911: The chain of evidence

Last edited:
Woos and "innocence"

senorpogo said:
I've noticed that when a woo starts up a post here at JREF it follows a general trend. In a very nonchalant manner he or she will make a seemingly innocent statment and follow it up with a very general question that transfers the burden of proof onto the other party. And sometimes they throw a non-sequitar in there. And they do so in a way that tries to appear neutral and innocent.

I hear there are serious questions about the moon landing. Do you have any points that proved we landed on the moon?

Cultures in the Middle East seem less developed than ours. Do you have any proof that shows that Muslims aren't evil?

Hi, i am missing the chain of evidence for the theory that the 19 alleged highjackers commited the mass murder of September 11th 2001.
Please provide all sources but one - the "9/11 Commission"-Report.

Slowly throughout the thread, the woo reveals himself or herself to be a fundamentalist who has already made up his or her mind despite the complete lack of proof.
Click to expand...


Holocaust deniers do the same thing at history forums...they start off with the "innocent questions" about the Holocaust, which knowledgeable folks answer. The deniers then dispute the answer and start spouting their line of rubbish, usually along with a passel of lies, and the discussion turns into an acrimonious debate.

The denier is trying to pass himself off as a scholar merely asking incovenient and difficult questions about a historic event, a reasonable fellow, dontcha know, who just has some trouble with the "ambiguities" of the Holocaust and the "official story."

In this way, the denier and his condescending tone sounds like a lofty philosopher and oracle on his subject, while making his interlocutors sound like ignorant idiots...which is the object of the exercise...to make the defenders of truth either explode with rage or convert to denial.

It's a good and clearly well-tried tactic.
 
chipmunk stew said:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm
Please refer to chapter 7 endnotes 1-192:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm


edit: also--
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
Please refer to chapter 1 endnotes 1-89
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm
Click to expand...
Shame on you for helping a cheater, Chipmunk! :D She obviously hasn't read the Commission report. She even started this thread after I asked if she'd read it, and she declared the report off-limits. What a joke.
 
Belz... said:
No, no. First I need evidence that you're really a person.
Click to expand...

...or at least older than, say, 11 or so.

I have to give CT'ers this much: Each one that comes here is maddening to debate, but at least each is maddening in his or her own way.
 
Gravy said:
Shame on you for helping a cheater, Chipmunk! :D She obviously hasn't read the Commission report. She even started this thread after I asked if she'd read it, and she declared the report off-limits. What a joke.
Click to expand...
I was always helping out other kids in school, too, out of a naive faith that they just needed a leg up just this once--I could show them a good example and they'd take it from there.

Of course, they cheated their way all the way through school, and are probably successful executives now.
 
@R. Mackey (and dubfan):

Thanks for explaining science to me. I admit that my english is very limited and it may seem that i don't know what i'm talking about.

My problem with the commission report: This is not natural science but an investigation of a crime. To formulate a hypothesis we have to have access to the existing facts. We have to know what exactly happened.

The scientific community has an open source approach. Data is accessible to everyone who wants to find a better hypothesis. This is not the case here. The people that formulated the leading hypothesis are the only ones that had access to the data. You have to trust them to believe they described the data correctly AND found the best hypothesis for explaining it.

That's not how the scientific process works and i doubt you had access to the complete archive of their interviews and sources.
 
Childlike Empress said:
@R. Mackey (and dubfan):

Thanks for explaining science to me. I admit that my english is very limited and it may seem that i don't know what i'm talking about.

My problem with the commission report: This is not natural science but an investigation of a crime. To formulate a hypothesis we have to have access to the existing facts. We have to know what exactly happened.

The scientific community has an open source approach. Data is accessible to everyone who wants to find a better hypothesis. This is not the case here. The people that formulated the leading hypothesis are the only ones that had access to the data. You have to trust them to believe they described the data correctly AND found the best hypothesis for explaining it.

That's not how the scientific process works and i doubt you had access to the complete archive of their interviews and sources.
Click to expand...
We have an unprecedented level of access. The endnotes point to exactly which documents to reference in a FOIA request. There's relatively little digging to do to obtain the source material. The process was extremely transparent, despite the Bush administration's obstructions.

Name one major event in US history that's had as much public access to information.

If you think they should have let the public handle and examine the physical evidence, that's just lunacy. Think of the potential for contamination.
 
Childlike Empress said:
The scientific community has an open source approach. Data is accessible to everyone who wants to find a better hypothesis. This is not the case here. The people that formulated the leading hypothesis are the only ones that had access to the data. You have to trust them to believe they described the data correctly AND found the best hypothesis for explaining it.

That's not how the scientific process works and i doubt you had access to the complete archive of their interviews and sources.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is completely wrong.

We are not restricting information to that controlled by government sources. Any verifiable evidence is included. Some of that evidence comes from other countries.

You may bring whatever evidence to the table that you wish.

So far you haven't brought any.
 
Childlike Empress said:
… I admit that my english is very limited…
Click to expand...
Not from what I have read. Your problem is laziness in typing the English language.

This is not natural science but an investigation of a crime.
Click to expand...
Who committed a crime? What crime do you refer to?

Data is accessible to everyone who wants to find a better hypothesis. This is not the case here.
Click to expand...
Other than this being a contradictory statement, where would you like to me to look for the data? Can you point me in a direction?

The people that formulated the leading hypothesis are the only ones that had access to the data.
Click to expand...
I have access to the data, but had no part in formulating any hypothesis.

I know your original post asked for sources, and you have been given dozens. Do you have a source that has a conclusion that is different from the 9/11 Commission Report?

I would really like an answer to that. Please? PM me the source if you don’t want to post it here.
 
Childlike Empress said:
@R. Mackey (and dubfan):

This is not natural science but an investigation of a crime. To formulate a hypothesis we have to have access to the existing facts. We have to know what exactly happened.
Click to expand...

Well no not exactly.

n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement.

If we knew exactly what happened we would'nt need a hypothesis.
It would be a fact. Again, you're asking for something only the hijakers
themselves or Al Quaida could answer. And I'm betting if they did you'd still dispute it. There is nothing in this world that will convine you that's obviuos.
 
Childlike Empress said:
@R. Mackey (and dubfan):

Thanks for explaining science to me. I admit that my english is very limited and it may seem that i don't know what i'm talking about.
Click to expand...

And thank *you* for the gratuituous sarcasm. I gave you a polite and genuine answer. I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.

My problem with the commission report: This is not natural science but an investigation of a crime. To formulate a hypothesis we have to have access to the existing facts. We have to know what exactly happened.

The scientific community has an open source approach. Data is accessible to everyone who wants to find a better hypothesis. This is not the case here. The people that formulated the leading hypothesis are the only ones that had access to the data. You have to trust them to believe they described the data correctly AND found the best hypothesis for explaining it.

That's not how the scientific process works and i doubt you had access to the complete archive of their interviews and sources.
Click to expand...

On the surface your argument has some merit. And, as I've admitted, there are some "missing pieces" that remain in the custody of the government. It would indeed clear up a lot if they were more forthcoming with some things. It would be fruitful if the DNA evidence could be put in the public domain, along with what exists of the FDR and CVR data, radar tapes, ATC interviews, etc. Point taken.

However, it is not accurate to apply a model of pure scientific investigation here. 9/11 was not a natural phenomenon, and it was not a crime. It was an act of war. As such, there are national security and intelligence issues to consider, as well as the privacy demands of the inviduals who were killed or injured.

It is also incorrect to state that somehow the government has been in complete control of all of the evidence here. It has not been. 9/11 didn't happen inside some hermetically sealed government vacuum. The 19 hijackers interacted with hundreds of people, many of whom have given interviews and spoken publically. The physical evidence has been handled by thousands of people -- fire & rescue personnel, medical examiners, engineers, cleanup crews. Eyewitnesses to this event number in the 10s of thousands, if not millions (if you include TV viewers).

Many parts of the investigation were public -- the 9/11 Commission held public hearings in addition to the closed-door sessions that dealt with classified material. Testimony of key government officials is on record. The NIST/FEMA report was released in draft form for public comment, and NIST/FEMA published those comments. FOIA requests are starting to pry loose some of the evidence held in government custody.

Is the government's case *completely* airtight? Certainly not by the standards of proof you seem to demand. But for me, in the absence of anything else convincing -- and no CT I've yet seen even remotely approaches "serious", let alone convincing -- I have no choice but to believe the essential facts of this thing. The evidence for it is too strong, and the evidence against it very weak indeed.
 
dubfan said:
And thank *you* for the gratuituous sarcasm. I gave you a polite and genuine answer. I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.
Click to expand...
You are right. My apology for including you in the "@". I'm quite busy and don't have the time to answer all the upcoming postings in detail. The first sentence was directed to R. (and was only partly sarcastic) and i will come back to your earlier and current post when i find the time.

@Drysdale: All in all i share my opinion on the "war on terror" with Michel Chossudovsky. If you are interested in it, i suggest you listen to the interview he gave to "Guns & Butter": Part 1 Part 2 Part 3. Sadly he uses the term "New World Order" - which connotates the Illuminati-Stuff.

@Kiwiwriter: Don't dare putting me in a corner with holocaust deniers. I'm here to fight fascism.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
How about "9/11 Commission Report Denier?"

Sixth time: have you read it? If so, what did it get wrong?
Click to expand...
By the way, Childlike, I have read it. I have, I believe, a pretty good idea of what it got wrong, or at least what was left incomplete and deserves further investigation. I've dropped a couple hints up thread. As have others.

I wouldn't want to spoil the thrill of discovery for you. But I'm here and available if you get stuck and would like a hint.
 
Childlike Empress said:
@Drysdale: All in all i share my opinion on the "war on terror" with Michel Chossudovsky.
Click to expand...
Childlike Empress said:
@Kiwiwriter: Don't dare putting me in a corner with holocaust deniers. I'm here to fight fascism.
Click to expand...
B'nai B'rith Canada complained to the University of Ottawa in August 2005 that one of its faculty members, economist Michel Chossudovsky, maintains a web site that includes postings alleging Jewish conspiracies and denying the Holocaust. Articles on Chossudovsky's web site, www.globalresearch.ca, include "The Hilarious Auschwitz Story," "The HolyCo$t Lie is Finished," "Jewish Lies of Omission (about the 'Holocaust')," and "Jewish Hate Responsible For Largest Mass Killing at Dachau."

Interviewed by The Ottawa Citizen, Chossudovsky said the postings are "anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic."
Click to expand...
http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/HolocaustDenial2005.pdf
 
@Gravy: Chossudovsky is an antifascist and critic of corporate globalisation. I read his books and frequently visit globalresearch.ca. A lot of authors contribute to the site and i never saw anything like holocaust deniing. This is a smear campaign and you are an ********, Sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom