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

[Mudcat]

TMD If I may, how does repeating drivel that's be debunked already cast doubt on the official story?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

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.

You do realize that LashL is an actual lawyer right? Passed the Bar and everything from what I understand. You probably shouldn't be so dismissive when she tells you what your flaws are as to how a courtroom works and, in my opinion, passing up on the offer of a free lesson on the subject from her just shows how little you actually want to learn about something when it goes against your preconceived notions of how things work. She didn't get the moniker of being the Goddess of Legaltainment just for the hell of it you know.

Not that I really expected you to take her up on the offer based upon your history here so far.

 

[GlennB]

A lot of your claims are plain wrong, speculative, or easy to explain as everyday mistakes and so.

But, importantly, you cannot add up percentages in this arbitrary way. If 100 out of 10 million qualified observers found fault with any mainstream theory (for different reasons) then, by your logic, that theory would be 100% discredited. I'm sure you'll agree that this would be absurd.

 

[gumboot]

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.

I'm going to stop you here, because your methodology is deeply flawed, and because of the flaws, your entire conclusion is skewed. I'm not going to actually address your evidence (though there's plenty of problems with that) because until you've actually established a robust and logical method, the raw data you're presenting as evidence is meaningless.

The fundamental flaw in your analysis lies in the weight you give each point against the official explanation; 1%. This amount is totally arbitrary, and you make no effort whatsoever to justify it. In fact, you even admit as much, because you go on to claim that most points would rank greater than that.

That claim is, in fact, absurd, but it does indicate that you don't buy the value you've assigned yourself, so why should anyone else?

To illustrate the horrendous flaw in your logic, let me illustrate with a counter example. Incidentally, my counter example follows the way evidence is actually assessed in a court of law. Your process assumes guilt and slowly devalues guilt until you reach a final value.

By contrast, an actual court begins with an assumption of innocence (or a 0% acceptance of the "official theory"). If we were then to present every point in favour of the official account and assign it an arbitrary 1% value, the end result would be a verdict something along the lines of 3,000,000% in favour of the official account.

Your methodology lacks perspective. By assigning a 1% value to a few isolated and relatively unimportant points of discrepancy, you ignore the millions of points that support the official account. You are giving grossly uneven weighting to the points that counter the official account, and then claiming victory.

This methodology would not pass the most basic sniff test, and any findings from such a methodology (true or not) would have to be rejected out of hand.

Please try again.

 

[Scott Sommers]

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?

This is a really good question. In fact, it's the best question. It's the one that points us in the direction of an Al Qaeda infiltrated government. How far up the infiltration goes is an open question. Maybe we need an independent investigation. I nominate David Ray Griffin to chair the investigation - you do know who he is, don't you?

But this is exactly my point that if England is an Al Qaeda mole, everything falls into place - and not just 9/11. The economic collapse of the USA, the failure of our school system, and a whole bunch of other things, all start to make sense. Just check out this website to see the full extent of the conspiracy.
http://www.jbs.org/

 

[TheBigKahuna]

Well, OBL confessed:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877

Now that your client has confessed, in an environment where coercion was impossible, the reasonable doubt is 0% and he must be found guilty.

 

[gumboot]

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.

What you say is true; as a defense attorney you don't have to offer an alternative explanation for events (although often they find this helps a lot). It is true, that all they must do is case reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.

However, you have made a rather crucial and fatal mistake in your analysis.

When casting doubt on the prosecution case, the key word phrase is prosecution case. The only way to cast doubt on their case is to call into question the specific points of evidence from which their case is built.

Let's take your examples in the OP;

1. Lloyd England's account of events
2. The account of Aziz El Hallan
3. The coverage of WTC7's collapse from various sources
4. The MSNBC piece on aircraft flying over NYC
5. John Gross's denial of molten steel
6. Testimony of presence of molten steel
7. Bin Laden not on FBI Top 10 list (this is actually false anyway, but hey...)
8. Failure to address Sulphur at WTC
9. Hijackers alive and well
10. Put options
11. Israelis in NYC
12. CeeCee Lyles phone call
13. Boeing and UA175

You present thirteen pieces of "evidence" that you claim bring into question the prosecution case. However. In each instance, for the evidence to question the prosecution case, it must address a specific piece of evidence that makes up the prosecution case.

