9/11 Theories and the Burden of Proof

It seems lately that many of the official theory believers have been using the term "That is not proof." This statemtn is curious to me because of the two camps: Offical Theory vs. Alternative theory. Let us look first at what the alternative theory group needs to do to establish PROOF:

Alternative Theory and Proof Steps

1. Look at available UNSUPRESSED evidence. (photos, videos, media coverage, etc.)
2. Look for anamolies, issues, problems and contradictions in said evidence.
3. Look for errors, omissions, distortions, etc in OFFICIAL reports.
4. Establish reasonable doubt regarding official story using steps 1-3.
5. Convince others of this doubt to "catalyze the public behind a new investigation".
6. Fend off the official Theories ADAMANT forces.
7. Get evidence released and a new investigaton that hopefully produces PROOF.

Now... Let us look at the Official Theory Proof Steps... To establish that their story is PROVEN they could...

1. Release the evidence.
2. Release pictures of the damage to WTC 7.
3. Release video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
4. Prove the hijackers are not alive via. airport security cams, passenger manifests.
5. Respond to questions regarding molten metal, etc.
6. Show the NIST models of the WTC computer simulations.
(I could go on...)

Now, it is obvious that the alternative theory seekers are only at steps 1-6 and until they get to step 7 (actually, step 8. Investigation PROVES THEORY) there can be NO PROOF... just a heap of evidenc and the hopes for a real investigation.

For the Official Story could be proven TODAY if any of the above steps would be followed. All of which are quite simple to do.

So, today, instead of saying that there is no proof of the alternative theories becasue that road is LONG and ARDUIOUS, ask yourselves why the official story has not been proven when it WOULD BE SO EASY TO DO.


The gov't bears the burden of proof in light of the evidence, anomalies, hidden evidence, supressed accounts, etc.

I believe that EVENTUALLY, an alternative theory will be proven SIMPLY based on the fact that it would be SO INCREDIBLY EASY to DISPROVE if it had no creedence.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Slap Nuts,

You seem to be unaware of a few things. Let's take your statements one by one.

1. Release the evidence.

First you have to understand what all forms evidence takes. Photos, witness statements, testimony (yes there is a difference between statements and testimony), and physical evidence

www.geocities.com... Some NYFD statements and couple pictures.

www.geocities.com... More from NYFD

i.a.cnn.net... Flight 93 voice transcript

www.cbsnews.com... News story that mentions the Boston Globe obtaining the TRUE passenger manifests (not the "victim" manifests used by CNN who omitted the terrorist names out of respect to the victims). The TRUE manifests DO list the hijackers as passengers.

www.rcfp.org... Exhibits used in Moussaoui trial, including transcripts, and photos (word to the squeamish, there are photos of bodies found at the Pentagon)

tommcshane.bravehost.com... I included this one because it has a photo of an unmistakable chunk of an airliner fuselage on top the wreckage of WTC 5.

debris.0catch.com... More pics of plane wreckage
www.wtcdebris.0catch.com... More pics

graphics.boston.com... Self-explanitory.

2. Release the pictures of the damage to WTC 7.

www.911myths.com... Admittedly not much, but do you really think NYFD/NYPD was going to let a bunch of photographers get in to photo the south side of WTC 7, when they were sure it was going to fall as well?

3. Release the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

This is an assumption that there actually exists a clear video showing this, which I highly doubt.

4. Prove the hijackers are not alive.

I refer you to the manifest listed above that shows the hijackers were indeed on board Flight 11 at least.

ndms.chepinc.org... Discusses the pathology efforts at the Pentagon, including a statement that remains of each of the five hijackers were recovered as evidenced by five unique profiles that did not fit any of the antimortem materials provided by the victims families (i.e there were five Arab males)

5. Respond to the questions of the molten metal

That one is an example of "my friend's cousin's brother told me......" but this discusses "molten metal"
www.911myths.com...

6. Show the NIST models of the computer simulations.

Why? There have been enough outside simulations (by people who actually know what they are talking about) done that confirm the NIST report.

I could go on....................

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
6. Show the NIST models of the computer simulations.

Why? There have been enough outside simulations (by people who actually know what they are talking about) done that confirm the NIST report.

Really?

Show me one.

