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 did Airplane Wreckage used to Convict Moussaoui Come From?

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Besides, it was shown earlier that he was not convicted of anything related to 911 but for something else.


Say WHAT ?


Just in case you missed it , and apparently you did , Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted of conspiring to kill U.S. citizens by and through the attacks of 9/11 . Somehow , I get the sneaky suspicion that his conviction was indeed "related" to the events of 9/11 . Feel free to correct me if I am wrong .

He also freely admitted , in open court , that his intended role was to fly an airplane into the White House , post-9/11 .

It is apparent that you need to educate yourself a bit further concerning this . Saying stuff like you did , only causes someone else to come along and repeat it later , someone who takes it as the truth because they too , don't know it is untrue .

I am choosing to believe that you just don't have your facts straight , rather than believe that you are deliberately spreading false information .

en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't favor wikipedia , there are scores of other sites to verify this . Also , evidence from the crash site of Flight 93 was not the only evidence that was introduced at the trial , it was only a portion of the evidence .
edit on 21-1-2011 by okbmd because: eta




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Say WHAT ?



However, prosecutors in Moussaoui's drawn-out trial in the US had difficulty directly connecting him to the 19 participants.

But the topic is what airplane wreckage was used to convict him.

How can you convict someone of something with evidence of a crime you had no connection to other than to conspire to attack similar to an attack that hasn't or has occurred?



edit on 21-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Moussaoui was alleged to have been a replacement for the "first" 20th hijacker, possibly Ramzi bin al-Shibh. Bin al-Shibh and Zakariyah Essabar were denied visas. However, prosecutors in Moussaoui's drawn-out trial in the US had difficulty directly connecting him to the 19 participants.




According to the Associated Press, three jurors decided Moussaoui had only limited knowledge of the September 11 plot, and three described his role in the attacks as minor, if he had any role at all.

en.wikipedia.org...

Wasn't really a clear cut case..
Ohh, the defence team didn't agree with the evidence because he didn't have a defence team..
He represented himself..



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


You will find answers to your questions here :

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

In addition , he pleaded guilty :

www.washingtonpost.com...
edit on 21-1-2011 by okbmd because: eta



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
To answer the threads question: Where did the airplane wreckage used to convict Moussaoui?

It was fabricated, planted, mixed in with parts of what really caused that 10 foot deep 30 foot wide crater. Besides, it was shown earlier that he was not convicted of anything related to 911 but for something else.


It's up to you to prove it. You can not. So, your fantasy will remain just that.

Regarding Zacarias Moussaoui, On December 11, 2001,he was indicted by a federal grand jury in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on six felony charges regarding 9/11:
conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries,
conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy,
conspiracy to destroy aircraft,
conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction,
conspiracy to murder United States employees,
and conspiracy to destroy property

April 22, 2005, Moussaoui plead guilty to all six charges.


He would be dead right now if it weren't for one of the jurors who voted against killing him.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Wasn't really a clear cut case..
Ohh, the defence team didn't agree with the evidence because he didn't have a defence team..
He represented himself..



Actaully you are not correct. On Nov. 14, 2003, citing inflammatory and unprofessional briefs, Judge Brinkema ended Moussaoui's self-representation. He also had court appointed attorneys on stand by at all times.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 



Actaully you are not correct. On Nov. 14, 2003, citing inflammatory and unprofessional briefs, Judge Brinkema ended Moussaoui's self-representation. He also had court appointed attorneys on stand by at all times.


Guess that there explains why his defence team accepted the evidence without question then..
They were appointed by the court/government...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



One might ask what is your agenda.


Deny Ignorance .


Your allegations against me were completely false


No , they were not , I can prove at least one of them in less than five minutes . Anyone who wishes to know who is lying here , can U2U me , and I will provide proof of my allegations . Fair enough ?


Back on topic, where is the evidence that proves the wreckage belongs to said planes?


The pertinent question here , is where is your evidence that the wreckage did not belong to said plane ? The government tried the case with said evidence , a conviction was secured through said evidence , and the defendant is serving a life sentence because of the said evidence .

You are , in short , re-trying the case here , on the grounds that the evidence was bogus . Therefore , the government is now the defendant , and you hereby become the prosecution . Therefore , the government (defendant) is not required to prove his innocence . However , YOU are required to prove his guilt , by showing that the evidence was bogus .

So , do your job , as the prosecution , and prove that the defendant is lying . Prove that the airplane wreckage came from somewhere other than where the defendant alleges that it did .

