"Flight 93" Eyewitnesses Prove No Boeing 757 Crashed In Shanksville on 911.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Barely enough????


Well it was not good enough to charge OBL was it ?




posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Really? When did he stand trial?



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Really? When did he stand trial?


Well both the FBI and DOJ have stated that there is not enough evidence to charge OBL with 9/11.

So the evidence for trial was not that good.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Anyway...you asked for evidence that would hold up in a court. You got it. I can't wait to see how the goal posts get moved.


LMFAO... Roger, you asked for evidence that would hold up in a court of law. You were handed it. For the first time in history, all trial exhibits from a court case were available on line. You have the links. You dismissed it with these gems:

... "it's not that good" ... he was "barely guilty" .."what about Osama?"

Priceless Roger.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
LMFAO... Roger, you asked for evidence that would hold up in a court of law.


You have not posted any evidence that would hold up in a new court case that would support the official story.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by ImAPepper
LMFAO... Roger, you asked for evidence that would hold up in a court of law.


You have not posted any evidence that would hold up in a new court case that would support the official story.




I'm taking a screen shot of this one. Simply priceless.



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
I'm taking a screen shot of this one. Simply priceless.


I am still wating for you to post actual evidence and do not be immature enough to try to use the old trial evidence.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
I am still wating for you to post actual evidence and do not be immature enough to try to use the old trial evidence.


So, you want me to post the New & Improved 9/11 Evidence? The evidence that 2 out of 3 Jurors Recommend ?

This is insane. Chock Full O' Stundies



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
This is insane. Chock Full O' Stundies


Thanks for admitting you cannot post any actual evidence that supports the official story.



posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Thanks for admitting you cannot post any actual evidence that supports the official story.



It WAS posted. Really Roger? Are you really that simple, or are you just pulling my leg?

Honestly... I'm done with you on this thread. You asked for evidence that would stand up in a court of law. You got it.

GAME OVER.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
Honestly... I'm done with you on this thread. You asked for evidence that would stand up in a court of law. You got it.


No i did not get it. If the official story was brought to court today it would probably be laughed right out of court due to the lack of real evidence to support it.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
If the official story was brought to court today it would probably be laughed right out of court due to the lack of real evidence to support it.


Wrong again, it is the conspiracy theories that would be laughed out of court - mini nukes, holograms, pod carrying aircraft, invisible noiseless explosives etc etc.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Wrong again, it is the conspiracy theories that would be laughed out of court -


Well since most of the evidence and the official reports have not been released then yes the official story would be laughed out of court.


pod carrying aircraft, invisible noiseless explosives


Oh and by the way there are civilian planes that carry pods, also small cutter charges would not make much noise.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by dereks

Well since most of the evidence and the official reports have not been released then yes the official story would be laughed out of court.


And yet it wasn't, was it?

When were any of your "theories" tested in court? Any success there yet?



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
When were any of your "theories" tested in court? Any success there yet?



Why do you seem so afraid of court, maybe because you know the official story would not hold up since all those EXHIBTS from the first trial would have be reargued to be allowed in as evidence in a new trail?

By the way i know the government documents and other evidence i have would show reasonable doubt in the official story.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
When were any of your "theories" tested in court? Any success there yet?



Why do you seem so afraid of court, maybe because you know the official story would not hold up since all those EXHIBTS from the first trial would have be reargued to be allowed in as evidence in a new trail?

By the way i know the government documents and other evidence i have would show reasonable doubt in the official story.



Huh? I'm afraid of court? I welcome the day someone tries to breach some of your "theories" in an American court of law. Really, can't wait. However it will be a monumental waste of taxpayer money.

As to "rearguing" the facts as stipulated in the Mossaoui trial - you need to read up on the law and court procedure. But, please, I really hope one of you gets to KSM's defense lawyers and tries to openly challenge the FBI to prove that a plane crashed in Shanksville. That's going to be a lot of fun.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Really, can't wait. However it will be a monumental waste of taxpayer money.


Since when is finding the truth a waste of money?

Again all i have to do is show reasonable doubt in the official story in court.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Really, can't wait. However it will be a monumental waste of taxpayer money.


Since when is finding the truth a waste of money?

Again all i have to do is show reasonable doubt in the official story in court.


So, exactly what is it you're doing to achieve this goal of showing "reasonable doubt"? And you do realize that to the court it doesn't matter if you have reasonable doubt - you are legally irrelevant. Are you preparing your briefs? Have you secured legal assistance to help write the briefs?

Or are you just going to sit here and post ad infinitum about your personal incredulity.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So, exactly what is it you're doing to achieve this goal of showing "reasonable doubt"?


Well i actaully do research, file FOIA request and send e-mails to find the truth.

What have you done to find the truth?



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
So, exactly what is it you're doing to achieve this goal of showing "reasonable doubt"?


Well i actaully do research, file FOIA request and send e-mails to find the truth.

What have you done to find the truth?



And exactly how does all that relate to showing doubt in a court of law, which is what you are contending and what I responded in reference to.

And where is your collection of this much vaunted "research"? And what was the result of your FOIA request?

Nada, nothing or zilch?





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join