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.

 

Ingersoll Pentagon/Cab photos - please help?

page: 10
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   


The point that you are so obviously missing is that the cab's continued physical existence means that it could be forensically examined which you can't of course do with any number of photos.


Was the vehicle forensically examined by the authorities? If so, where is the official report pertaining to this examination? If it was not examined, why wasn't it, since the damage in the photos is completely inconsistent with the dubious claim of a light pole going through the front windshield?

I find it odd that this vehicle is important enough to be brought up as evidence by Official Story Apologists, but not important enough to be forensically examined by authorities. And you claim that I am missing the point? Good one.



Nonetheless that is the claim so it is a bizarre anomaly that this cab should have survived all these years with all the wild speculation swirling around it. Any perps seem pretty laid back about tests being carried out on it.


Tests being carried out by who, Joe Blow? Without authorization from the owner of the vehicle, how exactly do you expect someone to carry out these tests? By examining the vehicle in the middle of the night and risking prosecution for trespassing?



It is often claimed by truthers that the perps were very careful to eliminate forensic evidence. Sending all the WTC steel off to China pronto for example. ( not true of course because there are tons and tons and tons of it stored in hangar 17 at JFK).


I do not care what your impression is of what truthers claim, since this speculation is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Although, I do hope they have adequate security at Hanger 17 at JFK so someone does not sneak in during the middle of the night and test the tons and tons and tons of steel for explosive residue.

By the way, continuing with your off topic response, can I get an exact number as to the weight of these tons and tons and tons of steel at Hanger 17 with written and video/photographic evidence to substantiate this claim? Or are you just making this up off the top of your head with no way to prove it? Better yet, why not let the public view the tons and tons and tons of steel so they can see for themselves? Since when did it become a national security threat to view tons and tons and tons of mangled steel?



So what is this damaged cab doing still in Lloyd's possession, which he can show to anyone that calls as he did with CIT?


Why are you asking me why this damaged cab is still in Lloyd's possession? Since I am not the owner of this vehicle, I do not know why Lloyd continues to retain his damaged property.

However, I can speculate that he continues to retain his vehicle because if he gave up possession of it, a third party can examine it and determine if a light pole actually stuck the vehicle. So Lloyd retaining possession of the vehicle in the open is not as stupid as you might think. Sometimes the best place to hide evidence is in the open. Since Lloyd's wife works for the FBI, I am sure he received professional advice on how to properly handle the "evidence".



Either the cab was damaged by the pole or the wicked perps are being monumentally blind to the prospects of their set-up being exposed.


Or...the cab was not damaged by the light pole and nobody has any way of proving this, since the cab is still in the owner's possession and his authorization is required for an inspection.



Strange when they are usually portrayed as being able to remove all forensic traces and only too ready to silence anyone who might speak out of turn.


You lost me with the silencing people who speak out of turn bit. Sorry, but I am not interested in irrelevant generalizations which do nothing for the investigation, but waste one's time.




posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


The damaged cab has never been forensically examined because it is only a few truthers who trot out the ludicrous proposition that all the damage to light poles and Lloyd's cab etc was carried out by agents that no-one saw.

If it was true that the lightpole never entered the cab you seem to agree that forensic examination would prove that.The supposed perps are also obviously aware of that but have made no effort to eliminate the cab. It continues to sit there, a potential time-bomb according to some truthers.

You seem to suggest that any action re the cab is prevented because of Lloyd's ownership and possession. You really think that would stop perps who are prepared to murder thousands from having it torched ?

If some truthers really do believe that the cab damage is inconsistent with being skewered by the lightpole why don't they get away from their keyboards for a spell, club together and make Lloyd an offer he can't refuse for his old cab,and get it forensically examined ? Wont happen of course due to inertia and a probable realisation that the delusion will be ruined.

So far as hangar 17 at JFK is concerned here are some pics :-

gokill.com...