What part of that do you not understand ?
edit on 21-1-2011 by okbmd because: corrections



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



What part of that do you not understand ?


The part where you believe everything the corrupt, lying Government tell you..
We know they lie, it's a fact....



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Guess that there explains why his defence team accepted the evidence without question then..
They were appointed by the court/government...


I see ... so , does this mean that I can now add them to the list of those who were "in on it" ? Oh wait , I already did .

Half the friggin country was in on it .



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



We know they lie, it's a fact....


Yea , so ? So do you , so do I , so does everyone I know .

All I'm saying here , is prove they are lying about where the wreckage came from .

Just because you lie about one thing , that doesn't mean you are lying about another thing . Have you ever told a lie ?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


If you say so...
I'm just calling it how it is..
If that's the scenario you get from the facts then so be it



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Guess that there explains why his defence team accepted the evidence without question then..
They were appointed by the court/government...



Yes, a few more that were "in on it". Why does this not surprise me?

If you researched the trial, you would see that his attorney's tried to save his sorry ass when he admitted that he training to fly a 5th plane into the white house. (look up in the transcripts March 2006)

backinblacm... KSM is going on trail soon. Will you be assisting him in his defense?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Have you ever told a lie ?


I didn't think the thread was about me.

Have you lied, seeing as how you ask.?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



I didn't think the thread was about me.
Have you lied, seeing as how you ask.?


The thread is not about you , I was just making a point .

Yes , I have lied , have you ?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Driver license from Flight attendent Cee Cee Lyles - Fl;ight 93



Suzanne Calley wedding ring recovered fom Pentagon - explain how they got her wedding ring


There, a Pentagon official - assigned to Calley's family as a liaison - gave Jensen his wife's wedding ring, which had been recovered from the plane.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



lol the ring recovered from the plane that does not exist... you guys are too much.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
If you believe that the 9/11 wreckage was dumped and did not come from the 4 Boeings that took off that morning then you have to believe that something like this dialogue must have gone on at conspiratorial meetings :-

Junior Conspirator : Great, now we have control of the four flights we can fly them into stuff like the Trade Centre, Pentagon and Capitol.

Senior Conspirator : Hang on sonny , that is way too easy; where is the challenge in that. No, what we do is we use a cloaking device, like they have on the Starship Enterprise, so that we can seamlessly substitute 3 other planes for the originals and I like the idea of a missile for the Pentagon. Then we land the original planes at a secret destination, where there couldn't possibly be any eyewitnesses, and we murder everybody on board. We chop everyone into small bits, burn and mash them some , and then deliver them express to the WTC, Pentagon and that field near Shanksville I had in mind. Come to think of it we can drop the body parts off with the plane wreckage. I know Barry has objected that dropping aero engine parts, wheels and body parts on the street in Manhattan in broad daylight could be tricky, but he's just chicken.

Junior Conspirator : Ok boss, but you do realise we get shot if this gets out.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Or you can go read the "Operation Northwoods" plan.
en.wikipedia.org...




It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight. a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.


Though I agree, this whole no plane, military plane, planes switched out for drones, doesn't sit with me. 4 planes were hijacked, 3 smashed into their targets, and 1 either crashed, or was shot down. Anyone actually trying to dispute those facts is not doing enough research on the matter.

BUT the fact remains, you can't ignore that the US government developed this exact scenario that you dismiss off hand

p.s. I'm comfortable that the wreckage was from one of the flights involved.

edit on 21-1-2011 by phishybongwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
A very great deal of the goverments version of events has come under suspicion.
From the very start the simple destruction of the three towers was onbviously faked.There wasnt even a plane which hit building seven!
Nobody with a shred of common sense believes for a second that these buildings were felled by the aircraft damage.
The controlled demolition of all three towers is getting more evidence to support that theory, while the OS from the goverment inquirey fails epically to describe causes which could produce the miraculous effects of three huge buildings which fell at freefall speed into their own footprints!
Highly placed goverment officials have come forward to deny the govs own story!
The international consencus is not anywhere close to the govs story.
Highly placed individuals abroad also have cast doubt on the gov story.
The indentification of the wreckage is paramount to the proof of the gov boys case.
Those whose efforts to derail and obfuscate the threads which have attempted to find the strengths and weaknesses in the OS are pretty obviously shills.Their fanatic attempts to discredit people personally, rather than deal with facts is getting legendary here.
The average person has no trust in the Goverment fabrication of events.
WITH GOOD REASON!







 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join