Moussaoui Trial Images - Please help to establish the facts.

The purpose of this this thread is to try and establish the facts about some of the images used in the Moussaoui Trial.

In this thread, GoodOlDave made the following claim (bolding mine):

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Here are photos of several passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon ruins. These are photos that were submitted as evidence to the Moussaoui trial which the defense accepted as legitimate and admissible. In other words, even the lawyers representing a terrorist involved in the hijacking plot accepted these photos as being genuine:
Passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon (Warning: graphic)
Passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon (Warning: graphic)
Passenger remains recovered from the Pentagon (Warning: Graphic)

I asked GoodOlDave to prove his claim:

Originally posted by tezzajw
GoodOlDave, I agree that those are tragic images. I don't enjoy viewing them.
However, would you please prove to me that those were remains of passengers?

GoodOlDave responded with this:

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Becuase according to YOUR OWN CONSPIRACY WEB SITES the section that the plane hit was being renovated so it was largely empty of occupants.

Obviously, GoodOlDave's response failed to prove that the remains were from passengers.

Then, for some unknown reason, hooper provided this comment:

Originally posted by hooper
Well lets use conspiracy logic:
I say they are photos of passengers.
Prove they are not.

Obviously, hooper's response failed to prove that the remains were from passengers.

When pressed for further explanation of his claim, hooper responded with this:

Originally posted by hooper
So then I take it that you cannot, in fact, prove that they are not photos of the deceased passengers? Well noted. Then they are photos of passengers until proven otherwise.

and this:

Originally posted by hooper
You can't, ergo they are until proven otherwise. If you say they aren't then prove it. Prove your claim.

GoodOlDave then jumped in to side with hooper:

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I second Hooper's answer- Tezzajw, prove these aren't passenger remains.

I never made any claims about the remains at the Pentagon. I can't identify the remains I don't know what they are.

Why have GoodOlDave and hooper used faulty logic to try and make me prove a claim that I did not make?
Why have GoodOlDave and hooper both refused to prove their claim that the remains are from passengers?
Why do GoodOlDave and hooper show a misunderstanding about the logical nature of claims and proof?
Why do GoodOlDave and hooper expect that their unproven claim about the remains should be taken as fact?

Can anyone else provide proof that the remains are from passengers? GoodOlDave and hooper could do with your help, as thus far they have failed to prove their claim.




(*Disclaimer - I do not enjoy the nature of the images. I find them disturbing and I generally avoid viewing these kinds of images. I am a bit squeamish. It is with the utmost respect to the victims, that I am trying to establish some facts. I wish that the images were of another topic, but I can't help that the claim being made is about the nature of the remains.)

reply to post by tezzajw


That is how people who try to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theorists work. The cold, hard, conclusive facts are never debunked, but they're more than happy to spend 14 pages strawmanning little details, using ad hominem attacks, and turning the other cheek in the face of Physics, facts, and evidence, all in the name of patriotic bravado.

This thread contains the motherload of half-assed attempted debunks that leave me facepalming in disbelief almost every time.

Lol hooper and dave sound like they are with the government or just extremely close-minded. And they seem exceptionally stupid... nice post though s&f

Originally posted by lastbleedingvictim
Lol hooper and dave sound like they are with the government or just extremely close-minded. And they seem exceptionally stupid... nice post though s&f

They are most certainly not stupid.
They are simply liars i'm afraid, who go out on every limb (for whatever reason)
to defend what is clearly more and more indefensible.
They will continually attempt to tie you in knots.
I place these characters in the same box as the 9/11 perpetrators themselves.
Their quoted logic in the OP is appalling and derisory.

The trial was a sham by the way, as most of 9/11 was.
The 9/11 version we got was one big fairytale television production.
In reality it was a demolition job, long in the planning, full of occult sybolism and
designed to pave the way for war and the hidden agendas of a few.
Everything else is a show, all performances to fit in with the OS BS narrative..