You can guess at the tonnage of WTC steel as well as me.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Just noticed that the link I gave you above for WTC steel in hangar 17 at JFK is no longer available so here is another one with pics :-

www.coffinman.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


And you call yourself a Scholar? never mind is right. You are just a baby looking to be spoon feed and could not do any real research to save a nation.


I don't actually. This website appears to have given me that sobriquet at random and I have no idea how to change it.

Actually my position is the reverse of what you think it is. You are the one looking to be spoonfed. And to imagine that your fumblings on the internet - which you admit have uncovered literally nothing, no criminal, no money trail, no motive - are somehow contributing to "saving a nation"... give me a break.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I don't know if this has been posted yet, but it'll shed some light on this subject. Witnesses who verify a flight path that contradicts the official story:
This means that the plane didn't fly according to the official path, so what knocked over the light poles that damaged Lloyd Englands taxi? Is Lloyd lying? Yes.

When shown evidence that goes against his story, Lloyd can't even defend himself so he just denies, stutters, and looks like an idiot.

He later goes on to confess in a low-key manner that it was a set-up and that he was used, Lloyds words are in bold:

I'm not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff.

Well I'm not supposed to be involved with this, I don't have nothing.

These people that have all the money....
This is their thing.
This is their event?
This is for them.
Meaning their doing it for their own reasons?
That's right, I'm not supposed to be in it.
But they used you, right?
I'm in it.
You're in it?
Yeah, we came across the highway together
You and their event?
That's right
Well they must have planned it.
It was planned.


So we have multiple witnesses confirming a flight path that's slightly different than the one needed to satisfy the damage done to Lloyds taxi. Lloyd is shown evidence that goes against his claims and he can't rationally defend himself. He then describes how 9/11 was planned by people with lots of money, and that he is involved but didn't want to be. Epic.
edit on 16-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I commend your gale in response. Still does not not validate your title of Scholar, but an admission of the situation holds some validation of your spirit.

criminal: whodidit.org...
money: www.exopolitics.org...
motive: money, oil, opium, resources, power, culture, war, ?



Actually my position is the reverse of what you think it is.


It will take a lot to surprise me, it takes action to convince me. If you really want to get to the bottom of this then it requires a comprehension of complex global issues. To get to the heart of it then expect a comprehension of the complexities of man as well. While I cannot yet prove it, the Monarch project and ET situation does hold some keys of comprehension in the how and why. With so many involved there are no easy answers, but as with anything in life there is a reason. There is your break.

edit on 16-7-2011 by kwakakev because: added question mark



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I don't know if this has been posted yet, but it'll shed some light on this subject. Witnesses who verify a flight path that contradicts the official story:
This means that the plane didn't fly according to the official path, so what knocked over the light poles that damaged Lloyd Englands taxi? Is Lloyd lying? Yes.

When shown evidence that goes against his story, Lloyd can't even defend himself so he just denies, stutters, and looks like an idiot.

He later goes on to confess in a low-key manner that it was a set-up and that he was used, Lloyds words are in bold:

I'm not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff.

Well I'm not supposed to be involved with this, I don't have nothing.

These people that have all the money....
This is their thing.
This is their event?
This is for them.
Meaning their doing it for their own reasons?
That's right, I'm not supposed to be in it.
But they used you, right?
I'm in it.
You're in it?
Yeah, we came across the highway together
You and their event?
That's right
Well they must have planned it.
It was planned.


So we have multiple witnesses confirming a flight path that's slightly different than the one needed to satisfy the damage done to Lloyds taxi. Lloyd is shown evidence that goes against his claims and he can't rationally defend himself. He then describes how 9/11 was planned by people with lots of money, and that he is involved but didn't want to be. Epic.
edit on 16-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post
i dont know how any sane rational thinking human being cannot question the governments account of events after watching what you have just presented. but of course the resident debunkers will just accuse these witnesses as liars. Imo mr england was involved in this event againts his will



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by kaya82
 


i dont know how any sane rational thinking human being cannot question the governments account of events after watching what you have just presented. but of course the resident debunkers will just accuse these witnesses as liars. Imo mr england was involved in this event againts his will
I know, I'm sure there will be those who are more than happy to cite the witnesses who claimed to see an airplane crash into the Pentagon, but they'll deny the witnesses who agree that the flight path was inconsistent with the light pole damage and the official story.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 





Was the vehicle forensically examined by the authorities? If so, where is the official report pertaining to this examination? If it was not examined, why wasn't it, since the damage in the photos is completely inconsistent with the dubious claim of a light pole going through the front windshield?


