Before I actually get into my thread, I want to state some things up front. First I ask that you actually read all of my thread...and check all of my sources references..etc. Next I ask to please keep it civil. Any insult to me (or anyone else) will be ignored. I will state I am only going to answer questions once, if I do not respond to something...it is either because it is insulting in tone...or already answered. I will try to make this as readable as possible...I will be the first to admit my presentation skills are lacking. Let me also state I don't consider myself a truther (at least not in terms most of you would think) I am someone who simply seeks the truth in everything (whatever that may be) if that makes me a truther so be it.
With that said let me get into my thread. I have noticed that their is a lot of of talk and questions asked about "prove" an alternative theory. The idea is somewhat absurd in nature. First of all each of us is only one person, with limited resources, so asking us to prove something on this scale, just does not seem reasonable. Secondly and more importantly, one does not have to prove an alternative theory to disprove the official theory. For example someone is charged with a murder, if you can prove he was somewhere else at the time, you have proven he did not commit the murder, what actually happened (in terms of the person being charged) is not important.
So I started thinking about the burden of proof. For a criminal case, which this is, in the USA we have what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution (ie the official story) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof)
I got to thinking, because reasonable doubt is a somewhat subjective term, if I could quantify it somehow. I found on legal match that while most courts don't like to give a percentage of how sure you have to be, but they said it would generally be 90, 95, or 99%. (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...he-evidence-vs-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html)
So I thought what if we put Bin Laden/al qaeda on trial. With a truly impartial, judge, jury...etc. So in a far away land where no one knows anything about 9/11. Please do not bring up the moussaoui trial, there is no way to get a fair trial in US on this subject.
I thought why don't we start out with 100% sure, and can decrement for everything, that will cast some doubt on the official story very unexplainable things. Things that would take someone a back a little bit. I will give all benefit of the doubt to the official story, I will use no science in less it comes from official sources or by those who clearly support the official story. I will only assign a 1% (which in some cases it is absurdly low) decrement at the max, though in a lot of cases I believe it would be much more. I will try to be as objective as possible. By in large this will be in other people's word, very little analysis from me, save for explaining a few things. Any CT site I reference will be only because it is easier for me to get to it, but it will be from an official source or right from someone's own words.
Llyode England's virtual confession -1% (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho)
In this clip Llyode England for all intents and purposes confesses. He says it was planned (referring to his cab accident). He's in it (referring to the 9/11 plot), and the rich people this is their thing. He clearly is not apart of al qaeda. Clearly this casts some doubt.
Aziz El Hallan -1%
Many people are not aware of him, but late in the afternoon on 9/11 he showed up to the local Washington D.C Fox with an actual piece of what he claimed to be flight 77, as seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpBH6YwXYnU) If that isn't strange enough, he claims to have been on the road for 15-20 minutes (after the attack), yet there is a picture of him at the latest 8 minutes after the attack, taken by an official military photographer, as seen here. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8818) It is at the Navy annex. Very strange indeed, also this photo was omitted from the official DOD release.
WTC 7 early reporting each time gets -1% because it is indicative of someone giving out information of something that was to happen. An indication that someone had prior knowledge.
Here is the first one at 11:07 -1% (or it sure seems like that is all they are referring to WTC 7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_sNl7l6tOU
Here is the 2nd...Aaron Brown -1% http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VerKCCwORMM
Here is the 3rd and probably the most famous the BBC -1% http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
Here is the fourth and final one that I know of, it is a lesser known one but my personal favorite...that same Fox station that had Aziz -1%....they say it has
collapsed, go to a live shot and then it collapses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ7slm8REyQ&feature=related
Flight 175 is still in the air -1%. Now I know you can say there is a delay, but the evidence points against it. Flight 11 is not there. Most flights are not there, but this is. This would indicate that whatever delay there is it should have passed for 175. Certainly a strange development. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXGSefI6pM
John Gross, caught either being grossly negligent or lying. -1% Surely if someone who is the lead investigator of the effort to find out the reason for the collapse of the buildings, is caught being at best negligent, that would cast some doubt on to the official reason for the buildings collapsing? While we are on the law topic, ignorance of the law is no excuse, by legal standards. Which is at best what you can say about Gross. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM
Witnesses (some very credible) say they saw Molten Steel (including the melting of the beams), and pictures of what appears to be Molten steel -1%. Molten steel would create doubts to the official story. Jet fuel can not burn hot enough to melt steel, nothing in normal office fires can burn hot enough to melt steel so what could have done it? This includes Leslie Robertson and Peter Tully. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM
(This is my personal favorite) The FBI does not have Bin Laden in the top 10 list, because they have no hard evidence against him? -1% If the official investigative organization for the country it took place in, says they have no hard evidence against him, that casts some doubt on his guilt. You can save anything about indictment, or anything of that nature. We've been at war for 10 years because of this...that is indictment enough he should have been on the top 10 list and they surely should have had hard evidence. This is not a mainstream source, that's because no mainstream source covered it. But they do name an official FBI spokesperson. Something tells me if it were not true, the FBI would take action against the people who published it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnZd0H7o68
The mysterious Sulfur and how it relates to Steel at the world trade center. -1% for each time it was questioned, by sources who support the official story, an because NIST did not run any tests.
The FEMA report -1% http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
Ryan Mackey. -1% who said NIST should run tests. Pg 102 http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
Frank Greening -1% http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf Last paragraph.
Some hijackers are still alive and well -1%. I could give -1 for each that is alive and verified by a mainstream source. But I won't do that. Here is a link...one of many...that report they are still alive. Don't say this has been debunked...it most certainly hasn't. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
Mysterious insider trading -1% Lots of money made on put options....http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html#airlines all referenced with mainstream sources.
Mysterious behavior if Israelis. -1% (Please save the anit-semite arguments or I can't place them at the scene of the crime this is about creating reasonable doubt.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-K8sRo7CTs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97ImPcb4keY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8IuCGwwxMs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SBWJ8jaFrg&feature=related
Ceecee lyles recording -1%. Perhaps the creepiest piece of evidence.
Here is a link to someone who has enhanced it...it is very creepy, and strange and cast doubts as to who is actually making the call. I have downloaded this myself and enhanced it, I agree with most of what this guy says...except for the very end. He says the voice at the end is saying "It was great" followed by "sorry" and then "it was great" again. I think the voice is saying "you were great" "howard" (these two are disembodied) and then faintly (testing...testing) casting more doubt. But either way all very strange. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bnPmyUUEjg
The strange behavior by the Aircraft manufacturer....-.25%
Please note I am in no way saying Boeing was involved in any of this. The fact they said For national security reasons we can't comment. Is indicative that the company has some integrity. They could have just there is nothing unusual about that aircraft.
http://911anomalies.wordpress.com/
I'm sure there is much more but I will stop there.
If my math serves me correctly that has us at 82.75%
Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury...what is your verdict?
With that said let me get into my thread. I have noticed that their is a lot of of talk and questions asked about "prove" an alternative theory. The idea is somewhat absurd in nature. First of all each of us is only one person, with limited resources, so asking us to prove something on this scale, just does not seem reasonable. Secondly and more importantly, one does not have to prove an alternative theory to disprove the official theory. For example someone is charged with a murder, if you can prove he was somewhere else at the time, you have proven he did not commit the murder, what actually happened (in terms of the person being charged) is not important.
So I started thinking about the burden of proof. For a criminal case, which this is, in the USA we have what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution (ie the official story) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof)
I got to thinking, because reasonable doubt is a somewhat subjective term, if I could quantify it somehow. I found on legal match that while most courts don't like to give a percentage of how sure you have to be, but they said it would generally be 90, 95, or 99%. (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...he-evidence-vs-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html)
So I thought what if we put Bin Laden/al qaeda on trial. With a truly impartial, judge, jury...etc. So in a far away land where no one knows anything about 9/11. Please do not bring up the moussaoui trial, there is no way to get a fair trial in US on this subject.
I thought why don't we start out with 100% sure, and can decrement for everything, that will cast some doubt on the official story very unexplainable things. Things that would take someone a back a little bit. I will give all benefit of the doubt to the official story, I will use no science in less it comes from official sources or by those who clearly support the official story. I will only assign a 1% (which in some cases it is absurdly low) decrement at the max, though in a lot of cases I believe it would be much more. I will try to be as objective as possible. By in large this will be in other people's word, very little analysis from me, save for explaining a few things. Any CT site I reference will be only because it is easier for me to get to it, but it will be from an official source or right from someone's own words.
Llyode England's virtual confession -1% (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho)
In this clip Llyode England for all intents and purposes confesses. He says it was planned (referring to his cab accident). He's in it (referring to the 9/11 plot), and the rich people this is their thing. He clearly is not apart of al qaeda. Clearly this casts some doubt.
Aziz El Hallan -1%
Many people are not aware of him, but late in the afternoon on 9/11 he showed up to the local Washington D.C Fox with an actual piece of what he claimed to be flight 77, as seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpBH6YwXYnU) If that isn't strange enough, he claims to have been on the road for 15-20 minutes (after the attack), yet there is a picture of him at the latest 8 minutes after the attack, taken by an official military photographer, as seen here. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8818) It is at the Navy annex. Very strange indeed, also this photo was omitted from the official DOD release.
WTC 7 early reporting each time gets -1% because it is indicative of someone giving out information of something that was to happen. An indication that someone had prior knowledge.
Here is the first one at 11:07 -1% (or it sure seems like that is all they are referring to WTC 7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_sNl7l6tOU
Here is the 2nd...Aaron Brown -1% http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VerKCCwORMM
Here is the 3rd and probably the most famous the BBC -1% http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
Here is the fourth and final one that I know of, it is a lesser known one but my personal favorite...that same Fox station that had Aziz -1%....they say it has
collapsed, go to a live shot and then it collapses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ7slm8REyQ&feature=related
Flight 175 is still in the air -1%. Now I know you can say there is a delay, but the evidence points against it. Flight 11 is not there. Most flights are not there, but this is. This would indicate that whatever delay there is it should have passed for 175. Certainly a strange development. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXGSefI6pM
John Gross, caught either being grossly negligent or lying. -1% Surely if someone who is the lead investigator of the effort to find out the reason for the collapse of the buildings, is caught being at best negligent, that would cast some doubt on to the official reason for the buildings collapsing? While we are on the law topic, ignorance of the law is no excuse, by legal standards. Which is at best what you can say about Gross. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM
Witnesses (some very credible) say they saw Molten Steel (including the melting of the beams), and pictures of what appears to be Molten steel -1%. Molten steel would create doubts to the official story. Jet fuel can not burn hot enough to melt steel, nothing in normal office fires can burn hot enough to melt steel so what could have done it? This includes Leslie Robertson and Peter Tully. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM
(This is my personal favorite) The FBI does not have Bin Laden in the top 10 list, because they have no hard evidence against him? -1% If the official investigative organization for the country it took place in, says they have no hard evidence against him, that casts some doubt on his guilt. You can save anything about indictment, or anything of that nature. We've been at war for 10 years because of this...that is indictment enough he should have been on the top 10 list and they surely should have had hard evidence. This is not a mainstream source, that's because no mainstream source covered it. But they do name an official FBI spokesperson. Something tells me if it were not true, the FBI would take action against the people who published it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnZd0H7o68
The mysterious Sulfur and how it relates to Steel at the world trade center. -1% for each time it was questioned, by sources who support the official story, an because NIST did not run any tests.
The FEMA report -1% http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
Ryan Mackey. -1% who said NIST should run tests. Pg 102 http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
Frank Greening -1% http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf Last paragraph.
Some hijackers are still alive and well -1%. I could give -1 for each that is alive and verified by a mainstream source. But I won't do that. Here is a link...one of many...that report they are still alive. Don't say this has been debunked...it most certainly hasn't. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
Mysterious insider trading -1% Lots of money made on put options....http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html#airlines all referenced with mainstream sources.
Mysterious behavior if Israelis. -1% (Please save the anit-semite arguments or I can't place them at the scene of the crime this is about creating reasonable doubt.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-K8sRo7CTs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97ImPcb4keY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8IuCGwwxMs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SBWJ8jaFrg&feature=related
Ceecee lyles recording -1%. Perhaps the creepiest piece of evidence.
Here is a link to someone who has enhanced it...it is very creepy, and strange and cast doubts as to who is actually making the call. I have downloaded this myself and enhanced it, I agree with most of what this guy says...except for the very end. He says the voice at the end is saying "It was great" followed by "sorry" and then "it was great" again. I think the voice is saying "you were great" "howard" (these two are disembodied) and then faintly (testing...testing) casting more doubt. But either way all very strange. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bnPmyUUEjg
The strange behavior by the Aircraft manufacturer....-.25%
Please note I am in no way saying Boeing was involved in any of this. The fact they said For national security reasons we can't comment. Is indicative that the company has some integrity. They could have just there is nothing unusual about that aircraft.
http://911anomalies.wordpress.com/
I'm sure there is much more but I will stop there.
If my math serves me correctly that has us at 82.75%
Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury...what is your verdict?
Last edited:
