AWACS crew member says Flight 93 shot down

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
1 I suspect you're wrong

2 Could you give me some evidence from your version of events that would stand up in court?

1. If there is no official report matching serial numbers from the FDR to the plane then it would not be considered evidence in court.

2. All i have to do is prove reasonable doubt in the official story which i have and can prove.


[edit on 11-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The story doesn't have to "stand up in court" for me to be largely satisfied, no.

So you just believe what your told. I guess you beleive everything the media tells you?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


Why? Courts don't exist to make you feel better about an historical event. They mediate on points of law. If you think there's a criminal case to be answered (or I suppose a civil one) then that's what they're there for. You can feel free to make your accusations and bring your evidence. Although of course the Truth Movement is noticeably reluctant to do this.

You apparently have no clue what we are discussing here. We are talking about the crime that occurred on 9/11/01. It was a crime. It has been investigated as a crime. It is in the court system. What part of that did you miss?

The poster is just using the criteria (which he clearly has little knowledge of anyway) in an attempt to discredit the opposing argument by applying a ludicrous standard of evidence to it.

Ludicrous standard of evidence? He wants a criminal prosecution to stand up in court. How is that ludicrous?

The story doesn't have to "stand up in court" for me to be largely satisfied, no.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

You just have to be told what to believe then?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
1 I suspect you're wrong

2 Could you give me some evidence from your version of events that would stand up in court?

1. If there is no official report matching serial numbers from the FDR to the plane then it would not be considered evidence in court.

2. All i have to do is prove reasonable doubt in the official story which i have and can prove.


[edit on 11-2-2010 by REMISNE]

1 So you would trust an official report that did?

And I still think you're wrong.


2 What are you talking about? When is the "OS" court case? When are you taking the witness stand with your evidence? You're living in a fantasy world.

Originally posted by Lillydale

You apparently have no clue what we are discussing here. We are talking about the crime that occurred on 9/11/01. It was a crime. It has been investigated as a crime. It is in the court system. What part of that did you miss?

And what was the result? Do they agree - broadly - with you or me?

Ludicrous standard of evidence? He wants a criminal prosecution to stand up in court. How is that ludicrous?

No. He wants some weird case where something he calls "The OS" is subjected to the rigour of jurisprudence. That hasn't and will never happen. You can't try an event.

You just have to be told what to believe then?

A court didn't tell me that there was an earthquake in Haiti last month. But I choose to believe that there was.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
2 What are you talking about? When is the "OS" court case? When are you taking the witness stand with your evidence? You're living in a fantasy world.

I have evidence that would hold up in court that shows reasonable doubt in the official story.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
2 What are you talking about? When is the "OS" court case? When are you taking the witness stand with your evidence? You're living in a fantasy world.

I have evidence that would hold up in court that shows reasonable doubt in the official story.

You may have convinced yourself of this, but

-- you don't

-- it doesn't matter. Because there won't be a case of the kind you imagine. Events are not subject to courts. And to pretend that one needs a standard of evidence similar to a criminal proceeding to believe something is totally mental.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And to pretend that one needs a standard of evidence similar to a criminal proceeding to believe something is totally mental.

Standard of evidence holds true for all evidence, including what you believe is evidence that supports the official story.







[edit on 12-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE


Standard of evidence holds true for all evidence, including what you believe is evidence that supports the official story.







[edit on 12-2-2010 by REMISNE]

No it doesn't. You just choose to apply this standard because it allows you to pick holes in what you call the "OS".

In any case, the standard for evidence varies depending on the context. It even varies in different types of court case. And outside court the requirements differ wildly.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
No it doesn't. You just choose to apply this standard because it allows you to pick holes in what you call the "OS".

You do know we are talking criminal investigation correct?

If you do not have proper sources then evidence, like the FDRs will not be considered evidence. Basic evidence 101.



[edit on 12-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
No it doesn't. You just choose to apply this standard because it allows you to pick holes in what you call the "OS".

You do know we are talking criminal investigation correct?

If you do not have proper sources then evidence, like the FDRs will not be considered evidence. Basic evidence 101.
[edit on 12-2-2010 by REMISNE]

And the proper source for is.....THE FBI! If an investigating officer says that he/she found "X" at the crime scene then the courts will view that as a rebuttable presumption that the article was found at the crime scene.

Originally posted by hooper
[And the proper source for is.....THE FBI! If an investigating officer says that he/she found "X" at the crime scene then the courts will view that as a rebuttable presumption that the article was found at the crime scene.

WRONG, in a criminal investigation proper sources must be shown.

Thanks for showing again you do not know what you are talking about.

reply to post by REMISNE


Tell you what - since we are talking about courts and evidence - prove me wrong! Please cite case law that proves what you are contending.

Originally posted by hooper
Tell you what - since we are talking about courts and evidence - prove me wrong! Please cite case law that proves what you are contending.

Thats really funny comming from someone who has proven they will not accept or admit to evidence shown.

Originally posted by REMISNE


You do know we are talking criminal investigation correct?

Oh. I thought we were talking about an AWACS crewman saying something or other.

But even though we're way OT, we haven't come that far that we are now talking about a criminal investigation OR a court case. Unless of course you can point out which case we're discussing?

As far as I can see the notion of evidential standards was introduced by you to discredit the idea that the FDR is real. Meanwhile you showed us a form letter referring to a document and claimed it as proof of something else.

Can you not see the grotesque double standard you're applying?

If you do not have proper sources then evidence, like the FDRs will not be considered evidence. Basic evidence 101.



[edit on 12-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Whereas your letter is bullet proof evidence?

It's increasingly obvious that you are demanding a ludicrously high standard of evidence because it allows you to reject stuff you don't like. This is simple bias.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It's increasingly obvious that you are demanding a ludicrously high standard of evidence because it allows you to reject stuff you don't like. This is simple bias.

Funny how i can show evidence to suppot what i post that would hold up in court but you and others cannnot.



[edit on 12-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It's increasingly obvious that you are demanding a ludicrously high standard of evidence because it allows you to reject stuff you don't like. This is simple bias.

Funny how i can show evidence to suppot what i post that would hold up in court but you and others cannnot.



[edit on 12-2-2010 by REMISNE]

If you think that what you posted would stand up in court to support what you claim then you're delusional.

And what court case are we discussing? You haven't told me yet.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If you think that what you posted would stand up in court to support what you claim then you're delusional.

The FOIA request, response letter and the document itself would all hold up in court.

And what court case are we discussing? You haven't told me yet.

The offiial story has little evidence that would hold up in court.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE

The offiial story has little evidence that would hold up in court.

And yet it did.

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui
Criminal No. 01-455-A

Originally posted by hooper
And yet it did.

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui
Criminal No. 01-455-A

Thats so funny, you know that evidence was bearly enough to get him convicted.

You do know that the same evidence was not enough to charge OBL with beng behind 9/11? So its not that great as evidence.

That same evidnece would not be enough to hold up in a new case in couirt to prove the official stroy.