Since none of this was objected to in the Moussaoui trial I guess your suppositions are baseless and meaningless.

Next theory please!

All of this made up stuff is like the next edition of Harry Potter.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev


criminal: whodidit.org...


Impossible. They hadn't been in office long enough.

At least do the decent thing and use the other truther standby of shadowy persons above government. Who no one has actually seen or heard of.



money: www.exopolitics.org...


And yet no actual proof. No genuine money trail. Just a wave of the hand and a vague "well, they got the money from somewhere".



motive: money, oil, opium, resources, power, culture, war, ?


The question mark is telling. You don't know what the motive was. There doesn't appear to be an obvious one, and that suggests that the whole thing is nonsense.



It will take a lot to surprise me, it takes action to convince me. If you really want to get to the bottom of this then it requires a comprehension of complex global issues. To get to the heart of it then expect a comprehension of the complexities of man as well. While I cannot yet prove it, the Monarch project and ET situation does hold some keys of comprehension in the how and why. With so many involved there are no easy answers, but as with anything in life there is a reason. There is your break.

edit on 16-7-2011 by kwakakev because: added question mark


Thanks, I feel blessed to have encountered someone so learned on these complex issues.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




At least do the decent thing and use the other truther standby of shadowy persons above government. Who no one has actually seen or heard of.


If you want to say lost chasing ghosts that is your prerogative. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld where supporting the war and inhibiting a real investigation. If these three people really wanted to get to the truth of the matter then the results would have been a lot different. If a new investigation is to take place then these three do have some hard questions needing answers. It was a big job so there are many others as well.



And yet no actual proof. No genuine money trail. Just a wave of the hand and a vague "well, they got the money from somewhere".


And do you think things are any different today? Where is the money, is a very important question in many problems and issues. The answers are out their, getting access to these answers is another matter entirely.



The question mark is telling. You don't know what the motive was. There doesn't appear to be an obvious one, and that suggests that the whole thing is nonsense.


With so many people involved there will be different reasons for why people took part in the operation. Fear, intimidation, submission, hate and detachment are just a few more reasons why, there will be others. The facts around the case are not nonsense, but some of the discussion can be at times.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
At an estimate, about 10 seconds to 2 minutes depending on the specific tool used how much power it has. Apart from the pole on the road, the other poles could have been down for hours before the event and would have gone unnoticed by drivers. I expect all the poles would have been down and Lloyd's cab set up before the explosion took place and attention was placed upon the Pentagon. As long as a roadworks sign was up, any work that was taking place would not have appeared suspicious to most drivers.


I really tire of your excessive use of unsubstanciated make believe to prop up your conspiracy claims. Every time I pass a lightpole lying on the side of the highway I notice it immediately, and I'm not under any illusion that I have supernatural powers that I'd notice soemthing freaky like that while it went completely unnoticed by anyone else. You are all but admitting you're grasping when you have to resort to excluding the lightpole that hit the taxi from your scenario because it's the one fact that proves your scenario is wrong.

I shouldn't need to tell you that your duty as a self declared truther is to derive a scenario by analyzing the facts, not to manufacture facts as you go along. Tell me, did you encounter even one eyewitness account stating they saw these lightpoles lying on the side of the road beforehand, for you to even be suggesting this?



I do have experience with metal and the different ways it can be cut, poles are made of metal so your presumption of my ignorance is unjustified. Disregarding these observations that many people have made and supported because you have not found a certified pole examiner to review the evidence is premature on your part. I do commend your seeking of professional advice with matters you are inexperienced in, but it is better form to wait until you are informed to cast judgement.