9/11 was televisual hoax with No terrorists-No planes and Few if any victims.
Face it. We swallowed hook, line and sinker, were caught, landed and
served on a platter. How do i feel? Gutted, but, now that we know, at least there is
some chance.
We do know, don't we?
Aw, Come On!!

reply to post by pshea38

They are most certainly not stupid.
They are simply liars i'm afraid, who go out on every limb (for whatever reason)
to defend what is clearly more and more indefensible.
They will continually attempt to tie you in knots.
I place these characters in the same box as the 9/11 perpetrators themselves.
Their quoted logic in the OP is appalling and derisory.

The trial was a sham by the way, as most of 9/11 was.
The 9/11 version we got was one big fairytale television production.
In reality it was a demolition job, long in the planning, full of occult sybolism and
designed to pave the way for war and the hidden agendas of a few.
Everything else is a show, all performances to fit in with the OS BS narrative..

9/11 was televisual hoax with No terrorists-No planes and Few if any victims.
Face it. We swallowed hook, line and sinker, were caught, landed and
served on a platter. How do i feel? Gutted, but, now that we know, at least there is
some chance.
We do know, don't we?
Aw, Come On!!

History is written by the victors and reality determined by the masses.
By that measure you are not in touch with reality.
After 10 years there has not been one provable fact to suggest it was an inside job.

I thought threads that "called out" other posters were taboo on ATS...

That being said, while some of the photos are clearly Pentagon employees (as evidenced by the body of a Navy Lt.Commander) one or two of them show what's left of a human being next to what appears to be what's left of an airliner seat belt. That in and of itself, does not prove it was a passenger of Flight 77. That is done by the rest of the evidence introduced in the trial, which none of us on ATS has seen all of. However, it was introduced and accepted in a court of law...which stipulates it as factual, until it can be proven false.

silly question:

where those bodies close to the impact hole? Any clue where they were found? Because, as far as i know, there was a big fire, after the impact (of the missile?) or m i wrong? Just asking....

As horrible as the images are I wonder why when everything else around them is charred to near unrecognizable condition, yet some of those victims still have clothing......wouldn't it have been burnt off?

Originally posted by QBSneak000
As horrible as the images are I wonder why when everything else around them is charred to near unrecognizable condition, yet some of those victims still have clothing......wouldn't it have been burnt off?

edit on 14-7-2011 by QBSneak000 because: addition

edit on 14-7-2011 by QBSneak000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-7-2011 by QBSneak000 because: grammar

The second one looks like there is some hair still there, and the chest cavity looks like those fake plastic dolls they hang up in health class.

reply to post by bing0

There is a chart showing the location where the remains were found in the exhibits. Again, another legally established fact the truth movement ignores

reply to post by vipertech0596

There is a chart showing the location where the remains were found in the exhibits. Again, another legally established fact the truth movement ignores

Nobody is ignoring anything so you can drop the condescending attitude. I have never seen let alone heard of such a chart, and instead of making us seem like our minds are shut out to anything that goes against our loony conspiracy theory, why don't you show us that chart? Show us the evidence proving that those pictures are indeed of passengers, don't just say they are by backing it up with some seemingly non-existant evidence.

Originally posted by TupacShakur

 

That is how people who try to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theorists work. The cold, hard, conclusive facts are never debunked, but they're more than happy to spend 14 pages strawmanning little details, using ad hominem attacks, and turning the other cheek in the face of Physics, facts, and evidence, all in the name of patriotic bravado.

I have to agree. After all, let's look at the facts...

...the truthers mention photos of a damaged taxi cab at the Pentagon that show a large object knocked it over, and the debunkers respond by bickering over whether the light pole was lying on the taxi or lying next to it. No, wait, that was the conspiracy theorists who did that.

...the truthers ask how on earth the damage to the taxi cab could otherwise haev happened, and the debunkers speculate that someone ran out onto the highway during rush hour traffic and hit the windshield with a sledgehammer. Um, sorry, no, my mistake, it was the truthers who said thad.

...Well, the truthers did mention that a hundred eyewitnesses specifically saw the passenger jet hit the Pentagon and the debukers claims they're all planted disinformation agents or suffered mass hysteria. Oh, no, actually, that was the conspiracy theorists too.

..but the truthers DID post photos of the aircraft wreckage all over the front lawn of the Pentagon as well as photos of wreckage in the Pentagon itself, and the debunkers came up with the excuse the photos were staged and the wreckage planted in front of everyone in broad daylight. Whoops, my bad, that was the truthers who did that.

-Then, the truthers ask why they think there's even a conspiracy to stage a plane strike at the Pentagon, and the debunkers change the subject by arguing over building 7 which has absolutely nothing to do with how the events at the Pentagon went down. Oh, no, that's the truthers again.

-Yeah, but when the truthers ask to show why their information is wrong, instead of doing their own research the debunkers respond by creating a whole new thread asking other debunkers for help in showing why it's wrong. Hey wait a minute, that's the truther who created THIS thread.

So other than your ignoring all the evidence wholesale, consistantly changing the subject when asked to back up your claims, making idiotic accusations that only makes snese in a comic book plot. and insisting everyone/everything under the sun that doesn't agree with you of being staged, planted, or a disinformation agents, yes, you truthers have the cold hard facts on your side.

You truthers aren't even remotely credible at this point.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I don't have to show you. You can look up the trial transcripts and exhibits to go through them just
like those of us who truly care about the truth, already have.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by TupacShakur

 

That is how people who try to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theorists work. The cold, hard, conclusive facts are never debunked, but they're more than happy to spend 14 pages strawmanning little details, using ad hominem attacks, and turning the other cheek in the face of Physics, facts, and evidence, all in the name of patriotic bravado.

I have to agree. After all, let's look at the facts...

...the truthers mention photos of a damaged taxi cab at the Pentagon that show a large object knocked it over, and the debunkers respond by bickering over whether the light pole was lying on the taxi or lying next to it. No, wait, that was the conspiracy theorists who did that.

...the truthers ask how on earth the damage to the taxi cab could otherwise haev happened, and the debunkers speculate that someone ran out onto the highway during rush hour traffic and hit the windshield with a sledgehammer. Um, sorry, no, my mistake, it was the truthers who said thad.

...Well, the truthers did mention that a hundred eyewitnesses specifically saw the passenger jet hit the Pentagon and the debukers claims they're all planted disinformation agents or suffered mass hysteria. Oh, no, actually, that was the conspiracy theorists too.

..but the truthers DID post photos of the aircraft wreckage all over the front lawn of the Pentagon as well as photos of wreckage in the Pentagon itself, and the debunkers came up with the excuse the photos were staged and the wreckage planted in front of everyone in broad daylight. Whoops, my bad, that was the truthers who did that.

-Then, the truthers ask why they think there's even a conspiracy to stage a plane strike at the Pentagon, and the debunkers change the subject by arguing over building 7 which has absolutely nothing to do with how the events at the Pentagon went down. Oh, no, that's the truthers again.

-Yeah, but when the truthers ask to show why their information is wrong, instead of doing their own research the debunkers respond by creating a whole new thread asking other debunkers for help in showing why it's wrong. Hey wait a minute, that's the truther who created THIS thread.

So other than your ignoring all the evidence wholesale, consistantly changing the subject when asked to back up your claims, making idiotic accusations that only makes snese in a comic book plot. and insisting everyone/everything under the sun that doesn't agree with you of being staged, planted, or a disinformation agents, yes, you truthers have the cold hard facts on your side.

You truthers aren't even remotely credible at this point.

as far as i know, there is only some video, showing an (small) impact, while a Boeing is wayyyy larger




second, the black box of flight 77 was released by the government. Has been decoded by pilots who wants to know the real facts, and the pilots claim the flight of the airplane is impossible...but that video i don't find atm.....they had done a whole simulation.
*edit* found something simular, with the missile impact included :



i already wonder for a long while where flight 77 is, and their passengers

reply to post by bing0


Im interested to see where the photo's of the cruise missle painted to look like an American Airlines jet came from. I have never seen those before. I wonder if they are genuine or photoshopped. if they are real, the US government has a lot of explaining to do.

reply to post by QBSneak000


It's photoshopped. There was/is a thread recently with the original and the PhotoShop version.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Ah Dave, I never get tired of reading your posts.

...the truthers mention photos of a damaged taxi cab at the Pentagon that show a large object knocked it over, and the debunkers respond by bickering over whether the light pole was lying on the taxi or lying next to it. No, wait, that was the conspiracy theorists who did that.

...the truthers ask how on earth the damage to the taxi cab could otherwise haev happened, and the debunkers speculate that someone ran out onto the highway during rush hour traffic and hit the windshield with a sledgehammer. Um, sorry, no, my mistake, it was the truthers who said thad.

Yeah, because driver of that taxi didn't lie time and time again in an interview over that subject, and get called out on his lies with evidence, did he? Oh wait, he did!

Ah, but that's right, all you see is a confused old man, not an obviously terrible liar trying to cover something up and looking stupid when he's shown evidence that goes against his lies.

...Well, the truthers did mention that a hundred eyewitnesses specifically saw the passenger jet hit the Pentagon and the debukers claims they're all planted disinformation agents or suffered mass hysteria. Oh, no, actually, that was the conspiracy theorists too.

And that's why those very witness testimonies that you refer to vary from a solid colored private jet to a multi-colored commerical Boeing airliner.

"Big, great wings coming that way"
"Maybe a 20 passenger corporate jet, no markings on the side...coming in at a shallow angle like it was landing right into the side of the Pentagon"
"I saw a plane going down, big plane--commercial liner type"
"And I saw this jet coming in and it was really low, and it was American Airlines jet, you could read the AA on the side and silver fuselage"
"This particular plane was awful low, and as we were coming down onto 395 it came across in front of us"
"They said it was a plane and I didn't see any pieces of any plane and I couldn't believe that a plane hit the building"

From here

..but the truthers DID post photos of the aircraft wreckage all over the front lawn of the Pentagon as well as photos of wreckage in the Pentagon itself, and the debunkers came up with the excuse the photos were staged and the wreckage planted in front of everyone in broad daylight. Whoops, my bad, that was the truthers who did that.

Right, because this video doesn't show dozens of men coming out of a bus with duffle bags stuffed to capacity, and heading towards the direction of that area of the Pentagon. I'm sure there's just some really big cameras in those bags so they can photograph all of the wreckage

Tell me Dave, what do you think is in those bags?

-Then, the truthers ask why they think there's even a conspiracy to stage a plane strike at the Pentagon, and the debunkers change the subject by arguing over building 7 which has absolutely nothing to do with how the events at the Pentagon went down. Oh, no, that's the truthers again.

Nope, not me. I could talk about the Pentagon all day. A Boeing impacted the Pentagon after skidding across the lawn according to the OS, but where is the damage to the lawn? And where is all the debris that you hold in such high esteem? Circle five airplane parts from that image for me please. The only thing I see is a powdery dust, and some wire spools.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c35c9cc2ea8.jpg[/atsimg] If the wings and tail section struck the Pentagon and did not continue inwards which is consistent with the damage pattern, where is the debris from the sheared off wings and tail? Did they disintegrate on impact and turn into wire spools and white dust? Ah that's right, they folded inwards and continued inside of the building! Of course, of course.

