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

ApolloGnomon said:
I want the exact time of occurrence in meatspace, not your vague description of a recollection of when it happened relative to some other thing on an edited clip of some footage or another.

The time it happened. Please. This is your "case," your argument, you have to be prepared to defend your claims against cross examination.
Click to expand...

Let's see South tower went down at 9:59...it was seen about 7 minutes prior. So that would be about the time...don't forget to watch the cole videos.
 
Dave Rogers said:
And we're trying to explain to you why it couldn't have been unreacted thermite, even if there was molten steel. The main reason is that it was too long after the collapse. That's the point you're continually trying to evade.

Dave
Click to expand...

Prove this to me.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
So I have reasonable doubt that your claim is viable, and that's all I need to dismiss your entire line of reasoning. Don't forget that.
Click to expand...

In correct..burden of proof is always on the prosecution. They have to prove the case, I only have to cast doubt on it...i think it's clearly been done.
 
tmd2_1 said:
In correct..burden of proof is always on the prosecution. They have to prove the case, I only have to cast doubt on it...i think it's clearly been done.
Click to expand...

The commonly-held narrative of 911 stands. You are the one making the claim--you are the prosecutor. The burden of proof is on you. Shifting the burden of proof is an old trick. It won't work here.
 
It can't be stressed enough. tmd2_1 YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM. The burden of proof is on you. Don't try to shift it.
 
twinstead said:
The commonly-held narrative of 911 stands. You are the one making the claim--you are the prosecutor. The burden of proof is on you. Shifting the burden of proof is an old trick. It won't work here.
Click to expand...

that's one of the most absurd things I have ever read. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution always....Besides...there was so much evidence we couldn't file an indictment against the guy, which is a much lower threshold of proof,...don't give me any spin I've heard it all...that's all it is, is spin. The number 1 guy should have had an indictment against him.
 
tmd2_1 said:
See cole's video...lots of melting not much thermite.
Click to expand...
Nowhere near the amount of melting as we see in the WTC video you claim is melted steel. Not even in the same ballpark.

If that was steel, it would be hundreds of pounds at least. Requiring thousands of pounds of thermite.
 
I can only imagine that court case:

Judge: Call your next witness.

Govt defense: I call JREF poster TMD. Now sir, what evidence do you have that 9/11 was an inside job?

TMD: Well if you watch the videos & look at the pictures you can see molten steel.

Govt def: OK...so how did you determine it was steel?

TMD: I looked at it and it looks like molten steel.

Govt def: And you have some sort of expertise in this area?

TMD: Well I watch a lot of youtube.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
that's one of the most absurd things I have ever read. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution always....Besides...there was so much evidence we couldn't file an indictment against the guy, which is a much lower threshold of proof,...don't give me any spin I've heard it all...that's all it is, is spin. The number 1 guy should have had an indictment against him.
Click to expand...

BS. You are the spinner. The commonly-held narrative is established. The "official story" IS the "official story". You are claiming it is wrong. The onus is on YOU to prove it.

That explains a lot. All you think you have to do is instill doubt in the commonly-held version of events. You are wrong. You have to prove YOUR theory to be better. You are acting like a creationist. Google "God of the Gaps".
 
tmd2_1 said:
The answer I expected.
Click to expand...

Put it like this: If you're not living in a fantasy world and reasonable doubt really has been proven, why isn't that new investigation happening? Either almost everybody's in on it, or almost everybody in the world is delusional. Isn't it a much simpler hypothesis that you simply don't know what you're talking about?

Dave
 
twinstead said:
BS. You are the spinner. The commonly-held narrative is established. The "official story" IS the "official story". You are claiming it is wrong. The onus is on YOU to prove it.

That explains a lot. All you think you have to do is instill doubt in the commonly-held version of events. You are wrong. You have to prove YOUR theory to be better. You are acting like a creationist. Google "God of the Gaps".
Click to expand...

This is where your wrong again. I don't have to prove another theory to show the official story is not true or cast serious doubts on it. As I said in the OP...a man is charged with murder, I can show he was else where at the time, he could not have committed the murder. Same thing applies here. I know the tricks you guys use...getting someone to say a theory spend hours and hours going at it..to the stupidest level of detail...keeping focus away from the holes in the official story.
 
tmd2_1 said:
that's one of the most absurd things I have ever read. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution always....
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the accepted theory. You have to come up with an alternative theory that better explains the entire course of events on 9/11, so far you can't even explain how you have small amounts of thermite as well as enormous amounts at the same time. Then there's the ATC tapes, the radar data, the DNA, the airplane wreckage, the fact that 4 airlines went missing that day, etc etc etc.

tmd2_1 said:
Besides...there was so much evidence we couldn't file an indictment against the guy,
Click to expand...
What on earth makes you think an indictment couldn't have been filed? The FBI never claimed that.

OBL was already indicted, he was already on the FBI's Most Wanted list prior to 9/11. There was no point in indicting him again for 9/11, if captured alive he would have been.

So far all you've brought to the table is an internally contradictory theory on why the WTC towers collapsed and lies about why OBL wasn't indicted. Not very impressive tmd2_1.

Still waiting for the contradictions in The Official StoryTM, you claimed there were lots but you can't name a single one? Hmmmm.... :rolleyes:
 
WildCat said:
The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the accepted theory. You have to come up with an alternative theory that better explains the entire course of events on 9/11, so far you can't even explain how you have small amounts of thermite as well as enormous amounts at the same time. Then there's the ATC tapes, the radar data, the DNA, the airplane wreckage, the fact that 4 airlines went missing that day, etc etc etc.


What on earth makes you think an indictment couldn't have been filed? The FBI never claimed that.

OBL was already indicted, he was already on the FBI's Most Wanted list prior to 9/11. There was no point in indicting him again for 9/11, if captured alive he would have been.

So far all you've brought to the table is an internally contradictory theory on why the WTC towers collapsed and lies about why OBL wasn't indicted. Not very impressive tmd2_1.

Still waiting for the contradictions in The Official StoryTM, you claimed there were lots but you can't name a single one? Hmmmm.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The first part asked and answered. The second. I'm well aware of what you guys are up to..I would say something...it goes on and on and on...to no real end. I'll just say it contradicts newton's law of physics. I don't want to get into it...I know where it will lead...just watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tejFUDlV81w&feature=relmfu
 
tmd2_1 said:
I have the right to go with either, or any of multiple theories, and to change my mind as I go
Click to expand...

Indeed you do. You have the constitutional right to look a fool.

... you don't big difference. One way and only one way.
Click to expand...

how so??? we are debunking what you claim, not insisting that someone else is 100% right.

You have to jump threw hoops defending it.
Click to expand...

the word is spelled "through" or sometimes in America "thru".......and you are the only one jumping through hoops (and as I said that is your constitutional right

I've said many times I don't know. It's almost not important...if that is molten steel pouring out,(which looks like it was)
Click to expand...

operative words being "IF" and "LOOKS LIKE" (to you). There is no way to conclusively tell if it was Steel and "looking like" is just an opinion, one that we or the rest of the world have no reason to share.


there was clearly something else going on. How much or little thermite (if it was thermite at all) becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...

yes something was going on. Something hot was flowing out the corner of a burning building. My guess is lead and debris, your's is thermite, my guess is rational , yours is not. Was it lead? I don't know and don't care. It simply is not important because the flow raises no reasonable doubts.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom