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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Poisoning the Well logical Fallacy
Assuming the Conclusion logical Fallacy
Let's see how that promise works out...
...ah! Making amends already
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!
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!
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.
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.
"
...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.
And they heard it from other sources and dropped the "or is collapsing" part.
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.
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.
When will you press criminal charges against John Gross? Or are you not so convinced you are making sense?
No. Not credible.
Utter nonsense. You can't determine the kind of metal just from a picture.
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.
You have made a lot of points. I will try to address them all here.
First while I have no power to prosecute or not prosecute anyone, I do call for the release of KSM. At the very least I would like it to be a fair, open, honest, and public hearing. This can only happen in another country, hopefully with jurors who know as little as possible about 911.
In regards to Lloyde England, I would need more information to prosecute him. He could have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and his life is threatened, or continues to be threatened. If this is not the case, by all means I would prosecute him. He said what he said I or CIT put no words in his mouth...there was no gun to his head.
In regards to Aziz, by all means I would prosecute him. No one has ever heard from him since that day, he has just vanished. He is not just "some" witness, he is someone who showed up to a TV studio with what he claimed to be a piece of flight 77. I mean how does something like that even happen? Did he call up the studio, and I was like "hey guess what I have a piece of the plane that hit the pentagon" If that were the case the studio...should have said, well you should hand that over to authorities. How would the studio verify that, that is a piece of 77 without talking to authorities? At which time the piece should be apprehended. The fact that he was photographed somewhere else at the time...is just icing on the cake.
As for Gross I would press charges against him, not because I believe he is a part of the initial plot, but he is at least negligent, suggesting he is covering something up.
Saying my arguments are so 2006 is not any type of valid rebuttal.
Witnesses said they saw it, there appears to be pictures of it, that casts some doubt on the official story.
The Flight 175 is still in the air I am only going by what I see. Sure there is a delay, but the evidence suggests that delay should have passed, because the few planes that were in the air.
The hijackers still being alive, there are so many mainstream sources of it, it has to cast some doubt on the official story.
In regards of the Sulfur, I was merely stating what other said. Frank Greening, Ryan Mackey, and FEMA. What can Mackey say? His words were they man (and should) conduct testing, which NIST didn't.
In terms of the Israelis it points to someone else, who was displaying puzzling behavior on that day, and days afterward. Casts doubt to the official story.
Ceecee lyles...download the original yourself, all he did was enhance it.
In regards do proposing a theory, I have no need to that. I believe it is somewhat of a trap that you guys set in motion. No theory or evidence is ever good enough, any one who disagrees with the official clearly does not know what they are talking about...etc..etc. It's a way to just keep bringing the same things up over and over again, with little to nothing being accomplished in the debate.
Let me add to this...WTC 7 early reporting, would not indicate what I think is a mistake. A mistake would be if 7 fell and people reported it was building 5. No body would make a big deal about that, perfectly reasonable mistake, especially given the chaos of that day.
With the FBI, as I said we've been at war 10 with no signs of stopping anytime soon because of this, what evidence they have should be public. Besides when asked they didn't say because the evidence is confidential, they said we have no hard evidence.
As far as why they wouldn't put him on, maybe they knew they didn't have enough evidence to get an indictment, and did not want to pursue. I mean come on this guy was blamed (don't try to throw in others it's clear this was the guy from day one) for worst crime on American soil in history, and we can't even get an indictment...seems a but puzzling to me.
My way of reasoning here was to try and take something subjective in nature and quantify as best I can.
