911: The chain of evidence

[chipmunk stew]

They changed their minds a long time after 9/11. Look at this press release (saved by the wayback machine - disappeared in October 2003):



In late 2003 the saudis said:



Do we?


Really? Please provide a link.

The depth of your disconfirmation bias is astonishing.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm sorry but i think i don't get your point.

@Sword_of_truth: That's easy: You smell strange.

@all: I leave for now. I hope there is a discussion going on. I was not joking when i opened this thread.

Thank you for your prompt, to-the-point and "childlike" response, Empress.

 

[Kochanski]

Childlike. I have no idea why these guys are so patient with you. You behave precisely the way Creationists do.

Creationists demand fossil evidence of evolution and when it is provided, they nit-pick and demand for to be shown further fossil evidence, wanting every gap to be filled with another intermediate step. It doesn't matter how much evidence is given, they will endlessly insist on being shown more, while providing no evidence whatsoever to support their own hypothesis of divine creation. They are unwilling to accept the evidence presented as being sufficient because they want to believe in divine creation and see every unanswered question, every unfilled gap as something to cling to.

You are doing precisely the same thing. Just because every single question is not answered in the reports you are not willing to accept that the preponderance of evidence supports it. You provide no reasonable support for the outlandship 9/11 conspiracies and insist on being shown more and more evidence. It doesn't matter how much evidence they give you, you will just keep asking for more without ever giving any reason why anyone should believe the claims of the 9/11 CTers. We just get questions and no answers.

You need to accept that it is unlikely that every single question will be answered simply because of the magnitude of the event. There will always be some loose ends, some things that are not explained.

And just as the lack of a complete fossil record do not prove the Creationist view of the origins of life on Earth, so too with any unanswered questions about 9/11, they do not prove the CTers view of the event.

 

[EvilBiker]

Ok....

This is like, waaay over the top:

Stacy @ Jun 13 2006, 07:48 PM)
I have a hard time believing that something other than a plane his both WTCs. For one, my husbands good friend (they worked together at United at the time of 9/11) was one of the chosen employees to visit with the family members of the passengers on the plane. I've been around the airline industry for many years and I'm sorry, but it was definitely a plane.

But again, that's just my opinion.

Hi Stacy,

Understand that at best, that just proves that the passengers had family members. It really doesn't prove anything else.

The planes could have easily been swapped and the real plane taken elsewhere and the passengers murdered a different way without the family members knowing any differently. This applies to ALL 9/11 flights.

Hope that helps!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6260&st=0&#entry5287611

I'd love to know *what* that helps...

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What is a "chain of evidence" supposed to be exactly?

I'm uncertain as to how Childlike is using the term, but from my studies under Professor McCoy and Professor Schiff at the Dick Wolf School of Law, I believe "chain of evidence" refers to the tracking of who has custody of things like DNA samples, fingerprints, various items taken from the crime scene, etc so that it can be established that such evidence has not contaminated or deliberately tampered with.

The problem with Childlike's declared intention to disregard the Commission report is that since the chain of custody wich carries evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom is composed almost entirely of officers and agents of the state (wich she ostensibly believes to be in on the conspiracy) she has poisoned the well. She has set up her own personal grounds to disregard anything wich contradicts what she wants to be true.

Wich is why I refused to play her rigged game.

EDIT: I should have read Arkan's response before typing mine.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Childlike. I have no idea why these guys are so patient with you. You behave precisely the way Creationists do.

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm uncertain as to how Childlike is using the term, but from my studies under Professor McCoy and Professor Schiff at the Dick Wolf School of Law, I believe "chain of evidence" refers to the tracking of who has custody of things like DNA samples, fingerprints, various items taken from the crime scene, etc so that it can be established that such evidence has not contaminated or deliberately tampered with.

The problem with Childlike's declared intention to disregard the Commission report is that since the chain of custody wich carries evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom is composed almost entirely of officers and agents of the state (wich she ostensibly believes to be in on the conspiracy) she has poisoned the well. She has set up her own personal grounds to disregard anything wich contradicts what she wants to be true.

EDIT: I should have read Arkan's response before typing mine.

Your post makes a good point though.

As you said, by her refusing the Commission report, she discredits anything we might say, therefore a debate is impossible with her.

So her only option, is to redo the Commission Report all over by herself.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm uncertain as to how Childlike is using the term, but from my studies under Professor McCoy and Professor Schiff at the Dick Wolf School of Law, I believe "chain of evidence" refers to the tracking of who has custody of things like DNA samples, fingerprints, various items taken from the crime scene, etc so that it can be established that such evidence has not contaminated or deliberately tampered with.

The problem with Childlike's declared intention to disregard the Commission report is that since the chain of custody wich carries evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom is composed almost entirely of officers and agents of the state (wich she ostensibly believes to be in on the conspiracy) she has poisoned the well. She has set up her own personal grounds to disregard anything wich contradicts what she wants to be true.

Wich is why I refused to play her rigged game.

EDIT: I should have read Arkan's response before typing mine.

I think your definition (chain of custody) is an equally valid guess as mine (chain of evidentiary links) as to what CE is trying to talk about.

 

[Kochanski]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

Ah, you ignored my point completely, didn't you. As I expected. You keep asking questions but will not answer them. Ever using the defensive tactics of the Creationist.

 

[Legalduck]

Sword of Truth,
I think you're confusing chain of evidence with chain of custody. Chain of custody is a legal term of art of determining the sequence of events from the time evidence is discovered through all subsequent handling. Prosecutors are required to follow this to establish that the firearm being presented at the hearing is the same firearm that was tested and is now before the Court. (Hoo-Woo, years of legal training pay-off with an informed post)

I now draw on my largely untested powers of prophecy. CE will repeated refuse to accept any evidence, or discount the evidence a la "provide with me with all/any sources except that one." At some point, CE give up in a huff and return to LC or some other forum proclaiming victory over the (insert insult of your choice) skeptics at the JREF forums. With a prediction like that, anyone think I could nab the JREF prize

 

[Hellbound]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

Well. You can regard it as one source, but you've yet to give any reason why it's an inaccurate source.

The Commission report has already done what you're asking us to do here. They've sourced their material and statements. They've looked into these issues. You can check where they got their information.

If you throw that out, I fail to see how we, with fewer resources, less time, and less expertise, coudl present anything of a higher evidentiary value.

If the report is wrong, you should be able to point out where. We can then look at those issues, and go back to the primary source to verify the situation.

What you're asking for is liek expecting someone to prove Einstein's Relativity theory, but disallowing them from making any reference to the theory itself. In other words, you've pre-selected arbitrary rules to make the task nigh-impossible, and very few of us have the free time or the inclination to cater to your childish whims.

If the report is wrong, expose it. Show the errors, and provide sources for the alternate version you think has better evidence.

If you can't do this, you have no basis for your allegations. Expecting us to re-write "The Grapes of Wrath" because you don't like Steinbeck is pretty silly.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ah, you ignored my point completely, didn't you. As I expected. You keep asking questions but will not answer them. Ever using the defensive tactics of the Creationist.

I keep telling my BS of Sociology wife that Creationists, Holocaust Deniers, and 9/11 CT'ers would make a fascinating study group.

 

[Bronze Dog]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

Also ignoring that the "ONE source" is actually a collection of sources and evidence.

Of course, CE's engaging in obfuscation tactics by poisoning the well, employing a false dilemma enthymeme like Creationists, and apparently assuming, also in an enthymeme, that all government organizations are like-minded with no conflicting agendas.

If the government wasn't internally conflicted, they'd be doing a much better job in just about everything.

 

[Shrinker]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

Like I said in post 3 or thereabouts, the report is compiled from many sources. If the data has been altered between leaving the source and entering the report it ought to be extremely easy to prove. Go ahead, show us where the evidence has been tampered with. It'll take you two minutes. Go on, show us.