If your evidence is not a direct questioning of prosecution evidence you are, in fact, attempting to make a counter case, however feeble it might be.

Take, for example, point 10, the put options. Trading on the stock market has no place whatsoever in the official account of 9/11. This piece of evidence does not, in any way, bring into doubt any piece of the prosecution case. What it does, instead, is introduce new evidence for a competing or alternative theory. Although you claim you're not attempting to do that, the simple fact is that's exactly what you're doing.

There is, in fact, only one point on your entire list that actually directly counters a piece of prosecution evidence, and that is the CeeCee Lyles phone call. Even allowing for your ridiculous and deeply flawed methodology, and even assuming that each of your pieces of "evidence" is true (in fact they're all wrong), that gives us, as end result, 99% probability of guilt.

 

[gumboot]

I'm quite impressed with how stale the "evidence" that was presented is, but my very most favourite has to be the 9th piece of evidence; that the hijackers are still alive.

We're told:

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.

The link is to a BBC article from 23 September, 2001.

Most remarkably, the very article we're linked to includes a link at the bottom labelled:

(Note: An update on this story was published in October 2006 in the BBC News editors' blog)

That links us to this page in which the previous article is, indeed, "debunked". So not only has the claim been debunked, it was debunked five years ago by the very same source that produce the original claim. The same article that debunks the original claim also links to multiple articles released by the same source of the preceeding years which also debunk the original claim. The earliest of these is this one from October 5, 2001. Most pertinent, the tone of this article is quite critical of the USA's public efforts to date to link Osama to the attacks. If the BBC had the slightest notion that the alleged hijackers were still alive, they would have said so. They don't.

So, this particular point in the case isn't even five years out of date. It's ten years out of date. Embarrassing.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Embarrassing.

I think that sums up the OP quite well...

 

[Scott Sommers]

I'm quite impressed with how stale the "evidence" that was presented is, but my very most favourite has to be the 9th piece of evidence; that the hijackers are still alive.

We're told:



The link is to a BBC article from 23 September, 2001.

Most remarkably, the very article we're linked to includes a link at the bottom labelled:



That links us to this page in which the previous article is, indeed, "debunked". So not only has the claim been debunked, it was debunked five years ago by the very same source that produce the original claim. The same article that debunks the original claim also links to multiple articles released by the same source of the preceeding years which also debunk the original claim. The earliest of these is this one from October 5, 2001. Most pertinent, the tone of this article is quite critical of the USA's public efforts to date to link Osama to the attacks. If the BBC had the slightest notion that the alleged hijackers were still alive, they would have said so. They don't.

So, this particular point in the case isn't even five years out of date. It's ten years out of date. Embarrassing.

This is no doubt connected to the very same technology that morphs voices. I suspect if you connect all the dots, we'll find that Lloyde England is in their somewhere. I keep telling you, he's the key, or as some one once put it, the eye of the storm. Once I saw that, it was all I needed to know exactly where our friend tmd2_1 is coming from. Now when was the last time you heard anyone bring up England's confession? How many of you out there realize that it's what brings everything together in the global conspiracy that created 9/11? Come on now, just admit that you didn't know.

 

[twinstead]

This is no doubt connected to the very same technology that morphs voices. I suspect if you connect all the dots, we'll find that Lloyde England is in their somewhere. I keep telling you, he's the key, or as some one once put it, the eye of the storm. Once I saw that, it was all I needed to know exactly where our friend tmd2_1 is coming from. Now when was the last time you heard anyone bring up England's confession? How many of you out there realize that it's what brings everything together in the global conspiracy that created 9/11? Come on now, just admit that you didn't know.

Sorry, with all due respect, your "suspicions" are irrelevant. This isn't a Lifetime Network murder mystery.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Sorry, with all due respect, your "suspicions" are irrelevant. This isn't a Lifetime Network murder mystery.

You have missed my point. Lloyd England is the key to all of this. Don't you remember when the eagle-eyed CIT investigators found a David Ike book in his cab? It all falls together after that. That's why we can be sure that when our friend tmd2_1 starts putting Lloyde together with voice morphing, the living hijackers and insider trading, we can be sure he has all the pieces together. It's not just my suspicions. I'm sure you have to agree - he's got all the pieces there. Just admit you never realized that England's confession could be so important that it'd come back years later, like a hungry ghost that's never been fed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury...what is your verdict?

My verdict is that there is no justification for your percentages. Lloyd England's testimony does not, for example, form anything like 1% of the case against the hijackers - in fact, it could be discarded entirely without affecting the core of the case whatsoever - and eyewitness evidence is well known to be highly unreliable. The suggestion, therefore, that a minor mistake in recollection of an almost irrelevant detail by a single eyewitness constitutes as much as a 1% level of probability that the entire narrative is fundamentally flawed is, by any rational assessment, monstrously excessive. Your entire approach, therefore, consists of making up numbers without sufficient justification, performing some trivial arithmetic, and pretending that you've done something significant. In short, it's a GIGO approach.

Dave

 

[tmd2_1]

I'm quite impressed with how stale the "evidence" that was presented is, but my very most favourite has to be the 9th piece of evidence; that the hijackers are still alive.

We're told:



The link is to a BBC article from 23 September, 2001.

Most remarkably, the very article we're linked to includes a link at the bottom labelled:



That links us to this page in which the previous article is, indeed, "debunked". So not only has the claim been debunked, it was debunked five years ago by the very same source that produce the original claim. The same article that debunks the original claim also links to multiple articles released by the same source of the preceeding years which also debunk the original claim. The earliest of these is this one from October 5, 2001. Most pertinent, the tone of this article is quite critical of the USA's public efforts to date to link Osama to the attacks. If the BBC had the slightest notion that the alleged hijackers were still alive, they would have said so. They don't.

So, this particular point in the case isn't even five years out of date. It's ten years out of date. Embarrassing.

Let me try to address all of your points in one post. If I miss any please let me know.

To start with I stated, hijackers being alive is not debunked. I was referring to both in general, and that article in particular. That update in my opinion is extremely convoluted. There are many..many other mainstream articles that say the same thing. Altogether it certainly casts doubt on the official story.

Next, what I meant by giving the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution, was I was going to assume he was guilty and try to prove him innocent. When in actuality the reverse is what's practiced.

You can't get any more then 100% sure he did. Yes the whole reasonable doubt is subjective, no doubt. I was simply doing my best to quantify it.

Sure the 1% is subjective, that is why I assigned an extremely low percentage, trying to give all benefit of the doubt to the official story. It is hard to truly quantify something like this of this there is no doubt. For example someone could see all of this, and have no doubt the official story is true. Someone may only see one of them, and have no doubts that the official story is false. I think taken together...there is more then enough evidence for a reasonable person to have doubt.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I request an immediate competency evaluation of the defendant's attorney.

 

[twinstead]

You have missed my point. Lloyd England is the key to all of this. Don't you remember when the eagle-eyed CIT investigators found a David Ike book in his cab? It all falls together after that. That's why we can be sure that when our friend tmd2_1 starts putting Lloyde together with voice morphing, the living hijackers and insider trading, we can be sure he has all the pieces together. It's not just my suspicions. I'm sure you have to agree - he's got all the pieces there. Just admit you never realized that England's confession could be so important that it'd come back years later, like a hungry ghost that's never been fed.

I did not miss your point in any way, shape, or form; I simply reject it. I would also recommend that you bring your silly "voice morphing" idea to the attention of the family members who actually talked to their loved ones on the flights. I'm sure they will be shocked and demand an immediate investigation. Or bust you in the jaw. One or the other.

 

[Oystein]

...
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.
...

Don't you have a working hypothesis at this time? Or not the slightest clue?
Listen, I opened a thread a while ago, asking participants on all sides of the issue to state, in an abstract, what their current best assumption is about the totality of the events of 9/11 - what happened, and who dunnit:
Roll Call: What do you think happened on 9/11, and why?
Maybe you want to give it a try!

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.

Not to a skeptic. The JREF is all about rational skepticism, which is a stance, a way of thinking, a way of living even, which always rejects claims unless they come with evidence. We generally reject just-so-stories.

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.

I disagree very strongly. We are all part of groups and communities and share our ideas, resources and efforts if we want.
There is an entire movement, the 9/11 "truth" movement (TM), which has for over 9 years now tried to discredit the "official" story. All of the TM in all of 9 years has utterly failed to even write down an alternative story that is at least complete (descibes all major aspects of the day), internally consistent and consistent with general principles of physics, technology and human nature. Much less is there any alternative story in sight for which good evidence is in existence.

You are not alone in your quest. You are standing on the shoulders of giants and can reap the fruits of their labour and put your own finishing touches to them.
The fact that you haven't, shows that you have not put much effort into this, or (much more likely) the giants that you are standing on haven't succeeded in any of their efforts and are dumb, lame and impotent giants.

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.

I disagree with the critique of LashL and others, who want you to put forward a case against alternative culprits as prosecutor, when in my opinion you assume the role of defense counsel for the accused of the official story, namely men of AQ.
However, you name OBL and forget about Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I think you should do two things here:
- Frame the case with specifically KSM in mind. Or, if you prefer, a case against Mohammed Atta. For, if you believe in your own argumnents, you should have doubts that Atta is dead, and think it possible he is on the loose. Defend him, ok? Tell us exactly what Atta is accused of!
- You should go public calling for the release or acquittal of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who is indeed facing criminal charges as mastermind behind 9/11. If you do not call for KSM's freedom now, we will know that you don't believe what you write, and the story is over.

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)

More important than framing your case right is the fact that few of us think of 9/11 CTs as arguments in a legal debate. We are more interested in the historic facts.

Remember OJ Simpson? Maybe you are too young... He was accused of having murdered his wife and her lover. While there is hardly anyonbe anywhere in the world who does not think that OJ was guilty, his criminal defense, in a classic and brilliant argumentation, convinced the jury that there was a little bit of doubt, and OJ left the court house a free man, which he is to this day.

The case is a good example of how that "benefit of the doubt" and "legal burden of proof " concept, while very valuable as constitutional provisions to protect citizens from state repression, can lead to counter-intuitive verdicts. In fact, a later civilian court case ordered OJ to pay big bucks to the families of the victims, as the civilian court figured he wa responsible for their death after all.

History (or science, if you wish) will thus say that OJ was guilty, and he almost certainly was, yet the criminal case went differently.

This is why we don't think framing the issue as a legal case is a good idea to start with. That's why we take a scientific approach. The scientific approach demands that you don't shoot down one theory on minimal doubts, but must propose a better theory and subject it to full scrutiny. By framing a legal case and assuming the defense role, it seems you want to avoid finding a better story and weathering scrutiny.

...
Please do not bring up the moussaoui trial, there is no way to get a fair trial in US on this subject.

Poisoning the Well logical Fallacy

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.

Assuming the Conclusion logical Fallacy

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.

Let's see how that promise works out...

...
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.

...ah! Making amends already

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.

And there you break your promise:
CIT is the most biased source you could turn to. CIT is so whacko, so far out in woo woo land, most other truthers (very notably: Richard Gage of AE911T) distance themselves from their claims and theories.

The video shows proof of where the taxi was, where the plane clipped the pole. Lloyd England is being interviewed with an agenda, with leading questions, he has been fed the conclusion ("north of Citgo"). Many of the ooh so wooish sentences we hear him say are taken out of context - we don't get to see the entire exchange of words! What was he a part of? Who did he think did the planning? We don't know, because CIT cut the video such that context is obscured.

The best explanation is that Lloyd England, 7 years after the event and upon being mislead by leading questions, misremembers where he was. Every prosecutor, defense attorney or criminal judhe knows how to take this kind of witness testimony: With a grain of salt.

Tmd, will you press criminal charges against Lloyd England for his confessed crime of conspiring to murder 184 people?
If you don't, we will know that either you don't believe your own words, or that you are criminally guilty of obstructing justice!

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.

Again, a witness who misremembers, misrepresents, misetimates.
The other day, my g/f had asked me to come to bed, while I had to finish a JREF post. When I did finish, I thought it had taken about 5 minutes, but in fact it was 15-20 minutes.
Years ago, there was a strong earthquake in my home reagion early in the morning. At lunchtime, I overheard two workers at an eatery. One told the other, who had mist the shaker, that it didn't last long, only maybe 2 minutes. Well, fact is, the quake was only 12-15 seconds.

