Shanksville forest damage conflicts with official story?

Originally posted by hooper
Please tell me where the 9/11 commission report and the indictment differ.

So you agree then that the 9/11 commission report (a collection of reports from other agenices) was not used as evidence to support the official story?

Noting, of course, that the commission report is also an extensive review of the US security and intelligence capabilities.

Sorry but the commission report (a collection of reports from other agenices) does not have any reports about natiional security or intelligence capablities. Your poor research skill are showing yet again.

And the mainstream media is on "trial" every day.

Please show me the mainstream media reports that were used at the trial.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


Here:
www.justice.gov...

Read it yourself and tell me why this differs from the "official story". Tell me how this indictment is not a point by point reiteration of the official story. Then also tell me how the trial had nothing to do with the "official story".

Originally posted by REMISNE


Please show me the mainstream media reports that were used at the trial.

Greetings Mr. Remisne,

I hope this helps:

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

Exhibit# AQ00081

ABC Nightline's June 10, 1998 broadcast of John Miller's interview of Usama Bin Laden recorded on May 28, 1998 [This video runs 52 minutes, 34 seconds, and is copyrighted by ABC News]

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...


Exhibit# AQ00081DVD

Selected clips from AQ00081 and AQ00081T [This video runs 16 minutes, 26 seconds, and is copyrighted by ABC News]

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Exhibit # P200337

Photo of the fireball coming from the South Tower of the World Trade Center [This photograph is copyrighted by Associated Press]

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Exhibit# AQ00087DVD

Selected clips from AQ00087 and AQ00087T [This video runs 16 minutes, 50 seconds, and is copyrighted by Aljazeera Television]

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

Originally posted by REMISNE

So your saying others can be charged with a crime (please see FBI most wanted) but OBL is special and cannot be charged?

The DoD is looking for him. Bush decided to try him in military court, not a civilian court.

Were you not aware of this?

reply to post by REMISNE


In the report "intelligence" is found 1442 times, "national security" is mentioned 180 times. The report deals mainly with matters of national security and intelligence. But it also provides details for what happened on September 11, 2001.

To sit there and say that the report has nothing to do with those issues is stunningly obtuse.

People,

The thread topic is:

Shanksville forest damage conflicts with official story

Please stop derailing this thread.

Originally posted by hooper
Strong? Strength is not the variable that tells the story. Its shape, direction. Have you really never seen anything explode before? Why does this need to be explained?

Well you still haven't explained why the grass around the crater and in between the crater and forest was damaged at all, so...

So anything in the news is "official"?

When multiple mainstream news outlets are saying the same thing, yes. Especially when officials haven't issued a statement announces all those new outlets were incorrect.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I hope this helps:

Photos and video clips but as stated no real, actual reports from the mainstream media.



[edit on 19-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The DoD is looking for him. Bush decided to try him in military court, not a civilian court.

Were you not aware of this?

As stated many times, both the FBI and Department of Justice has stated there is not enough evidence to charge OBL with being behind 9/11. On the FBI most wanted list 9/11 is not listed for OBL.

Still waiting for an answer to this question. How come others on the FBI most wanted list can be charged with crimes without being captured but OBL cannot according to Hooper?

[edit on 19-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by hooper
To sit there and say that the report has nothing to do with those issues is stunningly obtuse.

Let me make as simple as can for you.

The terms might be found, BUT ARE NOT talked about in the commission report.

Also in case you did not know the 9/11 commission did not do an proper investigation, also the report is not a investigation but a collection of reports from other agencies.

[edit on 19-3-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by REMISNE

So your saying others can be charged with a crime (please see FBI most wanted) but OBL is special and cannot be charged?

The DoD is looking for him. Bush decided to try him in military court, not a civilian court.

Were you not aware of this?

What does any of what you said have to do with why he has not been charged?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

What does any of what you said have to do with why he has not been charged?

He has been charged by the DoD, and they will try him in a military court. They apparently have found the evidence against OBL sufficent.

If he was going to be tried in a civiian court, then the DoJ and FBI would be doing the legwork and making the case against him.

Which of course might happen, regardless if he's captured or not, if it follows the path that the KSM trial has taken.

This is just basic politics at work here.

Why is it such an effort to explain it to the TM?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Still waiting for an answer to this question. How come others on the FBI most wanted list can be charged with crimes without being captured but OBL cannot according to Hooper?

He can be.

But the DoD is handling it.

Therefore, there is no reason for the FBI to expend its resources making a case against him, when the intention is to try him in a military court.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Photos and video clips but as stated no real, actual reports from the mainstream media.

Greetings Mr. Remisne,

Actually, sir, they are reports. Anytime a news crew is dispatched to an event they are reporting on the event. The videos ARE a report. The photos taken are part of the report. They are real!

Watch your local news tonight when you get home. Listen to what the "reporter" states that is live on a scene.....

"Reporting live from Hoboken, this is Asian reporter, Trisha Tankanaowa."

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

He has been charged by the DoD, and they will try him in a military court. They apparently have found the evidence against OBL sufficent.

Charged with what crime(s)?

Why is it such an effort to explain it to the TM?

Why do you need 4 screen names on ATS?



[edit on 19-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by REMISNE

The terms might be found, BUT ARE NOT talked about in the commission report.

So the term (intelligence) is repeated 1442 times in a 585 page document and yet the report is not discussing intelligence. Interesting. Same goes for "national security" which is repeated 180 times and yet, it is not talked about. Double interesting.

And of course, I know you don't think it was a "proper" investigation, wouldn't have expected anything else.

Originally posted by ATH911
Originally posted by hooper

Well you still haven't explained why the grass around the crater and in between the crater and forest was damaged at all, so...

I'll take it you mean "wasn't" or "was not damaged". I would beg the question first. You are making an absolute statement based on a minimum of input. A few photos, none of which appear to be taken with the express purpose of cataloging the exact extent of the damage caused by fire is the only basis for your inquiry. This was an explosion with fire, no set rules. If the same exact plane crashed again in the same exact place, the damage pattern would again be different. Hold a deck of playing cards in your hand stretched out from your body and drop them and note the pattern the fallen cards make on the ground. Repeat as many times as you so desire. Same deck of cards, same height, same floor, etc. there always be some variant. Not that you couldn't write some general rules about the patterns - no larger grouping than "x", etc. however, the cards will never fall into the same exact postions. Add more variables (increase the height at which they are released, do it oustside with some air movement, etc) and your rules become even more general and less specific.

You and I do not have enough information about the crash to write any set of rules that we could point to and say that what can be observed is in violation of our rules.

When multiple mainstream news outlets are saying the same thing, yes. Especially when officials haven't issued a statement announces all those new outlets were incorrect.

So anything that is repeated is official? What constitutes "mainstream media"?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Charged with what crime(s)?

So you admit that this is news to you?

Are you saying that you were unaware of the politics surrounding the whole Guantanamo Bay thing?

Of course you didn't.

As expected.....

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Charged with what crime(s)?

So you admit that this is news to you?

Are you saying that you were unaware of the politics surrounding the whole Guantanamo Bay thing?

Of course you didn't.

As expected.....

No, I am asking you to tell me exactly what crimes you are under the understanding that OBL has been charged with. Why is asking a basic question to an OSer so difficult?

Originally posted by hooper
So the term (intelligence) is repeated 1442 times in a 585 page document and yet the report is not discussing intelligence. Interesting. Same goes for "national security" which is repeated 180 times and yet, it is not talked about. Double interesting.

TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Please show me any real intelligence or national securty issues talked about in thne commission report or admit you are wrong yet again.

And of course, I know you don't think it was a "proper" investigation, wouldn't have expected anything else.

So prove me wrong if you can. Show me evidence of a proper investigation.

TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP.



[edit on 19-3-2010 by REMISNE]