F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

Originally posted by jackinthebox

The only "routine" that has been broken in this case is the collection of data.

If there is reasonable doubt as to wether or not the client was driving the vehicle, or if the identitiy of said vehicle was in doubt, it is up to the prosecution to remove such doubt with the introduction of physical evidence or face an acquittal by the jury.

Interesting...hmmmm, So in criminal cases the prosecution is burdened with introduction of physical evidence and the defense is allowed access to said evidence.

So I think we can all agree that a crime was committed on 911.

Now those who want to defend this country from the threat of something like this happening again are not allowed to see the evidence. Instead the same group of people who essentially allowed it to happen are the ones who decided destroy or conceal the factual evidence that would crush the truth movement, and lay this issue to rest.

So here we are, and the answers may never come.

At least we can have regular therapy sessions here on ATS where imagination and science and opinion collide on a regular basis.

InfinityO'Reilly

I simply created a thread which points out the FBI did not positively identify the aircraft wreckage. I did not theorize about the reason this occured.

A citizen placed a Freedom of Information Act request for these records. The FBI replied and said that no such records existed. That is a fact.

I think that is at the very least a piss poor investigation. At most ...(your theory here).

As with everything else 911 it comes far short of a transparent investigation. Understandable clear without contradiction or equivocating.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by Leo Strauss]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jthomas

 

The government is not responsible for making any case. It is neither a suspect nor charged with a crime.

I really hope you are trying to be funny. Is that why the government can't make their case then, because it is not their responsibility now?

Correct. The government is neither a suspect nor charged with a crime.

So who does investigate crimes of epic proportion perpetrated on American soil?

Well, the FBI for one.

And at this point, they most certainly are suspect.

Explain that logic. Because the FBI is charged with investigating crimes, that makes the investigators suspect?

That's fascinating. Why would the American people have an agency to investigate crimes that is always, by definition, a suspect in the crime they are supposed to be investigating?

This is what people must mean by "post-modern logic." I look forward to your explanation of how this is supposed to work in the real world.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
I simply created a thread which points out the FBI did not positively identify the aircraft wreckage. I did not theorize about the reason this occured.

But, in actual fact, this is what you stated:

"So the planes were never positively identified. The greatest airline tragedy in the history of the US and the FBI and NTSB did not positively identify the plane wreckage!!"

As I hope you know now, your statement was fallacious. What you assumed, perhaps unknowingly, is that the wreckage and planes were not identifiable. Of course, they were, without the need of the FBI or the NTSB to go through any formal process.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
I simply created a thread which points out the FBI did not positively identify the aircraft wreckage. I did not theorize about the reason this occured.

But, in actual fact, this is what you stated:

"So the planes were never positively identified. The greatest airline tragedy in the history of the US and the FBI and NTSB did not positively identify the plane wreckage!!"

As I hope you know now, your statement was fallacious. What you assumed, perhaps unknowingly, is that the wreckage and planes were not identifiable. Of course, they were, without the need of the FBI or the NTSB to go through any formal process.

Says who?????? You? Well frankly that is not enough for me. No formal process?? The most significant attack on American soil in the past century and no formal process is required. Why not John Thomas? Why wouldn't you or any citizen insist on the best investigation possible? That position I just don't understand and I never will. Why not understand what happened on that day. What is your problem with the truth? You can't handle the truth John Thomas is that it? Is it too much for you?

He isnt even wanted for the attacks. The chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said himself.

reply to post by infinityoreilly

Interesting...hmmmm, So in criminal cases the prosecution is burdened with introduction of physical evidence and the defense is allowed access to said evidence.

"Innocent until proven guilty." The Sixth Amendment?

reply to post by jthomas

Well, the FBI for one.

Aparrently not according to their own admission. It seems they did not in fact bother to investigate.

Explain that logic. Because the FBI is charged with investigating crimes, that makes the investigators suspect?

I never said any such thing.

reply to post by jthomas

As I hope you know now, your statement was fallacious. What you assumed, perhaps unknowingly, is that the wreckage and planes were not identifiable. Of course, they were, without the need of the FBI or the NTSB to go through any formal process.

Don't mean to butt into someone else's conversation here, but your statement here makes about as much sense as something like, "Here you go Mister and Misses So-n-so. We're pretty sure these are the remains of your loved one. But we didn't bother to make a postitive I.D."


[edit on 3/23/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jthomas
Done. We know which aircraft hit what on 9/11, and from the wreckage too.

Then please show me the FBI or NTSB reports that match the aprts found to the 9/11 planes.

I will be waiting.

