AWACS crew member says Flight 93 shot down

reply to post by REMISNE

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

We'll see:

United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Face it, you're just moving the goalpost around now. First it was "it wouldn't hold up in a court of law" and then when you are shown that, in fact, it did hold up in a court of law you changed your tune to "it wouldn't hold up in a NEW case in court".

Just admit you're wrong. Just admit the evidence was submit and accepted in a court of law.

Originally posted by hooper
Just admit you're wrong. Just admit the evidence was submit and accepted in a court of law.

Jut admit that you cannot prove me wrong and the evidence is not that good. It could not be used to charge OBL with being behind 9/11.

To bad there is plenty of evidence to show reasonable doubt in the official story.

reply to post by REMISNE


The evidence was submitted in a court of law.

The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

That fully, completely and beyond a reasonable doubt proves that your statement that the evidence would never be accepted in a court of law is incorrect.

Originally posted by hooper
That fully, completely and beyond a reasonable doubt proves that your statement that the evidence would never be accepted in a court of law is incorrect.

Just admit that you cannot prove me wrong and the evidence is not that good. It could not be used to charge OBL with being behind 9/11.

To bad there is plenty of evidence to show reasonable doubt in the official story.

reply to post by REMISNE

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

So - when was the trial of OBL? Must of missed it, probably busy that day.

Your statement "could not" means that it was attempted and failed.

Originally posted by hooper
Your statement "could not" means that it was attempted and failed.

Yes, the evidence failed.

Both the FBI and DOJ have stated that their is not enough evidence to charge OBL with being beind 9/11.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Your statement "could not" means that it was attempted and failed.

Yes, the evidence failed.

Both the FBI and DOJ have stated that their is not enough evidence to charge OBL with being beind 9/11.

And the hearing date? Trial date? Case #?

And by the way OBL was named a co-conspirator in the Mosawi trial. Where the evidence was submit, and accepted, and resulted in the conviction. So you can lay off the 9 year old press statements as "proof".

Originally posted by hooper
And the hearing date? Trial date? Case #?

Please try to get this through the safe fantasy world you live in. Both the FBI and DOJ have stated there i not enough evidence to charge OBL with being behind 9/11. The evidence you trust in FAILED.

reply to post by REMISNE


But you didn't say the evidence had to hold up in a trial of a specific person. You were making a general point that the evidence wasn't strong enough for court purposes of any kind. (Given that you think that the US govt is behind this, why you'd trust their courts is another matter).

Now you've been shown categorically incorrect you've altered your criteria. This is poor stuff.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You were making a general point that the evidence wasn't strong enough for court purposes of any kind.

Now you are beginning to understand.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You were making a general point that the evidence wasn't strong enough for court purposes of any kind.

Now you are beginning to understand.

I've understood all along. I realise that this has been your point. It's just that

- you never apply it to evidence that supports your ideas

- it's a stupid standard to have anyway

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
- you never apply it to evidence that supports your ideas

Yes i can and do.