You see, people's perception of time can be very much off depending on the situation. Much adrenalkin involved, lots going on, thoughs racing? Then you'll likely overestimate durations by quite a margin. Is something quite and dull and nearly putting you to sleep? Then you might severly underestimate the duration.

Again, the best explanation is that Aziz El Hallan, eight hours after the event, misremembered or simply erred on how much time he spent there. Every prosecutor, defense attorney or criminal judhe knows how to take this kind of witness testimony: With a grain of salt.

Also, it is quite possible that being at the Navy Annex counts to him as "on the road near the Pentagon".

Furthermore, his statements make little sense overall, he is confused on a number of things:

- "Yes Sir (headed to work with girl friend), just around 9, or 8...9:15 ..."
Incorrect, AA77 crashed at 8:37

- "Just hitting 110 south - actually north, and it was just amazing, something you only see in the movies that a huge airplane like a 757, American Airlines, probably flying around 60 to 70 yards in front of my car..."
Highway 110 passes the Pentagon on the east side. The plane came in from west-south-west and hit in the west. The closest a car on 110 can be to the flight path and actually see the plane is about 900 yards, and with a CIT kind of more northerly path even further.

- "... The next thing we saw, the airplane crashed in the Pentagon"
This is impossible to see from 110.
It is clear that he totally misremembered both his position and the time on the clock of the event. Here is a possible explanation for his faulty memory_
"We panicked"

"Most of the cars they had their front windshields broken because of the noise of the airplane"
I don't believe that is an accurate observation or reasonable explanation. Do you, tmd?

So what is your claim here, tmd? Are you saying Aziz El Hallan is a disinfo agent? Tmd, will you press criminal charges against Aziz El Hallan for his crime of conspiring to murder 184 people?
If you don't, we will know that either you don't believe your own words, or that you are criminally guilty of obstructing justice!

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.

Yes, we are well aware that the FDNY had prior knowledge! They knew the building was in serious danger of collapsing, that's why they established a collapse zone around it.

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

Are you old enough to remember that for some time on 9/11, all the news reported a bomb had gone off in front of the State Department in Washington? You see, lots of wrong information gets in the loop when things are sufficiently chaotic.

Here is the 2nd...Aaron Brown -1% http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VerKCCwORMM

"...has either collapsed or is collapsing"
Yes, exactly, the information was correct at the time that WTC7 was creeping towards collapse. The FDNY had determined that after expertly examining it.

Here is the 3rd and probably the most famous the BBC -1% http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

And they heard it from other sources and dropped the "or is collapsing" part.

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

I don't think that was live video, but a recorded feed.
Somewhere on archive.org they have full recordings of what the major channels broadcast that day. I don't have the kink on the computer I am on now, but will look for it later, if that Fox clip wasn't in fact aired after the collapse.

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

We have several folks here in this forum who know tons about that issue, including an Air Traffic Controller from Boston who was on duty that day (Cheap Shot) and a guy (BCR) who has spent thousands of his own bucks to get full records of ATC recordings and radar tracks. They can explain much better than I could what the problem is with querying "Flight Explorer".
Base line is: You present "evidence" that you just don't understand.

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

When will you press criminal charges against John Gross? Or are you not so convinced you are making sense?

Witnesses (some very credible) say they saw Molten Steel (including the melting of the beams),

No. Not credible.

and pictures of what appears to be Molten steel -1%.

Utter nonsense. You can't determine the kind of metal just from a picture.

Molten steel would create doubts to the official story.

Would. There wasn't any.

Jet fuel can not burn hot enough to melt steel,

This strawman is so 2006. It is the hallmark of stupid truthers new to the game.

nothing in normal office fires can burn hot enough to melt steel so what could have done it?

Nothing has done it. No molten steel. Face it.

This includes Leslie Robertson and Peter Tully. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

You have been shown wrong. You have been shown that Leslie Robertson expressly denies witnessing molten steel, so you can't claim his authority. You repeat something you have been shown to be clearly wrong. There are not many ways to interprete that behaviour, and none colour you in a flattering way.

