Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[Scott Sommers]

You're supposed to present proof beyond reasonable doubt, what you're doing is presenting doubt without reason.

This is all so wrong. Resurrecting Lloyde England from the ashes really is a stroke of genius. As I have pointed out, there is simply no single fact about 9/11 that has the mystery and importance of Llyode's supposedly coincidental accident that day. Bringing him up again after all these years shows that our good buddy tmd2_1 is on to the right facts...not just the right facts, the key facts.

I'm glad to see the Truth Movement is sticking to the basics. Good job there tmd2_1. Pointing once again to Lloyde's key role in the whole 9/11 thing really helps make the idea of an Inside Job seem so much more like the fact that it is. Lloyde's presence in the discussion makes everything seem so much more credible. Let's start a new thread to talk about this. There are so many details that have been missed by the JREF crowd.

Llyode England - super spy.

 

[beachnut]

...
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. ...?

It has been debunked, your shallow research has you failing to understand it was debunked years ago. You entire post is a failure, much like 911 truth.

Why are all your points evidence free? Each point is nonsense, debunked years ago.

 

[JamesB]

Put options? Really? It is 2011 and that is what you are going with?

 

[beachnut]

Mysterious insider trading -1% Lots of money made on put options....http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/s....html#airlines all referenced with mainstream sources.

... ?

This make your entire list ridiculous. Trading stocks leaves a trail which would lead to jail. You have no idea what the trades were, or why they were made. You also have no clue how poorly the airlines were performing in 2001. Trading stocks leaves a "paper trail", ask Martha Stewart how trading stocks can lead to jail time. Your list of reasonable doubt points are based on ignorance, hearsay, and lies.

 

[JamesB]

It was also a trivial amount of money, just a few million dollars if every single penny of profit went to the supposed conspirators. A lot of money to you or me, but a slow afternoon to a big I-bank or hedge fund.

 

[beachnut]

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

...?

Given nearly 10 years to learn and research 911 issues, this claim exposes your ignorance of how flight explorer works, your ignorance of the FAA, RADAR, and more. You have spent zero time trying to understand flight systems, as you spread lies without checking the facts, without understanding the systems.
This is a lie, and only believed due to lack of knowledge.
Debunked, but you can't figure it out, like all your points.

Why do you blindly post false information which lingers on the Internet after proved wrong. What idiot leave false information on the Internet fooling those too challenged to do rational research?

 

[Kid Eager]

yikes! OP monomania much? I had to look up his posting history - much supposition, but a severe dearth of evidence.

Hint: you're supposed to come up with a theory that fits the facts, not contrive scenarios that support your theory.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Come on guys, he's some young fella just stumbled across Truthing and thinks it all makes sense - voice morphing, hedging shares, hijackers still alive, and the exciting star of it all Lloyde England, super secret agent for the New World Order. Just because he posts like he got hit in the head in 2006 and just woke up from a coma doesn't mean that's what really happened. He may have just got his own computer and now that he's 17, mom and dad let him surf the net unsupervised.

But honestly, tmd2_1, this is all wrong. It's made up stuff that kids on the Internet talk about. You can say it if you like, but people will laugh at you. And if you don't believe me, try talking about it with the hot girls. They won't be impressed by how much you know.

 

[TJM]

Assuming that you're willing to learn, we can move forward. We can start by you addressing the following few questions, and please be specific:

1) Who are you accusing?
2) What specific allegations are you making against him/her/them/each of them?
3) What is the evidence upon which you rely in support of each of your allegations against each individual and/or corporation and/or legal entity named in your response to 1) above?

It is only once you have provided thorough responses to those three items that any legitimate discussion of your proposed OP can be meaningful or legitimate. I'm willing to spend some time on this if you are, but you will have to provide honest and legitimate answers to those three items in order to advance your OP very far in an appropriate legal fashion.

That said, if it is too difficult for you to answer all three of them at once, I am content to deal with them one at a time, but all three will ultimately need to be dealt with appropriately before we can get very far with your OP in any legitimate fashion.

@tmd2_1:

At this point I'm probably not the first person you'd want advice from, but if you truly want something positive to come from this thread then I'd take LashL up on her kind offer. I'll even sweeten the pot. If you follow the instructions LashL laid out for you and stick to them, I'll refrain from commenting any further in this thread, unless I have a legal question, which will be directed at LashL.

What say you?

 

[DC]

..what is your verdict?

you have fallen for the Truth Movement, a cult like movement, free yourself.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Dumbest new thread for a while.

 

[Mudcat]

you have fallen for the Truth Movement, a cult like movement, free yourself.

What DC said.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Llyode England's virtual confession

ZERO% Englund isn't saying what you wish he was saying.

Aziz El Hallan

ZERO% Nit picking over time stamps? Puh-leeze.

WTC 7 early reporting each time gets

ZERO% They've all been explained, but you people don't want to listen.

Flight 175 is still in the air

ZERO%Time stamp nitpicking again.

John Gross, caught either being grossly negligent or lying.

ZERO% You are the only one lying here.

Witnesses (some very credible) say they saw Molten Steel

ZERO% It was most likely molten aluminum.

The FBI does not have Bin Laden in the top 10 list,

ZERO% You're lying again. Bin Laden was #1 on the list for the last ten years.

The mysterious Sulfur and how it relates to Steel at the world trade center.

ZERO% The drywall used in most offices today is 13% to 19% sulfur. Nothing mysterious about it.

The FEMA report

ZERO% The FEMA report was criticized, but this criticism led to the succesful NIST investigations.

Ryan Mackey.

ZERO% read pages 1 - 101 and 103 - 306.

Frank Greening

ZERO% read all the other paragraphs.

Some hijackers are still alive and well

ZERO% None of the hijackers lived past 09/11/2001. Slamming into solid objects at 450+ miles per hour is 100% fatal in all circumstances.

Mysterious insider trading

ZERO% Not mysterious at all. It was a bad year for airlines before september, betting against them was a safe bet.

Mysterious behavior if Israelis.

ZERO% this isn't 1934, stop blaming the jews.

Ceecee lyles recording

ZERO% her family says it's her.

The strange behavior by the Aircraft manufacturer

ZERO% You even admit their behavior isn't actually strange.

If my math serves me correctly that has us at 82.75%

You've failed at everything else, why not math too?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

That entire OP was one huge Gish Gallop.

tmd2_1, you are repeating lies and half truths that you read on the internet that come from people who are either mentally ill, selling snake oil or that have a political axe to grind. It's in none of their own best interests to tell the truth even when they know that they are lying or are to ill to tell the difference between a lie and a fact. All you do by repeating them is come across as a gullible fool to people who know better.

Every single one of your issues in the OP have been brought up before (most of them years ago) right here in this forum (there's even a handy search function to use but if you find that too daunting you can always google a topic by prefacing it with forums.randi.org. All of the 9/11 threads contents are scanned by google on a pretty regular basis so you will usually find what you are looking for). You will find your answers there.

It's also helpful to not have a scattergun approach. People will tend to ignore you when you do that as it's seen as a common conspiracy theorists tactic to divert other peoples attention away whenever it gets too uncomfortably close to whatever it is that will disprove their pet theories. That approach alone will get you ignored quicker than a greased pig can squirm through a hole in the fence.

 

[tsig]

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?

Yep, the testimony of an old cab driver is the key to the crime of the century.

 

[Oz1976]

Guess he ran away from this one too?

 

[tmd2_1]

You've got things completely backwards here, tmd2_1.

If you want to legitimately discuss legal culpability and/or liability (whether civil or criminal), you need to first name names and then present your evidence in support of your allegations so that they can be assessed by "the jury". Neither the legal system, nor reasonable doubt for that matter, works in the backwards fashion that you seem to be proposing, so it's silly to even propose it. If you want to have a legitimate discussion about legal issues, the burden of proof, reasonable doubt, or anything else of a legal nature relating to the events of 9/11, I'm certainly up for it, but we cannot legitimately start from such a faulty and entirely backwards concept of the law as that which you have set out in your OP. If there is any legitimate discussion to be had on the matter, you will actually have to know (or at least be willing to learn) a little about the law.

Assuming that you're willing to learn, we can move forward. We can start by you addressing the following few questions, and please be specific:

1) Who are you accusing?
2) What specific allegations are you making against him/her/them/each of them?
3) What is the evidence upon which you rely in support of each of your allegations against each individual and/or corporation and/or legal entity named in your response to 1) above?

It is only once you have provided thorough responses to those three items that any legitimate discussion of your proposed OP can be meaningful or legitimate. I'm willing to spend some time on this if you are, but you will have to provide honest and legitimate answers to those three items in order to advance your OP very far in an appropriate legal fashion.

That said, if it is too difficult for you to answer all three of them at once, I am content to deal with them one at a time, but all three will ultimately need to be dealt with appropriately before we can get very far with your OP in any legitimate fashion.

With all due respect...I disagree with you. As a defense attorney, I don't need to name any suspect, or even purpose an alternative theory...simply cast doubt on the official version. Who actually did it...and why is a matter for an investigation. That is the answer to your first 2 questions. I would assume your last question would be referring to evidence against the person I am accusing. As I said I don't have to accuse anyone...all the evidence casting doubt is right in this thread.

 

[tmd2_1]

Who says he's not? I think the evidence is clear that Llyode is a deep cover double agent for Al Qaeda. I think everyone agrees that figuring out his role in all this is the key to understanding 9/11. So until you can prove he's not an Al Qaede operative, I'm going to have to assume that he was and still is.

I can answer this two ways. One if he really was a part of Al Qaeda, and assuming the official story is true, he would be the easiest person to arrest why have they not done so?

Secondly, it is reasonable to assume he is not a part al qaeda, the burden of proof would fall, on the prosecution to prove he is in al qaeda, to my knowledge, I know of no such proof.

 

[TJM]

With all due respect...I disagree with you. As a defense attorney, I don't need to name any suspect, or even purpose an alternative theory...simply cast doubt on the official version. Who actually did it...and why is a matter for an investigation. That is the answer to your first 2 questions. I would assume your last question would be referring to evidence against the person I am accusing. As I said I don't have to accuse anyone...all the evidence casting doubt is right in this thread.

Let the Legaltainment^TM begin!

 

[Scott Sommers]

it is reasonable to assume he is not a part al qaeda, the burden of proof would fall, on the prosecution to prove he is in al qaeda, to my knowledge, I know of no such proof.

I'm just connecting the dots. Don't you see, if England is an Al Qaeda mole and his confession is a lie, everything falls into place. What evidence do you have that he works for any other group or organization? CIT has never shown us England's NWO membership card. But if you see him as an Al Qaeda mole, like I'm claiming, you doesn't need to prove anything. His connection to the living hijackers is right in front of you.