Here ya go, I found some evidence that an aircraft impacted the pentagon. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/64b010a9f65d.jpg[/atsimg] Notice how that part of the engine is three feet wide at best? Would you say that is consistent with a Boeing engine?: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b6d0db680a96.jpg[/atsimg] On the subject of engines, why the hell aren't there two fat engine holes in the photographs of the Pentagon? If the nose of the Boeing managed to penetrate three layers and poke a hole three layers deep, what happened to the engines? They too disintegrated on impact and turned into wirespools and dust?: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f91fc219503e.png[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0f545ce877c6.jpg[/atsimg] So if the nose of a Boeing 757 indeed poked this circular hole three layers deep, implying that the nose was fairly intact in order to make a circular hole, what happened to that chunk of the aircraft? Did it stay intact for three layers, and then disintegrate when it came into contact with sunlight and fresh air after penetrating the third layer?

Unfortunately my internet connection is running too slowly to load YouTube videos, so I'm going out on a limb and operating under the assumption that the guys in this picture look like what I remember the fellas coming off of the bus with duffle bags in hand looked like: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5409fac18e58.jpg[/atsimg] Clean-up effort, or debris scattering effort?

Surely if thousands of gallons of jet fuel can turn the aluminum frame of an aiplane molten and drip out of the South tower (according to the OS of course), then it should be able to burn the interior to a molten crisp, right? [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5274fbaaade.jpg[/atsimg] However firefighters got to work pretty fast, so you could say that their intervention could have prevented that from happenning.

Then there's the question of the rookie pilot who pulled of an extremely difficult manuever when people who had seen him fly a single engine plane claimed that he was a garbage pilot. But hey, he hopped in a massive commercial airliner and came in the clutch: he pulled of a smooth 300+ degree turn while descending several thousand feet, flew just a few feet above the ground while knocking over some light poles, and slammed into the area of the Pentagon that just happened to be undergoing renovations.

Don't forget the 80+ videos being withheld by the FBI. Why is it that the only videos released of the Boeing airliner smashing into the Pentagon don't show the airliner? Maybe because the video show a missile painted to look like an airliner? [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce9d206555a5.jpg[/atsimg] Wouldn't releasing the videos that show the Boeing put the conspiracy theories of something other than a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon to rest? Nah, a few poor quality frames that don't show an airplane are good enough. Here is an outline of the airplane that's barely visible in the video compared to a Tomahawk missile: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1c3a02436df1.jpg[/atsimg] That's nothing too convincing since it's pretty blurry in the video, but it's something to consider.

And even if all of this evidence is just a wild goose chase and a commercial Boeing airliner indeed struck the Pentagon, where the hell was our multi-billion dollar defense system? From another thread:

The second plane hit the tower at 9:07am, and at that point the military became fully aware that they were under attack, so how could they not intercept a clearly hi-jacked airplane in 30 minutes? Weren't there air bases a stones throw away from the Pentagon? Ah that's right, they were running exercises with the fighter-jets far away from the Pentagon, how convenient for the terrorists! Our multi-billion dollar air defense system got slapped in the face by some goons with box-cutters which cost around five dollars. And Bush was hooking up promotions after that complete failure? That is a disgrace to this country, and we should immediately scrap our military budget if those billions of dollars are being wasted on a negligent, incompetent organization that cannot do exactly what it's there and paid to do.

Also from another thread:

-- As the plane approached the Pentagon, a young man told Cheney that the plane was 50 miles out, 30 miles out, and when he said 10 miles out he asked Cheney "Do the orders still stand?", and Cheney said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?". Why, when Dick Cheney knew the airplane was 50 miles away, did he allow the employees at the Pentagon to continue working? A single alarm inside of the Pentagon would have saved 125 people's lives. Norman Mineta's testimony was not reported by the 9/11 Commissioner, and was also censored from the online archives of commission hearings. A spokesperson said that it was a technical "snafu". The 9/11 Commission later concluded that Dick Cheney didn't reach the bunker until 9:58am, but Mineta said that Cheney "absolutely" came in half an hour earlier than that.