Originally posted by jthomas
You missed what we are actually discussing. We are talking about the claims of some here that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon. I am asking for their evidence.

Well there are several reaons for people not to believe that FLight 77 hit the Pentagon.

1. No reports matching parts to Flight 77.

2. No reports matching the engine found outside to Flight 77.

3. No actual videos or photod of Flight 77 hititng the Pentagon.


I will be waiting for your evidence to support your claims and the official story.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well there are several reaons for people not to believe that FLight 77 hit the Pentagon.

1. No reports matching parts to Flight 77.

2. No reports matching the engine found outside to Flight 77.

3. No actual videos or photod of Flight 77 hititng the Pentagon.


I will be waiting for your evidence to support your claims and the official story.

No reports because they have not been released yet.

Havent we been down this road before?

Originally posted by Disclosedstory.
No reports because they have not been released yet.

So if there are no reports then you cannot say for sure that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, CORRECT ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So if there are no reports then you cannot say for sure that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, CORRECT ?

Perhaps you should do some research...to get your answers.

There are a few reports released that discuss this. One has been done by an organization called NIST. Another report, called the 911 commission report, also may answer your questions.

Take time to review these....I hope they can help you.

Have a nice day!

Originally posted by Disclosed. There are a few reports released that discuss this. One has been done by an organization called NIST. Another report, called the 911 commission report, also may answer your questions.

Thats is so sad you keep repeating the same thing even though i have debunked a lot of those agencies reports.

How many times do i have to show how NIST made mistakes with not testing the steel for explosives or chemicals and that the did not recover any steel from building 7 for testing.

Also i have stated many times that people on the 9/11 commission have stated they did not have the time or money to do a proper investigation.

You still cannort show any reports or any physical evidence to support your claims or the official story.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You still cannort show any reports or any physical evidence to support your claims or the official story.

I believe you have mentioned yourself that the official reports have yet to be released. Do you think I work for the govt somehow, and can release these early? What led you to believe I have access to these reports and can release them before they are ready?

Your posts are getting more confuzing, ULTIMA1...

Originally posted by Disclosed
I believe you have mentioned yourself that the official reports have yet to be released. ...

So then why do you keep stating you know what happened from the NIST, FEMA, and 9/11 commision report if you agree the official reports have not been released?

I beleive you are the 1 that is very confused and does not know whats really going on in the world.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So then why do you keep stating you know what happened from the NIST, FEMA, and 9/11 commision report if you agree the official reports have not been released?

Do you not know what the NIST, FEMA and 9/11 commission reports say?

I can post the links to those reports if you like. They explain the events of 911 quite nicely.

Would you like me to do that for you?

Originally posted by Disclosed
Do you not know what the NIST, FEMA and 9/11 commission reports say?

NIST can't even model the alleged pattern of fuel distribution through the floor levels, without making a 200 pound error for the amount of fuel present.

You're placing an extreme amount of faith in the quality of a report that contains arithmetic errors.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
I simply created a thread which points out the FBI did not positively identify the aircraft wreckage. I did not theorize about the reason this occured.

But, in actual fact, this is what you stated:

"So the planes were never positively identified. The greatest airline tragedy in the history of the US and the FBI and NTSB did not positively identify the plane wreckage!!"

As I hope you know now, your statement was fallacious. What you assumed, perhaps unknowingly, is that the wreckage and planes were not identifiable. Of course, they were, without the need of the FBI or the NTSB to go through any formal process.

Says who?????? You? Well frankly that is not enough for me.

Obviously. You have different standards.

No formal process?? The most significant attack on American soil in the past century and no formal process is required. Why not John Thomas?

I explained that already. ALL of the evidence, including the wreckage, demonstrates that the flight was AA77 that hit the Pentagon. No one has to adobt an unspecified "formal process" to know that. We know the perpetrators and we know what weapon they used.

Why wouldn't you or any citizen insist on the best investigation possible?

I am in the majority that understand that the investigations were the largest and best ever done and demonstrated conclusively what we already knew.

That position I just don't understand and I never will. Why not understand what happened on that day. What is your problem with the truth? You can't handle the truth John Thomas is that it? Is it too much for you?

I have no problem with the truth. It seems, however, that you are avoiding it. I can't help you with that.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jthomas

 

Well, the FBI for one.

Aparrently not according to their own admission. It seems they did not in fact bother to investigate.

Explain that logic. Because the FBI is charged with investigating crimes, that makes the investigators suspect?

I never said any such thing.

Well, SOMEONE wrote "And at this point, they most certainly are suspect."