you know what's astonishing?

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Before I spend any more effort on this, perhaps you can answer a question I posed in another thread on this topic, to which I've never gotten a response as far as I'm aware:

If it wasn't Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, what became of Flight 77?

AFAIC, until that question is answered, it's kinda silly to continue to discuss whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon.

So Toasty if you where defending a suspected crime boss who had been accused of gunning down a cop in a night club. The police say they have the murder weapon with the accused's prints on it but won't let it be independently verified, all they are letting you have is a couple of shells with no prints. There are loads of eyewitness with slightly different stories due to the chaos. The crime boss says it wasn't him. Would you expect your client to be guilty on the grounds he couldn't tell you who the gunman was and what happened to him (because he didn't know). And with all the mixed up story's in the chaos would you be asking to see the clear CCTV footage of the event.

[toasty]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

So Toasty if you where defending a suspected crime boss who had been accused of gunning down a cop in a night club. The police say they have the murder weapon with the accused's prints on it but won't let it be independently verified, all they are letting you have is a couple of shells with no prints. There are loads of eyewitness with slightly different stories due to the chaos. The crime boss says it wasn't him. Would you expect your client to be guilty on the grounds he couldn't tell you who the gunman was and what happened to him (because he didn't know). And with all the mixed up story's in the chaos would you be asking to see the clear CCTV footage of the event.

Well, first of all, I wouldn't be defending a crime boss, but that's beside the point. If I were a criminal defense attorney presented with that situation, though, of course I would do those things.

There is a substantive problem with this analogy, though, because this isn't a criminal prosecution. Criminal proceedings use a different standard of proof than most people use in their day to day lives in terms of what they believe. In a criminal case, there is a presumption of innocence, and the accused is deemed innocent unless the prosecution can prove beyond all reasonable doubt (i.e., that no reasonable minds could disagree) that he is guilty. It's an exceptionally high standard to meet, and that's the reason that guys like OJ can get off notwithstanding that we all know that he did it, and probably everyone on the jury thought that he more than likely did it, too.

"More likely than not" is the standard used in civil proceedings, and that just means that on balance, it is more likely that something happened one way than another, basically a short hair over 50%. Even though they may not refer to it as such, it is also the standard that most people use in their own private lives and decision making processes. Most people do not require the same level of proof -- proof that definitively rules out all alternatives, proof that leaves no room for reasonable disagreement -- in assessing what they believe about a particular event.

For me, having looked at the evidence, the primary components of the 9/11 story make sense to me:

• Commercial jets flew into the WTC towers, causing explosions and fires which put into motion a process by which the structure of the towers failed and they collapsed
• A commercial airplane flew or skid into the Pentagon, causing explosions and fires
• The passengers of the flight that crashed in PA overtook the plane, and it crashed at their hands

The reason I believe these things is that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support them. There may be some details of the official story that don't match up exactly, and that may take me down from a 100% confidence level, but even if you take some of the more legitimate questions raised by 9/11 conspiracy theorists as worthy of further inquiry, there is still way more evidence for the broad scenarios I've outlined above than anything else. I'm still way over that magic 50%+1 confidence level that makes me believe something, and it isn't even really close..

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

So Toasty if you where defending a suspected crime boss who had been accused of gunning down a cop in a night club. The police say they have the murder weapon with the accused's prints on it but won't let it be independently verified, all they are letting you have is a couple of shells with no prints. There are loads of eyewitness with slightly different stories due to the chaos. The crime boss says it wasn't him. Would you expect your client to be guilty on the grounds he couldn't tell you who the gunman was and what happened to him (because he didn't know). And with all the mixed up story's in the chaos would you be asking to see the clear CCTV footage of the event.

In addition to Toasty's well-phrased response, I would also add (and forgive me if I am perhaps inadvertently repeating what Toasty said):

The scenario you presented seems to have already in essence established that the cop was shot; the what is known and the issue then is who did the shooting.

But in the case of the Pentagon, you're not even willing to establish the basic condition that nearly all of the eyewitness accounts confirmed, which was that a large passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon. You're not arguing about who did the crashing, you're still trying to dispute the what.

To me, those are not truly analogous situations, because they differ in terms of the scope that you're trying to address with the evidence. The former situation has a narrower scope, and variations in eyewitness testimony are likely to have a much greater impact on the verdict of what happened (people can look alike, maybe some didn't see the shooter's face, maybe it was dark, etc.). The latter situation with the Pentagon has a broader scope, at least at face level where we address the broad question of "what (if anything) hit the Pentagon?" I'm much more likely to lend belief to eyewitness reports in this case, particularly when there is a large, diverse data set that is nearly unanimous in the support of the key premise of a large passenger plane flying into the Pentagon.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

But in the case of the Pentagon, you're not even willing to establish the basic condition that nearly all of the eyewitness accounts confirmed, which was that a large passenger plane crashed into the Pentagon. You're not arguing about who did the crashing, you're still trying to dispute the what.