And then there are the multiple witness testimonies who saw the airplane prior to hitting the Pentagon and all verified that the official path is inconsistent with their observations. I'm pretty sure those are found somewhere in Loose Change, and I would love to find where that part of the video begins but I can't load YouTube videos right now so that's all you. Among the witnesses were police officers, and an air traffic controller if I remember correctly. The path of the plane being reported slightly incorrectly may seem like it's no big deal and I'm just pointing out a stupid piece of evidence for no reason, but the point of those witnesses testimonies is to verify that the path according to the official story does not match up with what the witnesses saw. If you trust the witnesses to describe the appearance of the airplane they saw, you should also trust the witness descriptions of the flight path, so how the hell did the light poles get knocked over if the plane wasn't near there? This fits nicely with Lloyds obvious lies and almost-admission to his part in the cover-up, seen in that interview that I posted earlier. Also, another sketchy detail is that his wife is in the FBI.

-Yeah, but when the truthers ask to show why their information is wrong, instead of doing their own research the debunkers respond by creating a whole new thread asking other debunkers for help in showing why it's wrong. Hey wait a minute, that's the truther who created THIS thread.

I've done my own research big guy.

So other than your ignoring all the evidence wholesale, consistantly changing the subject when asked to back up your claims, making idiotic accusations that only makes snese in a comic book plot. and insisting everyone/everything under the sun that doesn't agree with you of being staged, planted, or a disinformation agents, yes, you truthers have the cold hard facts on your side.

Yes we do. Why don't you try and debunk these cold hard facts? This video is the motherload of cold hard facts, good luck: Here, it's already been summarized just so you could try to debunk it. Also, nobody in my 9/11 thread has even attempted to fully debunk this video, but they're more than happy to badmouth it.

So let's review: We have a rookie pilot who could barely handle a single engine airplane pulling off a skillful manuever with expert precision and happening to conveniently impact the area of the Pentagon that had little attendance due to renovations. Then we have light poles being knocked over in an area hundreds of feet from where credible witnesses claim the airplane passed overhead. Then there's Lloyd who claimed that his taxi was impacted by one of those light poles, however when confronted with evidence that goes against his testimony he cannot even coherenly form a sentence to dispute their claims and defend himself. On top of that, his wife is in the FBI, and Lloyd claimed (when he thought the camera was turned off) that he was involved in 9/11 but didn't want to be since it involved the powerful people with lots of money (paraphrasing from my memory), and that he came the night before to prepare or something like that (all seen in that video above). Then we have no visible damage to the lawn, and very little debris from the wings, tail, and engines of a massive aircraft. Then shortly after the impact, we see dozens of men coming off a bus and heading in the direction of the impact site with duffle bags stuffed to capacity, IMO to spread debris around the lawn. Then, instead of putting the conspiracy theories revolving the Pentagon to rest by releasing a clear video of the impact, 2 poor quality videos out of 80+ videos are released, and the ones that are released do not show any evidence whatsoever of a Boeing commercial airliner.

So, would you like to address all of those points, or change the subject?

reply to post by vipertech0596

I don't have to show you. You can look up the trial transcripts and exhibits to go through them just
like those of us who truly care about the truth, already have.

OK, so what I just heard is "I can provide no evidence to back up my claims".

Post the links to the trial transcripts and exhibits yourself, if you make a claim that there is evidence to back something up, you have to provide that evidence. And after being asked to provide the evidence that you claimed existed after not providing it to us, telling me to find it on my own is pretty rude.

So as of right now, we will assume that there is no evidence that those photographs are from the Pentagon, since the people who claim that such evidence exists stubbornly refuse to post that evidence.

reply to post by TupacShakur



bro, thx for your large post.... i totally agree. The YT videos i posted show also a part of the truth

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You truthers aren't even remotely credible at this point.

GoodOlDave, your off-topic-wall-of-text-rant has not provided any proof for your claim that the images showed passenger remains.

Even vipertech0596 has doubts that all of those remains are passengers, as he's fairly certain that one image is a Pentagon employee and he's unable to positively identify any of the other remains as passengers.

For the sake of your credibility, you should consider retracting or revising your claim.