of news? Was there a legal decision somewhere that cleared OBL?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Am I missing some bit of news? Was there a legal decision somewhere that cleared OBL?


The FBI and DOJ both have stated thier is not enough evidence to charge OBL with being behind 9/11.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


So then cased closed, huh? OBL is as innocent as a new born babe. They are publically maintain that position, right? They have no legal interest in OBL with regard to 9/11. Must have missed that one on the evening news.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Must have missed that one on the evening news.


So you only go by what you see on the news?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Must have missed that one on the evening news.


So you only go by what you see on the news?



Pretty much, unless the FBI, NSA, FAA, NTSB, Congress, the DOJ, the DOS decide to start briefing me personally.

On another note - does not having any direct evidence implicating OBL therefore mean then that 9/11 was an "inside job"?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Pretty much, unless the FBI, NSA, FAA, NTSB, Congress, the DOJ, the DOS decide to start briefing me personally.


So you are not interested in looking for the truth?


On another note - does not having any direct evidence implicating OBL therefore mean then that 9/11 was an "inside job"?


No, just means that we went to war over someone who cannot be charged.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


So you are not interested in looking for the truth?


Are you telling me that you can never find the truth in the press?


No, just means that we went to war over someone who cannot be charged.


Cannot or just have not yet?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Are you telling me that you can never find the truth in the press?


Not all the time no.


Cannot or just have not yet?


According to FBI and DOJ, cannot.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


So according to you, the FBI and DOJ have uniquivocally and recently stated, in no uncertain terms, that OBL is of no interest to them with regard to 9/11?

You absoulelty sure about that?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

ROTFLMAO!

I've said this before in 9-11 posts and I'll say it again. NOBODY ON ATS HAS ANY EVIDENCE CONCERNING 9-11. We have theories, conjecture and fantasy, but no evidence that can be taken into a Court of Law. The information that we have has been folded, spindled and mutilated. The media is under no obligation to inform us, their objective is to get us to watch or listen to their broadcasts or to buy their newspapers, magazines or books. It is almost impossible to find raw information on the internet. Everything has been edited, taken out of it's original context or fabricated.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by hooper
 

ROTFLMAO!

I've said this before in 9-11 posts and I'll say it again. NOBODY ON ATS HAS ANY EVIDENCE CONCERNING 9-11. We have theories, conjecture and fantasy, but no evidence that can be taken into a Court of Law. The information that we have has been folded, spindled and mutilated. The media is under no obligation to inform us, their objective is to get us to watch or listen to their broadcasts or to buy their newspapers, magazines or books. It is almost impossible to find raw information on the internet. Everything has been edited, taken out of it's original context or fabricated.



Theory is exactly what you see in a Court of Law. One side is obligated to present a theory and then show facts that evidence that theory. The other side has no such obligation, however, they often offer a counter theory and may or may not submit their own set of facts to evidence their counter theory.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So according to you, the FBI and DOJ have uniquivocally and recently stated, in no uncertain terms, that OBL is of no interest to them with regard to 9/11?

You absoulelty sure about that?


NO thats not waht i stated. I stated the FBI and DOJ stated their is not enoguh evidence to charge him with being behind 9/11.

I stated nothing about being of no interest, please do not put words in my mouth.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Theory is exactly what you see in a Court of Law. One side is obligated to present a theory and then show facts that evidence that theory. The other side has no such obligation, however, they often offer a counter theory and may or may not submit their own set of facts to evidence their counter theory.


How come the people that believe the official story think they do not have to show evidence but demand evidence from anyone who does not agree with them?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 

because the majority of people who have fallen for the OS reside in a world where when things are handed to them, they readily accept. Without question, investigation or scruitny.

Now that many OS'ers have had their pedestal pulled out from under them, they are just a bit nervous because they do not want to consider that their world is indeed, not perfect and wrapped up in a tidy bow.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
because the majority of people who have fallen for the OS reside in a world where when things are handed to them, they readily accept. Without question, investigation or scruitny.


Yes they seem to live in thier own little, safe fantasy world.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Theory is exactly what you see in a Court of Law. One side is obligated to present a theory and then show facts that evidence that theory. The other side has no such obligation, however, they often offer a counter theory and may or may not submit their own set of facts to evidence their counter theory.


How come the people that believe the official story think they do not have to show evidence but demand evidence from anyone who does not agree with them?



Sorry, sufficient facts have been presented to prove that Flight 93 crashed, killing all aboard in field of an old strip mine not far from Shanksville in southwestern, Pa. The idea that YOU personally are not allowed to exam the physical remains does not, in the least bit, detract from that reality.

When you make statements that are extraordinary and not in the public domain of knowledge you may, from time to time, be asked to substantiate your claims.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join