(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%

You have been told the reasons:
- They had OBL by his legal balls already for the Cole
- Much of the evidence against OBL is of a clandestine nature. You can't use that kind of evidence in court
- The goal of indicting and locking up OBL was not in jeopardy just because he was not also officially sought for 9/11
- Why oh why should the inside jobbers, the NWO, the "real" perps blame OBL, but be too shy to put him on a list? What purpose would that serve? It's a nonsense conjecture.

...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

Yes, the voices of woo in your head.

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

Nothing ties that mystery of the huge garbage pile to the criminal event of 9/11.
We have been through this stuff so often here. Please use the search function.
And please explain in your own words what YOU think this sulfidisation means, so we can rip you apart on your own lack of understanding. As it stands, all you have is idle innuendo.

Ryan Mackey. -1% who said NIST should run tests. Pg 102 http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

This one hurts. Are you aware that Ryan Mackey is a frequent and long-time contributor to the JREF forum? It shall be major fun to read his personal reply to you.

Frank Greening -1% http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf Last paragraph.

Interprete what this last paragraph means with regard to the virtual criminal case we are debating here! How does this call for metallurgical research cast any doubt on the culpability of 19 AQ terrorists and their sponsors and planners?

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

Many of your arguments here have been, or can be, described as "so 2006", meaning that they still enjoyed some traction among truthers 5 years ago, but around that time were so thoroughly debunked that no one takes them serious anymore.

This now is so 2001!
Note the date of the clip: 23 September, 2001
Please try to do 5 minutes of own research. You can debunk it, too, if you just try!

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

So 2006.

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.)

Interprete what all this means with regard to the virtual criminal case we are debating here! How does this behaviour of some witnesses cast any doubt on the culpability of 19 AQ terrorists and their sponsors and planners?
Please to so in a way that does NOT presuppose that evil things are likely to come out of Israel!

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

Man, they tell you THEY EDITED THE SOUND! And you wonder why you hear things you deem strange after SOMEONE EDITED THE ORIGINAL? Gosh, you are so gullible!!

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 see nothing strange there, except the huge 2006ish hodgepodge of sensationalist woo.

I'm sure there is much more but I will stop there.

Thanks

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

What a stupid way to argue.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury...what is your verdict?

The verdict is: What the heck?!?



Final question: Did you notice that ALL your sources are from woo-peddlers?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I did not miss your point in any way, shape, or form; I simply reject it. I would also recommend that you bring your silly "voice morphing" idea to the attention of the family members who actually talked to their loved ones on the flights. I'm sure they will be shocked and demand an immediate investigation. Or bust you in the jaw. One or the other.

Haha, Scott is taking the piss

 

[WildCat]

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.

But you know those Jews Israelis, they'd risk it all to make an extra nickel!

 

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by twinstead
I did not miss your point in any way, shape, or form; I simply reject it. I would also recommend that you bring your silly "voice morphing" idea to the attention of the family members who actually talked to their loved ones on the flights. I'm sure they will be shocked and demand an immediate investigation. Or bust you in the jaw. One or the other.

Haha, Scott is taking the piss

Not me. But I do really wish I could get more support from all those CIT groupies and no-planers out there to defend those poor men accused of these things. Oystein has it right.

However, you name OBL and forget about Khalid Sheik Mohammed. I think you should do two things here:
- Frame the case with specifically KSM in mind. Or, if you prefer, a case against Mohammed Atta. For, if you believe in your own argumnents, you should have doubts that Atta is dead, and think it possible he is on the loose. Defend him, ok? Tell us exactly what Atta is accused of!
- You should go public calling for the release or acquittal of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who is indeed facing criminal charges as mastermind behind 9/11. If you do not call for KSM's freedom now, we will know that you don't believe what you write, and the story is over.[/B]

I've tried talking to these guys over and over about this. I bet even Dr. Dusty won't put her mouth where her words are - and that would be a first for her. So our anonymous Truther friend here tmd2_1, just speak up. Stand up for those poor men being accused of those hideous crimes. Don't be a weenie and pretend this isn't what you're saying when it really is exactly what you mean. Stand up and be proud that you support Mohammed Atta and Khalid Sheik Mohammed in their bid for freedom.