When the CIT team went back and interviewed witnesses that came forward not one eyewitness could confirm it. Also not one confirmed that the plane took the route the the plane was supposed to of taken. There was no way of some of the eyewitnesses could of seen the plane had it followed the official route. There where also eyewitness that saw the plane fly over the pentagon not into it.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

The scenario you presented seems to have already in essence established that the cop was shot; the what is known and the issue then is who did the shooting.

So what you are saying is if the accused had denied it and couldn't provide info on who did it you would let him fry. Even though you could just clear the matter up by looking at the CCTV. Sounds to me like you are saying well he must of done something in the past lets fit him up.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

So what you are saying is if the accused had denied it and couldn't provide info on who did it you would let him fry. Even though you could just clear the matter up by looking at the CCTV. Sounds to me like you are saying well he must of done something in the past lets fit him up.

Come on... Would you know the full "official" route the plane took if you saw it? Most people probably only had a brief look from one vantage point at the plane flying low at near top speed - not exactly enough to be able to draw the route on a map.

As for the plane flying over... Well, show me that data, I guess... I'm curious how many people actually support that story. I do believe there was another plane in the vicinity afterwards and it's already been explained... I'll have to look for that data again.

To the best of my knowledge ALMOST EVERY WITNESS confirmed the basic premise of a large passenger plane flying low and fast into the Pentagon. And that's many unrelated people in different geographic locations. And I haven't heard any reports of people saying they saw something else - a cruise missile, Santa Claus, etc. And that's what I care about, not if they remember other details.

Besides, if the plane just flew on by... then where did it go? Area 51? And more importantly, WHY? What on earth is tje point of tje government pretending to fly a plane into the Pentagon, but then hiding it somewhere, blowing up the building in some other manner, and then trying to convince the world that the plane hit the Pentagon? After we all saw the planes hit the towers? What on earth would they stand to gain from such silly, complicated games? That doesn't even make sense.

If there was a substantial amount of real variation in what people say that day (some saw a plane, some saw a helicopter, some saw whatever else, etc), I'd be more inclined to believe that a large passenger plane didn't hit the building. But as things stand, to the best of my current knowledge, it seems to me like you"re grasping at straws here and that it's much more rational, based on the evidence, to accept that a large passenger did hit the Pentagon.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Come on... Would you know the full "official" route the plane took if you saw it? Most people probably only had a brief look from one vantage point at the plane flying low at near top speed - not exactly enough to be able to draw the route on a map.

The 2 police officers (Chadwick Brookes & William Legacy), the 2 petrol station attendants (Edward Paik & Robert Turclos) all claim the plane didn't fly from the south side of the station but the north side. Check out this from

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...25095031&hl=en#


I've said it before what needs doing is returning to these eyewitness and go back to the site and ask them to re account theirs stories in more detail. One of the things I find funny is the way you will keep mentioning the eyewitness for the Pentagon but not some of the eyewitnesses accounts for building 7 like the NY Firemen. Seems to me you will accept accounts from people who cooberate the official story but not the ones who don't

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

The 2 police officers (Chadwick Brookes & William Legacy), the 2 petrol station attendants (Edward Paik & Robert Turclos) all claim the plane didn't fly from the south side of the station but the north side. Check out this from

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...25095031&hl=en#


I've said it before what needs doing is returning to these eyewitness and go back to the site and ask them to re account theirs stories in more detail. One of the things I find funny is the way you will keep mentioning the eyewitness for the Pentagon but not some of the eyewitnesses accounts for building 7 like the NY Firemen. Seems to me you will accept accounts from people who cooberate the official story but not the ones who don't

To be honest, I don't know that much about the eyewitnesses for building 7. I'll take a look.

But show me the number of eyewitnesses who say it wasn't a plane and that it didn't hit the Pentagon. There's a lot less ambiguity in that visual than loud noises in a building that was already hit by jets, is on fire, and is getting ready to come down. Aren't you doing the same thing you're accusing me of with those eyewitnesses?

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

You obviously didn't watch the video, because all the witness said they saw the plane, but none say they actually saw the plane hit the pentagon. The police officer went on to say no one on the north side could of seen the plane hit due to the impact site being obscured bu the trees.

There was the news reporter who claims he saw the impact, he also claims the wings folded in.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Barry Jennings is dead

[YOUTUBE]6xca6o38ZNY[/YOUTUBE]

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[toasty]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^^

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Whos changing the subject ?

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

It just makes sense to go over one event that occurred that day at a time.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Yeah like toasty did with my post. Instead of answering the question which basically was if you where defending someone claiming their innocence and there was video footage that could clear the matter up wouldnt he want the court to see it. And would he advise the client that unless they provide a different scenario to something they had not seen they would be presumed guilty. Instead he just danced around with the legal system.

He was the one asking unless we could provide info what happed to the plane. I was just asking if he would apply the same to a client

Before I spend any more effort on this, perhaps you can answer a question I posed in another thread on this topic, to which I've never gotten a response as far as I'm aware:

If it wasn't Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, what became of Flight 77?

AFAIC, until that question is answered, it's kinda silly to continue to discuss whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon.