You have made a lot of points. I will try to address them all here.
There were more points.
You did not address that us skeptics at JREF always demand evidence, and asking it of you isn't unfair
You did not address the fact that you are not alone in your failure, but are part of a large community that has failed for nearly 10 years now
You did not address the fundamental issue that eye witness accounts are unreliable
You did not address the point that your concept of playing legal defense is flawed
[ETA]You did not address OJ Simpson and how come he was acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt, yet can be rationally regarded as guilty
You did not address the specific logical fallacies I called you on (Poisoning the Well, Assuming the Conclusion)
You did not address my observation that, contrary to your promise, you only use woo sites as sources
You did not address the fact that you presented evidence (images) that show Lloyd England erred
You did not address the obvious fact that yes, everyone who needed to know knew in advance that building 7 was deteriorating and about to collapse
You did not address the considerattion that it is by no means unusual for news media covering complex events as they unfold to err
You did not address my suspicion that the FOX video of the collapsing WTC7 may not have been live and in fact may have aired after it did in fact collapse
You did not address that I nearly accused you of lying wrt to Leslie Robertson because you repeated assertions that you have been shown to be false before
You did not address my request to tie your interpretation of Greening or the "dancing" Israelis to the case against OBL, KSM, Atta[/ETA]
First while I have no power to prosecute or not prosecute anyone, I do call for the release of KSM.
Can you tell us specifically how you
do that? Have you written a letter to the court clerk responsible for the court case against KSM? Have you signed a petition - which one, if so? Have you written letters to the editor or a blog post, in other words, published your call anywhere?
Or are you calling out against the wall in mommy's basement?
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.
The US authorities with an interest in the case, from the court system to the FBI to the President, are painfully aware of this problem, as a cursory reading of the news on KSM during the past 6 or so years shows.
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.
Can you tell us specifically which crime you accuse him of, and what your evidence is, other than this edited interview with CIT?
He said what he said I or CIT put no words in his mouth...there was no gun to his head.
You forgot to address the fact that CIT gave him the conclusions already before recording the interview; that CIT was asking leading questions; and that CIT did not give you the full context in which the various statements were made. If you record interview as well as private talk with someone for a day with a specific agenda in mind, you can bet you can always cut 5 minutes out of it that make the person appear to be saying anything you like.
Example: A woman friend of mine, M., once exclamed in a group of friends "
But Oystein* is the one I always wanted to have!". All in the group knew the context (she was talking about a bachelors' auction she was organizing for a charity party, which I couldn't attend because I'd be travelling. She figured I'd bring in good money). Another friend, A., only walked by at that moment, heard the exclamation, and then went on to tell the rumour around that M. was madly in love with me.
See, makes sense without the context, not so much with.
*) of course I substituted my JREF nick for my real name here
In regards to Aziz, by all means I would prosecute him.
Can you tell us specifically which crime you accuse him of, other than tampering with a crime scene or theft of AA property, and what your evidence is, other than that interview on TV?
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 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.
What a deluded way of thinking - where to start??
He vanished? Uhm - seriously? Have you tried to track himn down? Asked his girl friend or brother? Or do you magically know the whereabouts of all 300 million people in the USA, and Aziz is not there?
Yes, he
is "some" witness. The prosecution's case against which you purport to defend AQ / OBL rest in no way at all on Aziz' statements and actions. He picked up a piece of something (are we even sure this
is a piece of airplane??), and told a story that quite obviously contains various errors (cuz that's what you can generelly expect from eye witnesses: errors). If Aziz were indeed some agent, not a genuine witness, don't you think his act would be made to accord a little more with the official story?
The fact that he was photographed somewhere else at the time...is just icing on the cake.
I don't recall you showing that photo in your defense case, so I treat this icing on the case as non-existing.
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.
Then why don't you?
WHAT is he covering up? What is the evidence you'd present in a criminal court? You don't actually believe that any prosecutor or court would buy your loaded and biased interpretation of Gross' words? You assume guilt - I hope you don't hope that the court and prosecutor will do the same.
Saying my arguments are so 2006 is not any type of valid rebuttal.