NIST did computer simulations for a single floor. The test results did not reflect NIST's conclusions, even when beefed up to a "severe" set of parameters. These parameters, however, were not released by NIST, but only vaguely described.

The reason this would be released, is because it is scientific data, in a report that is supposed to have been scientific. That means that the data would have to be included to be reproduced by others, as you suggest has been done, but in reality has not.

And I know of no one to ever model the WTC global collapses with any accuracy. This is actually impossible to do for anyone besides NIST, which never did any, because the construction drawings are unavailable to anyone but NIST as far as I know.

Other NIST and FEMA-related researchers may have them by this time, but I'm not certain. BPAT did not at the time of the FEMA Report, and yet Astaneh-Asl (an appointed official investigator for FEMA) has been trying to model the WTC collapses via pancake theory for years now. He can't get it to work. Never has. Never will. But he's the only guy I know of that's even tried to accurately model the collapses via a simulation.

NIST also has thousands of photographs and videos, by their own admission, which they have not released, and have so far refused to release. Only a few images have trickled through to us through their reports, such as a couple new images of WTC7 (none of its allegedly damaged side, of course :-P).

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Slap Nuts,

You seem to be unaware of a few things. Let's take your statements one by one.

1. Release the evidence.

First you have to understand what all forms evidence takes. Photos, witness statements, testimony (yes there is a difference between statements and testimony), and physical evidence

ALL OF THE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS HELD BY THE NIST SHOULD BE RETRNED TO THEIR OWENERS and/or PUBLISHED. VIDEO TOO. End of story. I am not using Geocities sites with five pictures as acceptable. RETURNT ALL OF THE PHOTOS AND VIDEOS. Release steel samples for independant review.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
2. Release the pictures of the damage to WTC 7.

www.911myths.com... Admittedly not much, but do you really think NYFD/NYPD was going to let a bunch of photographers get in to photo the south side of WTC 7, when they were sure it was going to fall as well?

Nice assumptions. Thousands of cameras in the area and NOT ONE shows the infamous "CRATER" or catastrophic damage blamerd for the collapse... WHAT ARE THE ODDS? NILL.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
3. Release the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

This is an assumption that there actually exists a clear video showing this, which I highly doubt.

Then return the original tapes top their owners. The workes at the Hilton WATCHED THE TAPE AND SAID IT SHOWED THE impact. How did all of the cameras fail at the same time? The gas station, hotel, DOT cameras, Pentagon cameras... ALL FAILED. MY BUTT.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
4. Prove the hijackers are not alive.

I refer you to the manifest listed above that shows the hijackers were indeed on board Flight 11 at least.

So... MAYBE they can show a list for ONE of FOUR flights? Not good enough for me or 99% of the public. We should see security video of ALL 19 boarding planes or entering airports. PERIOD. We should see their names on the MANIFESTS FOR ALL FOUR FLIGHTS. DANG.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999s)

5. Respond to the questions of the molten metal

That one is an example of "my friend's cousin's brother told me......" but this discusses "molten metal"
www.911myths.com...

The link you provide is full of errors and falicies. Check your facts and look at the documents provided by the "other side" (i.e. Dr. Jones) regarding molten metal. This is one of the few items WE DO HAVE PHOTOS OF.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

6. Show the NIST models of the computer simulations.

Why? There have been enough outside simulations (by people who actually know what they are talking about) done that confirm the NIST report.

Structural engineers and many others would like to see the FINAL RESULTS of our $20,000,000 investigation which would be the visual models showing how this could have happened. These are not provided because they are NOT REALISTIC and would NOT WORK. The nuimbers were tweaked just to get the NON-VISUAL model to work... Just show the .avi... HOW HARD IS THAT for $20million?

You CT people always have the 'Burden of Proof' concept backwards.

Originally posted by Vushta
You CT people always have the 'Burden of Proof' concept backwards.

The governemt was paidn to produce proof... they have failed so the burden still lies on them. I am done feeding you troll.

It would be SO EASY for them to PROVE their story... Why will they not do this REGARDLESS of whom the burden falls on?

[edit on 26-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
You CT people always have the 'Burden of Proof' concept backwards.

The governemt was paidn to produce proof... they have failed so the burden still lies on them. I am done feeding you troll.

Thats a very inaccurate representation of the 'burden of proof' concept....but I suspect you know that.

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
You CT people always have the 'Burden of Proof' concept backwards.

The governemt was paidn to produce proof... they have failed so the burden still lies on them. I am done feeding you troll.

Thats a very inaccurate representation of the 'burden of proof' concept....but I suspect you know that.

They created a story and need to back it up with PROOF.

IT would be esy to do... RELEASE THE PHOTOS and VIDEOS.

Why will they not do this REGADRLESS of who you think the burden falls on?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


They created a story and need to back it up with PROOF.

IT would be esy to do... RELEASE THE PHOTOS and VIDEOS.

Why will they not do this REGADRLESS of who you think the burden falls on?

Let me use your technique.

1. Source that "they 'created' a story" please.

2. Assumption based in a logical fallacy.

3. Conclusion based on above fallacious assumption and deflection from addressing the original point.

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


They created a story and need to back it up with PROOF.

IT would be esy to do... RELEASE THE PHOTOS and VIDEOS.

Why will they not do this REGADRLESS of who you think the burden falls on?

Let me use your technique.

1. Source that "they 'created' a story" please.

2. Assumption based in a logical fallacy.

3. Conclusion based on above fallacious assumption and deflection from addressing the original point.

1. The gov't claims 19 hijackers... blah, blah, blah... where is the PROOF?

2. FACT. Releasing the evidence would allow reiew of THOUSANDS of yet unseen photos. I am sure MANY theoris would be proven or disproven through this act. You know it too.

3. Answer the question. Why will they not do this?

How is the "burden of proof" on the CTers? The government is the one who did the study (for $20 million I might add). They are the ones that the burden lies. I'm with SlapNuts.....no more troll food.

In all fairness I don't think the burden of proof is technically upon one party any more than it is upon any other here on ATS. Only the government, given the system we live in. When people take up the government's side, though, they should keep that in mind.


The Towers, and WTC7, fell. We've all seen it on video. Millions of people live in the area and have also seen corroborating evidence that they have fallen. I feel pretty confident that those Towers, and Building 7, did indeed collapse.

If someone were to challenge that, I think we could all safely place the burden of proof onto them, to prove that those buildings did not actually collapse, for whatever reason.


However, in explaining why those buildings fell, without a government, it would be anybody's ball. With a government in place, there are responsibilities (at least in our system) that are inherent, and people expect accurate reports at least from government agencies (agencies like NIST), and probably also from others in the "scientific community", so that we can have a good idea as citizens, as to what exactly happened on 9/11, especially considering all the global crap that's resulted from it.

9/11 conspiracy theories have evolved from what we feel has been a total lack of quality information regarding issues such as the Tower and WTC7 collapses, I think, and should be thought of in that context.

Originally posted by Griff
How is the "burden of proof" on the CTers? The government is the one who did the study (for $20 million I might add). They are the ones that the burden lies. I'm with SlapNuts.....no more troll food.

The burden of proof is on the CTers or whoever because an investigation was done. the evidence evaluated and conclusions drawn. The investigators made their case. Their burden of proof was met.

If someone has a different hypothesis as to what happened or how it happened and challenges the conclusions of the investigation that person or people making the claim must first present the alternative hypothesis and then present evidence to support the hypothesis. If the claim is that the investigation was conducted improperly or that the methodology was flawed, the same standards still apply.
Specify in no vague terms exactly what the impropriety was and provide evidence to back the claim of impropriety. If the claim was that the methodolgy was flawed point out the exact flaw in the methodology and supply evidence as to why it was flawed.

You just can't claim.."I don't like the results..do it again until I say O.K." You made the claim that the results were inncorrect YOU have to provide the evidence to counter the results and support your claims. Just saying you think it was wrong for this reason or that doesn't cut it.

Why would it be any other way? That just makes no sense.



[edit on 26-7-2006 by Vushta]

[edit on 26-7-2006 by Vushta]

Vushta, NIST provided a theory, and failed to support it with any type of evidence you can think of. How does this qualify as sufficient? Or do you know of some proof of NIST that none of the rest of us have seen yet?

The computer simulations did not reflect their paper, the recreated office fire did not reflect their paper, and the images they showed of what they alleged to be buckling from heat, did not show enough buckling to cause a single floor to fail, with the reasoning that all of the others that were required to fail, happened to fail simultaneously. Which happens to become circular logic, based on the fact that it's neither proven to be the cause or the effect in that case.


If they had actually provided proof, then what you're saying might hold water.


Present their conclusive proof, and you're fine.

[unnecessary quote of Entire previous post removed]



If you read your post, you should be able to see that all you're doing is making unsupported claims i.e. they failed to provide any evidence to support their claims..simulations did not reflect the paper..office fire did not reflect their paper..there was buckling...but not "enough"..

For those claims to be taken seriously you should have to provide evidence that "the buckling was not enough buckling"..or why the simulations did not reflect the paper etc. Those accusations are very vague and non specific. They can't be taken seriously without some evidence to back them up.

The point of view that you're proposing seems to me have more in common with person being found guilty in a trial simply claiming the trial was rigged with no more evidence of rigging than simply claiming it was rigged.
If and when new evidence is found its likely a new trial could be brought based on the new evidence. But you can't simply say.."Lets start over with the same evidence..but let my lawyers pick and choose the 'evidence' and pick and choose the only witnesses.. and tweek the methodology used.....then it will be fair."
Thats not how it works.

If they had actually provided proof

If the investigation was not based in evidence, what do you suppose was going on for almost 5 years?

But this seems like a bit of a deflection..do you agree with the basic concept I provided for 'burden of proof'? You seem to and only disagree with the methodology that was used to arrive at the conclusions.


Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/27/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Vushta
... an investigation was done. the evidence evaluated and conclusions drawn. The investigators made their case. Their burden of proof was met.

If you cannot see the contradiction in this... the flat out skipped step in your logic I am done with you.

Secondly, they have NOt SHOW THE EVIDENCE" (Re: Plaintiffs exhibit A, etc...) They just make some cad drawings and that's it.

Where is the PROOF? Where is the HARD EVIDENCE? Photos, Videos, samples??? Why not present these items with your "case" as would be normal in any investigation or trial?

Vushta... you are overpaid.

Originally posted by Vushta
If the investigation was not based in evidence, what do you suppose was going on for almost 5 years?

So here you claim the length of the investigation somehow constitutes "proof or evidence? Sadder and sadder.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
If the investigation was not based in evidence, what do you suppose was going on for almost 5 years?

So here you claim the length of the investigation somehow constitutes "proof or evidence? Sadder and sadder.

Well obviously thats not at all what I'm claiming and I believe most people reading the response can quite clearly see that.

But appearently thats the mechanism you're using to avoid answering the question.

Originally posted by Vushta

If the investigation was not based in evidence, what do you suppose was going on for almost 5 years?

1. Someting that gave the appearacne of an investigation.
2. "Getting a story straight"
3. Allowing the issue to "cool", details to be lost and forgotten by the public.
4. Propaganda.
5. Writing LONG papers ridled with conjecture and omissions.
6. People quitting the investigations and administration.
7. Gathering and supressing real evidence.
8. Circle jerk.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta

If the investigation was not based in evidence, what do you suppose was going on for almost 5 years?

1. Someting that gave the appearacne of an investigation.
2. "Getting a story straight"
3. Allowing the issue to "cool", details to be lost and forgotten by the public.
4. Propaganda.
5. Writing LONG papers ridled with conjecture and omissions.
6. People quitting the investigations and administration.
7. Gathering and supressing real evidence.
8. Circle jerk.

Want to go thru these one at a time?

You've made an accusation against all the people and facilities who were involved in the investigation. The accusation is that these people were expending their energies on simply providing the "appearance of an investigation". This accusation includes the professional integrity of a list of professionals with expertise in the proper fields to fill roughly 10 pages.

The accusation also includes the integrity and reputation of numerous facilities who conduct investigations into all types of situations. The potential liability issues that would arise from this type of fraud would be devastating to the facilities and anyone associated with them. All investigations conducted by these facilities in the past could be contested by the parties who had judgement levied against them.
Those are serious allegations.

The burden of proof is on the one making the serious allegations.

Your evidence to support this first accusation in your list is...what?