Originally posted by REMISNE
Please show me 1 official FBI crime scene report that matches wreckage to a 757 or do not post on this subject again.

TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

The evidence was presented in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, including Flight 77's FDR, as you very well know so how about you stop trolling here?

And I do not listen to trolls that want people to shut up because the trolls refuse to accept the truth!

Originally posted by dereks
The evidence was presented in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, including Flight 77's FDR

The exhibts for that trial were not good evidence, they could not be used to charge OBL with being behind 9/11. The exhibits would be argued in a new trail to suport the official story.

Also the FDR has not been matched to the plane by serial or part number.




[edit on 10-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by dereks

The exhibts for that trial were not good evidence

Good enough to be stipulated to as authentic by all parties to the trial. Good enough that defendent entered a guilty plea.

they could not be used to charge OBL with being behind 9/11.

He has not yet been charged, so your statement is false. As stipulated by the FBI, he will be charged when and if ever captured. He was named as a co-conspirator in the above mentioned trial.

The exhibits would be argued in a new trail to suport the official story.

This is based on what - your legal opinion?

Also the FDR has not been matched to the plane by serial or part number.

The data recorders have been certified by the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division of the NTSB, a slightly higher authotiry on the matter than yourself.

Originally posted by hooper
Good enough to be stipulated to as authentic by all parties to the trial. Good enough that defendent entered a guilty plea.

Do you really think he was going to plead not guilty or found not guilty?

This is based on what - your legal opinion?

no, legal fact.

The data recorders have been certified by the Chief of the Vehicle Recorder Division of the NTSB, a slightly higher authotiry on the matter than yourself.

But the report did not contain the part and serial numbers that are required per NTSB regulations.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

This is based on what - your legal opinion?

no, legal fact.

And exactly what "legal fact" dictates what an attorney will or will not do in a future trial? No attorney is legally obligated to argue any evidence. As shown in the Mossaoui trial, the defense stipulated to the authenticity of the evidence, what legal fact dictates that when the evidence is again presented in say the OBL trial the attorney must argue the evidence and not just again stipulate to the obvious and overwhelming facts of 9/11 as a product of terrorism perpetrated by foreign agents?

But the report did not contain the part and serial numbers that are required per NTSB regulations.

Proving, beyond the shadown of a doubt, that your demand for this trivia in this case, is without merit, precedence or foundation.

And now this thread turns into legalese. Is this another strategy? Lead the thread into a direction so boring that people switch off?

Originally posted by hooper
And you know for a fact that the next time this evidence is represent the judge in the case will disallow it?

Its up to how the lawyers argue the exhibt.

Really, look at that again, read it real close.

Yes it states that you have to have the part and serial numbers which is not in the report.

So tell me why if they have the other information why don't they have the part and serial numbers in the report?

The part and serail numbers are missing form the report so how can you match the FDR to the plane without the part and serial numbers?



[edit on 11-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

Its up to how the lawyers argue the exhibt.

But you stated in no uncertain terms that it will be argued, that this a "leagl fact" now your backpeddling and saying that it is up the the lawyers, which has always been the case. And in the one trial where the evidence was submitted it was stipulated as to its authenticity by all parties with further foundation. So which is it? Is it a "legal fact" that it absolutely must be argued or do the parties and the judge have the legal lattitude to stipulate to the facts as presented, in this case by the prosecution?

Really, look at that again, read it real close.

The part and serail numbers are missing form the report so how can you match the FDR to the plane without the part and serial numbers?

Well lets see what we have short of the numbers. It is definetly an FDR. That is not in argument. Or is it? So we all agree what was submitted was an FDR. Where did it come from? Well, they would indicate the location where the FDR was found. By coincedence it is the last known location of Flight 93, the site of an airplane crash, the site where the personal items of the last known passengers of Flight 93 were found. There are no other plane crashes in the area. Without anything to the contrary this flight data recorder is then established as having originated from the only plane that crashed at the same place as it was found.

Originally posted by hooper
But you stated in no uncertain terms that it will be argued, that this a "leagl fact" now your backpeddling and saying that it is up the the lawyers, which has always been the case.

Yes as stated its up to the lawyers to argue the exhibts but its up to the judge if he decides to let it in as evidence.

By coincedence it is the last known location of Flight 93, the site of an airplane crash, the site where the personal items of the last known passengers of Flight 93 were found.

But no official reports matching the FDR to the plane by part or serial number.

The OP video cannot be disputed, procedures are procedures, NIST changed the rules to suit their outcome.
Every NIST member involved in their criminal cover reports should be put on trial, they liars, plain and simple. Perverting the course of justice is the very least they are guilty of.