You're wrong, it is. It is short hand for "this argument has been presented in this forum at least since 2006, and has been debunked over and over and over and over again. If you were capable of using the search function here at JREF in an intelligent way, you would have found the debunking in multiple copies and not repeated the same old bunk."
Witnesses said they saw it, there appears to be pictures of it, that casts some doubt on the official story.
First of all, most truther sites misrepresent most witness statements. Few actually talk of "molten" + "steel". Often it is "molten
metal" (which is not at all uncommon in building fires) or "
red-hot steel" (which would be very far in temperarture from melting).
However the "icing on the cake" is your bare-assed assertion that such pictures exist. Seriously, do you expect to have traction with a jury when you tell them there is evidence,
but you don't actually present it?
Come on, tmd,
where are the pictures of molten steel? Show them here, or retract that "evidence"!
Once you have shown the evidence, be informed that it will be shot down with ease: It is not possible to determine from sight alone what material a hot glowing liquid is; sometimes it is not even clear from images that it is liquid.
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 problem is that you see charcters on a computer screen, and don't understand how the computer software makes these characters appear on the screen. In other words:
You don't understand what that which you see means.
The hijackers still being alive, there are so many mainstream sources of it, it has to cast some doubt on the official story.
But you, the counsel for the defense, have chosen to present evidence that debunks itself. We must assume that the defense counsel is doing his best to present a strong case; since your best was self-debunked, the jury must assume
you do not have any good evidence, or else you'd present it.
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.
You don't understand what these people mean. In the case of Ryan Mackey, we know exactly what he means, because he has explained it several times on this forum: He is a scientist, and sees this occurrence of sulfidized steel as an interesting quirk with no full explanation yet, and as a scientist, is not happy with less than fully explained stuff. So there is still room for research. He however makes it clear 100% (not 99.9%) that this has nothing at all to do with how the crimes of 9/11 were committed and by whom. It is simply scientific curiosity that leads him to call for more engineering, metallurgic and fire science studies.
Greening has been more over the fence towards trutherland, but is one of their very few clear minded, scientific folks. I haven't heard anything new from him lately and don't recall where he stood on the issue last time anyone heard of him.
Howeber, he too is writing from a scientific point of view, not a legal one, and recommends more research into territory that he wasn't able to venture into. This, too, has nothing to do with the culpability of OBL, KSM or Atta. Nothing.
It is all in your head. Your witnesses do not in fact support your case!
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.
Puzzling. Yes.
You rest your case on your own puzzled mind.
Ceecee lyles...download the original yourself, all he did was enhance it.
Enhancing is a kind of manipulation.
Mobile or Air phone calls have underlying noise, and recordings on voice boxes add more noise. When people speak sufficiently loud, there is enough signal to interprete it well - scientists would say "signal-to-noise ratio is favourable for signal analysis". When you speak very softly on the phone, signal level drops sharply, but noise does not. The signal-to-noise ratio gets bad. It becomes harder to differntiate signal from noise. When you enhance the signal, you are sure to also enhance noise - signal-to-noise ratio stays bad.
The result of trying to interprete signal that has a lot of noise on top of it is almost always that some of the noise gets interpreted as signal - you get artefacts. In other words: You hear things that are not in the original signal.
It would be a much better approach to go to CeeCee's relatives and ask them if the voice talked like CeeCee. Ask them how that recording came to their voice box.
Then you should present evidence that technology even exists that could morph a male voice into a female voice such that the relatives get fooled.
Then you should revisit ALL of the other phone calls presented as evidence in the Moussaoui trial!
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.
How can this be a trap? There
has to be another story that
is true, if the official story is wrong, right? And if you truly believe that the evidence you present means what you say it means, then there must be an alternative theory that explains your evidence, and also all the rest, not? If you find that you, and all of the TM, are unable to even imagine such a theory, does that not tell you that your interpretation of the evidence is not in line with reality, not even realistic?
No theory or evidence is ever good enough,
Incorrect. The official story is a good enough theory, because there exists a huge huge amount of evidence that is insuch good agreement with it that a few dubious or unexplained quirks don't suffice to throw it out.
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.
No. Any one who presents the long-debunked bunk you present clearly does not know what they are talking about. It is not your disagreement as such that earns you this verdict - it is the reasons you state for your disbelief, and the fallacious logic you employ.
