Debunking a 9-11 myth

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yes, and if you answer a question for me, i will provide it:

When a witness scheduled to testify is assassinated, does that prove that the defendant was guilty?

No.

Innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

Now answer my question.

[shazeep]

well, i am answering your question; pointing to the truth. But you are asking for facts, which are not the same thing. Law aside, would you not be quite suspicious of the defendant after the assassination? I persist here because--as you have pointed out w/the gas station story--my witness has been assassinated, and i find this suspicious.

Alone, it means little, but there are other "facts" that should be viewed in this light. However, comparing the compressor core at 5:04 to the engine that was mounted on the supposed plane provides an indisputable fact, and this has been done. Elsewhere of course, not in the cartoon.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, i am answering your question; pointing to the truth. But you are asking for facts, which are not the same thing. Law aside,

You see, this is a problem. Because we live in a land of laws, laws which go from sea to shining sea. Therefore we cannot make statements based on suspicion as being fact. Just because Colonel Mustard was in the conservatory with a rope, doesn't mean he was the killer. We need to piece all evidence together. Everything needs to be in place, in order to gain a conviction. Without key elements someone who may of been close to the crime, have motive to commit the crime, yet may still be innocent of the crime. Therefore we don't put the LAW ASIDE. Just because you hate Professor Plum, was last seen near the library walking with a candlestick, shouting at him that you could kill him, doesn't mean you are the murderer.
That is innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty.

Originally Posted by shazeep

would you not be quite suspicious of the defendant after the assassination?

I can be suspicious, I could also create a motive, but thank Jesus, that isn't enough to place someone in prison for the rest of their life.

Suspicion: Suspicion is a cognition of mistrust in which a person doubts the honesty of another person or believes another person to be guilty of some type of wrongdoing or crime, but without sure proof. Wikipedia

Without proof? Dude, would you like that for yourself? Is that the kind of treatment in a situation you would want for yourself? I hope your answer would be a no. In the play a Man for All Seasons, the quote from Thomas More is "I would give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety sake." But that is just the dilemma we all must face. That is law, and if we don't give the benefit of law to even the most wicked "the Devil" then we open ourselves up to losing our liberties.

Originally Posted by shazeep

I persist here because--as you have pointed out w/the gas station story--my witness has been assassinated, and i find this suspicious.

But unless you have some strong solid physical evidence then you are twisting in the wind. Suspicion is wonderfully not enough for a conviction. Thank you Jesus! There was a time Salem Massachusetts? Where suspicion was enough to gain your death. While some would like to bring back the witch trails we can safely say we don't really have them now.

Originally Posted by shazeep

Alone, it means little, but there are other "facts" that should be viewed in this light. However, comparing the compressor core at 5:04 to the engine that was mounted on the supposed plane provides an indisputable fact, and this has been done. Elsewhere of course, not in the cartoon.

Bro, do you really know the meaning of the word "indisputable?"

[shazeep]

It seems to me that you are being disingenuous here, especially in light of the gas station video comment, which i agree with. The assassination of a state's witness is a de facto admission of guilt to the public mind, which is likely why we have civil suits as well as criminal. The impeller has been matched to a cruise missile, which you no doubt are aware of already.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You see, this is a problem. Because we live in a land of laws, laws which go from sea to shining sea.

Ah; well wadr you might live there, but i do not. So, you consider yourself a legalist then?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by shazeep

It seems to me that you are being disingenuous here, especially in light of the gas station video comment, which i agree with. The assassination of a state's witness is a de facto admission of guilt to the public mind, which is likely why we have civil suits as well as criminal. The impeller has been matched to a cruise missile, which you no doubt are aware of already.

OK, I asked you for solid evidence. Now, you say you have exhibit A. So where is the actual missile impeller? What kind of missile? who has this evidence? I must remind you that court cases are filed everyday, but whether they succeed in their objectives is another story. So, who has this rocket engine? Or missile impeller?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Ah; well wadr you might live there, but i do not. So, you consider yourself a legalist then?

You don't live in the United States?

So, do you live in a country which has no laws?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shazeep

hey, why look for video when people can make cartoons, and select the video that fits their story; incidentally the same people who can suppress "irrelevant" movies that present another story that is apparently just a conspiracy, but, y'know, we need to be protected from those, because America.

So said to see objectivity is lost.

It was 3D animation using high tech tools along with the flight path as outlined by both the pictures and video evidence...no evidence it was a cruise missile

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, i am answering your question; pointing to the truth. But you are asking for facts, which are not the same thing. Law aside, would you not be quite suspicious of the defendant after the assassination? I persist here because--as you have pointed out w/the gas station story--my witness has been assassinated, and i find this suspicious.

Alone, it means little, but there are other "facts" that should be viewed in this light. However, comparing the compressor core at 5:04 to the engine that was mounted on the supposed plane provides an indisputable fact, and this has been done. Elsewhere of course, not in the cartoon.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shazeep

It seems to me that you are being disingenuous here, especially in light of the gas station video comment, which i agree with. The assassination of a state's witness is a de facto admission of guilt to the public mind, which is likely why we have civil suits as well as criminal. The impeller has been matched to a cruise missile, which you no doubt are aware of already.

What gas station video? What assassination? what impeller?