And there's your answer. We believe this 'one source' because nobody out of an army of hundreds of raving internet crackpots, who dedicate hours of their daily lives to their so-called research, has been able to find any flaw in the report which even vaguely hints at a murderous government conspiracy

 

[LTC8K6]

Loose Trains

 

[Bronze Dog]

Loose Trains

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Hilarious, LCT. (and it's a quick read)

 

[Drysdale]

I'm uncertain as to how Childlike is using the term, but from my studies under Professor McCoy and Professor Schiff at the Dick Wolf School of Law, I believe "chain of evidence" refers to the tracking of who has custody of things like DNA samples, fingerprints, various items taken from the crime scene, etc so that it can be established that such evidence has not contaminated or deliberately tampered with.

The problem with Childlike's declared intention to disregard the Commission report is that since the chain of custody wich carries evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom is composed almost entirely of officers and agents of the state (wich she ostensibly believes to be in on the conspiracy) she has poisoned the well. She has set up her own personal grounds to disregard anything wich contradicts what she wants to be true.

Wich is why I refused to play her rigged game.

EDIT: I should have read Arkan's response before typing mine.

This is exactly what I was thinking except not quite so eloquently.
She's playing riddles. No matter how you answer her since she refuses to accept anything since it must be tainted by the govt.
The only thing the riddler will accept is if one of the hijackers lived and confessed directly to her and then she would cry he's been made to confess by the govt.
This will all lead to a pointless finale but I'll ride along reading it for the kicks,
what the heck.

 

[delphi_ote]

I want to know why you all take a story that is only backed up by ONE source as the gospel truth. So far there was no evidence provided. Instead i was repeatedly refered back to the Commission-Report.

Which you dismiss, supposedly because it's tainted second-hand knowledge. You claim to want first-hand facts, but you seem to readily accept third and fourth hand accounts. This seems inconsistent to me.

That said, we're never going to get anywhere with your quesiton unless we can establish some common ground. Some baseline of truth. Were planes flown into those buildings? Were they hijacked planes? Are you specifically asking for proof that those 19 people were the hijackers, or are you also looking for proof that the planes were hijacked? Do we have to prove that the planes existed in the first place? Do we have to produce evidence that the Twin Towers actually existed? If you'd genuinely like our help answering these questions, we've got to have a place to start.

Also, what will you accept as evidence? Eye witness testimony? Expert testimony? Mainstream media reports? Do I have to physically mail you a piece of each hijacker's DNA and a video tape of each taking over the flight and navigating it to the crash site?

The problem we frequently run into with conspiracy theorists and proponets of pseudoscience is that they don't have a consistent burden of proof. They alter what they'll accept as evidence based on whether it supports or detracts from their belief. I'm not accusing you of this, just warning you that people here have little patience for that kind of run around.

So honestly ask yourself, "What would it take to change my mind?"

Just to be fair, I'll let you know what would change my mind. If I found that several eye witnesses gave consistent and independent testimony soon after the event that contradicted the established story, I would certainly have to re-examine my position. If several experts (intelligence officials or the coroners or the air traffic controllers) came forward and testified that the facts were inconsistent, I would seriously question the official story. If a main stream media outlet published a detailed report and sited sources as mentioned above, I would certainly investigate further and re-evaluate my position. If I found physical evidence myself or was shown clear video evidence that the event did not take place (i.e. video footage of someone else hijacking the plane,) obviously I'd have to doubt my version.

Clearly this last example is unreasonable, but I think it's quite realistic to expect to find the rest of my proposed evidence if what I currently believe was wrong. I'm sure there's more, but I think this list will do for now.

My mind can be changed. Can yours?

 

[hellaeon]

Please provide a link? As if evidence matters to people who fantasize these sorts of conspiracies.

The Earth is 6,000 years old, Noah's flood carved the Grand Canyon, and the Trilateral Commission is secretly ruling the world. Right!

I cannot agree more. Even when you show actual real evidence, they will scurry to the pro CT sites and dig up more propaganda, loose coincidences and outright lies. The evidence may be there, but so is the refusal to believe it.

Just browse over the LC forum for the evidence of half the stuff they have sprouted. "I think the planes flew off the coast and were ditched into the sea" etc. Just making up rubbish which then somehow gets put into the witches brew that is the 9/11 CT's.