You seem to be working under a massive misunderstanding. It isn't my obligation to provide someone experienced in light pole maintenance to refute your assumptions. It is your obligation to provide someone experienced in light pole maintenance to confirm your observations. Your attempt to point out these supposed inconsistancies when you don't even know whether they actually even are inconsistancies is not convincing.



No, the depth perception of still images is very poor. Stereoscopic images do have a capability at depth perception, but with the frames from both of the guard stations out of sync and partly obscured any calculations would be very difficult and involve some guess work.


All right then, how about the fact that the closer the object is to the camera, the more details the camera would have picked up. Off in the distance the plane and even the Pentagon is hardly discernable but the objects in the foreground (such as the security vehicle that showed up afetrwards) can be seen clearly.


To make an estimate of how far away the image is you need other information like the point of impact and angle of approach. With significant evidence that the poles are a staged event I am leaning towards the North approach as the actual angle of approach. This means that the object came in perpendicular to the point of impact and shares the same depth of field with this impact site.


This photo is completely worthless. For one thing, there were many, many more eyewitnesses than simply those thirteen mentioned, so the damned fool websites who created this thing have consciously ignored the other eyewitnesses who saw the plane knock over the lightpoles. For another, these were rough estimates and none of the thirteen witnesses even agree with each other, let alone Lloyd England, so attempting to plot out their rough estimates based upon a three second point of view as pinpoint locations on a map is spurious. This isn't a "thirteen eyewitnesses against Lloyd England" thing. It's a "fourteen eyewitnesses are making fourteen individual judgements on where they think the plane was." thing. England is still an eyewitness whether you wish to acknowledge the fact or not.

We can argue that this photo is a "twelve witnesses plus England prove the thirteenth witness is wrong" too, if you'd like.



In conclusion this calculation is not definitive but supports two competing theories, it was a Boeing 757 on the Southern path or a smaller plane on the Northern path.


...but you just contradicted your own prior statements. At the point of time that the guard house photo was taken the distance between the myriad flight paths would have a few dozen yards, as it was only one second away from hitting and the flight paths all converge at that one small area. The only thing you can possibly say here is that if it wasn't exactly south, it was south-ish. Despite all your calculations all you've done is show that it was still a large object some distance off.



The large tail rudder is visible in both tapes and I have no problem with it. I still do have serious problems in the representation of the nose and question the integrity of the video.


It is already shown from the location of the tail rudder that the nose was largely concealed by the ticket dispenser in the foreground, so for you to challenge this representation it necessarily means you have to submit an artificial aircraft configuration that isn't correct.



I am not aware of any witness statements that saw a missile, but there have been some witness statements that say it was a small plane. One theory is that it was a missile dressed up as a plane with wings, tail fins and paint job.


I have no doubt that someone out there is likewise theorizing that it was a UFO that crashed into the Pentagon and the gov't is hiding it to conceal the presence of aliens, but that theory suffers the exact same lack of any tangible evidence backing it up that the missile claim does.. I have zero interest in theories that contradict all the known facts, particularly when they have to rely on the "10,000 secret agents" crutch to justify them. You should know that.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev


If you want to say lost chasing ghosts that is your prerogative. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld where supporting the war and inhibiting a real investigation. If these three people really wanted to get to the truth of the matter then the results would have been a lot different. If a new investigation is to take place then these three do have some hard questions needing answers. It was a big job so there are many others as well.


That seems rather vague. Also I'm amazed they could organise something so complex in a matter of months.

As a matter of interest,what questions would you have asked that the commission was unable to? Note that I'm asking a specific question which you cannot wave away with your habitual "many many complicated things" standard answer.

Come to think of it you remind me of the guy off police academy. Commander Lassard?




And do you think things are any different today? Where is the money, is a very important question in many problems and issues. The answers are out their, getting access to these answers is another matter entirely.


No, that's precisely my point. You have no evidence of a money trail. Either it's very well hidden, orit isn't there. After all this time spent looking I tend towards the latter.




With so many people involved there will be different reasons for why people took part in the operation. Fear, intimidation, submission, hate and detachment are just a few more reasons why, there will be others. The facts around the case are not nonsense, but some of the discussion can be at times.


Many, many different people involved, for many, many different reasons. None of which you seem to be able to pinpoint with any accuracy.

edit on 18-7-2011 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
[

Apart from the pole on the road, the other poles could have been down for hours before the event and would have gone unnoticed by drivers. I expect all the poles would have been down and Lloyd's cab set up before the explosion took place and attention was placed upon the Pentagon. As long as a roadworks sign was up, any work that was taking place would not have appeared suspicious to most drivers.


You are really stretching it now. This is just silly.

Why do you assume that a bunch of poles being down would have gone unnoticed by every single driver that passed by? You are so sure of that, not one person would of noticed, it is just silly.

Were roadwork signs up? By the way you stated it it sounds like you are just assuming again. Sorry but your above comments are just laughable.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




That seems rather vague. Also I'm amazed they could organise something so complex in a matter of months.


The inception of this plan started a long time ago. The Council of Foreign Relations appears to have started the seed back in the 1980's with the conclusion that if America is to be involved in a large scale war then it needs another Pearl Harbour style of attack to gain the public support. Continuing support of this belief can be found with PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses www.newamericancentury.org... p51 which states " Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor".

If you want just one motive to focus on then 'to start a war' is the common denominator. With America based on democratic principles it is very difficult to raise the public will for war without some assault on its sovereignty



As a matter of interest,what questions would you have asked that the commission was unable to?


I would want it to question everything. Start at the top with the political interests promoting war, why the agents warning of an attack where ignored and silenced, the timeline of events, how the WTC buildings where wired and the plan executed, what did happen at the pentagon, who won and lost from insider trading and avoiding the fall out, how where these events covered up in the subsequent inquiry. For a new investigation to have any chance of getting to the bottom it will need to offer an amnesty to national security laws so witnesses can speak freely. This is something a UN investigation can provide if there is the global political will for it.



You have no evidence of a money trail. Either it's very well hidden, orit isn't there. After all this time spent looking I tend towards the latter.


There was a big investigation going on in WTC7 on insider trading, but that all stopped with the attacks and is now well hidden. Look at all the trouble with the GFC, most of that is well hidden. The Federal Reserve along with many other corporations have no obligations to open their books, that is well hidden. When the accounts do finally surface, if they do then you can either prove or disprove the financial motives. Until then it is speculation with the specifics of who and how much. Here is the witness testimony of Richard Andrew Grove and provides a few more clues to the money situation www.abidemiracles.com... .



Come to think of it you remind me of the guy off police academy. Commander Lassard?


When presenting the truth, make them laugh or they will kill you.
edit on 19-7-2011 by kwakakev because: removed '.'



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Classified Info
 




Why do you assume that a bunch of poles being down would have gone unnoticed by every single driver that passed by?


Have you seen the locations of the poles? Are you aware there is a bank and guard rails that would obscure the view of anything resting on the grass from someone driving by?

I do not know if roadworks signs where put up, it is just a theory. I do not know when the road was closed and it is another theory if the road was closed before the attack. Another theory is a small amount of explosives, but considering their final location and damage to the base it is more likely they where cut and moved at some point.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 





I would want it to question everything. Start at the top with the political interests promoting war, why the agents warning of an attack where ignored and silenced, the timeline of events, how the WTC buildings where wired and the plan executed, what did happen at the pentagon, who won and lost from insider trading and avoiding the fall out, how where these events covered up in the subsequent inquiry.


If we were in a court of law, I'm sure you would hear....

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!
Sustained!

You are assuming the building(s) were wired. There has never been any evidence of that except in cyberspace.

You worngfully believe there was insider trading. This has been shown not to be the case. But in cyberspace this rotten piece of fruit keeps comming back around every few weeks.

But you are correct in that warnings went ignored or were insufficent enough to pin point the time and place. Perhaps if they run all the info past your desk you will be able to deciper the next place and time.

Secret attacks will always happen.
Big events will always have un answered questions. People make screw ups even when they know better. That doesn't mean there is a big conspiracy going on.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




You are all but admitting you're grasping when you have to resort to excluding the lightpole that hit the taxi from your scenario because it's the one fact that proves your scenario is wrong.


As you choose to use selective evidence and not all of it we will continue to disagree. The video of Lloyd on this thread is just one example.



Tell me, did you encounter even one eyewitness account stating they saw these lightpoles lying on the side of the road beforehand, for you to even be suggesting this?


No, if I had all the answers there would be no need for another investigation. You are asking for answers so I am providing possible theories, a standard part of all investigations. I have come across witness statements that saw a lot of unusual behaviour that day, despite the situation. Some of them would prefer to remain hidden and considering the situation I can understand that request. I am not sure of their source at the moment as it was a while ago I did come across some of these.



All right then, how about the fact that the closer the object is to the camera, the more details the camera would have picked up. Off in the distance the plane and even the Pentagon is hardly discernable but the objects in the foreground (such as the security vehicle that showed up afetrwards) can be seen clearly.


The focal length of the lens is an interesting proposition. Items in the focal range will be sharp and clear while objects further away become more and more blurry. With a generic lens that has a wide focal region it is difficult to be accurate, but may help when combined with other information. As a preliminary analysis, objects in the foreground have a blur of about 3 pixels, the north path is about 4 pixels blur and the south path has about 5 pixels blur. The top edge of the pentagon wall along with the road was used to establish this approximate baseline. When looking at the plane, it has a blur of about 4 pixels, which puts it in line with the north path. This is a preliminary analysis and it will take the aggregation of a lot of points to be more accurate. The small size of the plane is one problem when using this method.



This photo is completely worthless.


Even if a professional pole examiner did come online would you disregard their opinion as well. There are conflicts in the witness statements which is not unusual, so which ones are right? Where is the evidence to support their statements? The poles look cut, the flight data recorder says the plane could not cut the poles with it banking, all you have is some witnesses and no evidence that adds up.



It is already shown from the location of the tail rudder that the nose was largely concealed by the ticket dispenser in the foreground, so for you to challenge this representation it necessarily means you have to submit an artificial aircraft configuration that isn't correct.


I am not challenging the tail or the part of the plane hidden by the ticket machine. I am challenging how that video shows a nose of a plane extending past the ticket machine. There is no photographic evidence of any part of the plane extending past the ticket machine. Your video has misrepresented the facts, and if they done it here where else have they misrepresented information?



I have zero interest in theories that contradict all the known facts, particularly when they have to rely on the "10,000 secret agents" crutch to justify them. You should know that.


That is evident, but with so many theories and ideas around you have helped weed out some of the good from the bad, cheers.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


There is academic evidence to support demolition of the buildings. NIST cannot submit their findings to refute this due to secrecy clauses in the compilation of their data.



posted on Jul, 19 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 




NIST cannot submit their findings to refute this due to secrecy clauses in the compilation of their data.


NIST doesn’t have to refute anything to fake named, faceless people on the internet.

Nist did call upon the experts they needed to answer any of the questions they had concerning the evidence. These experts examined the evidence first hand.
On the other hand the ‘web’ doesn’t have one single expert who has examined the evidence first hand.

Dare I say the prosecutors had more evidence against Casey Anthony than what the web has against 911.

To the many believers on the web the country is filled with secret criminals intent on doing dastardly deeds and bumbling investigators who can’t find the murder weapon sticking out of the victims back. Then there are the few webbies who can solve any crime based on pictures from unknown sources posted on the web.


If you were on trial what evidence would you want your lawyers to allow in evidence?



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join