9/11 Theories and the Burden of Proof

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


The NIST report and others have shown their evidence for the most likely sequence of events that day. They have done an incredible job in modeling a unique event. Is it perfect? No, perfection is not attainable due to the massive destruction on that day, a close approximation is the best any of us can hope for.

So far I have yet to see any proof for claims that people make about the NIST. Please show us some proof that they were all paid off. If it's so obvious to you armchair observers, where is the counter report to NIST? There is no detailed simulation on explosives, because the idea is absurd. It only works when you tweak it to include multiple years, and speculated specialized detonators, and then also accomplished it with no prep work just explosives. The reality is that there are far more things not consistent with a controlled demolition, than things that are.
It is disengenous to push what supports your theory while ignoring the evidence that doesn't fit it.

Could the NIST have done better? Sure, but problems with the NIST does not automatically validate your pet theory.

Negative evidence is not really evidence. It reminds me of creationists attacking evolution, they believe that if they prove evolution wrong it automatically proves their theory.

It doesn't work that way, like I said before,

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And please, let's stop with the nonsense about no images of WTC 7. They have been shown over and over, Bsbray even has a youtube link.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


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.

I think you're not understanding what went on and are confusing and investigation with a trial.

Maybe we should use the word data in place of evidence.

In a trial there are two opposing sides. One stating..'you did this'..and the other stating 'No I didn't'

That not the proper scenerio.
The investigation was conducted.
The data was complied.
The data that that applied to the crime was evaluated and from this some constituted 'evidence'.

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

Didn't show the evidence to who? I don't get what you mean.

"They just made some cad drawings and thats it"
Come on.

Why not present these items with your "case" as would be normal in any investigation or trial

They did.
Whats your 'proof' that they didn't?
Because they didn't show persent it to you?......"Hey wait a minute..did anyone send this to Slapnuts?...we can't make our final evaluation until Slapnuts see it"

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yes, they do. I ask the NIST to turn ove the extraordinary evidence of their extrordinary claims. SAme with the 9/11 comission.

WTC 7 Photos: I want to see a photo of THE DAMAGE... not just a cloud of smoke in front of the building. Surely, given the prevailing winds that day and the size of the famed "crater" you can do better than that crapy gif that shows NO DAMAGE... only smoke.

Maybe one of the 7,000 photos the NIST holds would help here?

Probably.

Time for them to RELEASE the evidence that supports their EXTRAORDINARY claims.

Originally posted by Vushta
The data that that applied to the crime was evaluated and from this some constituted 'evidence'.

Now, it is THEIR JOB to expose the "evidence" used to come to the conclusion they came to. ALL OF IT. RETURN the PHOTOS and VIDEOS. Put the samples on display.

Originally posted by Vushta
Didn't show the evidence to who? I don't get what you mean.

Example: the crater on WTC 7... where is the evidence of this?

Originally posted by Vushta
"They just made some cad drawings and thats it"
Come on.

Have you read the NIST report... Nice 3-d renderings... LOTS of them. They had 7,000 photos to use to make their document, YET they fail to produce photographic evidence for 99% of their absurd claims.

Release the photos and this problem GOES AWAY. So, why withold this evidence unless you have something to hide or your story is BS?

Originally posted by Vushta
They did.
Whats your 'proof' that they didn't?

The NIST report is contains very little photographic evidence (I am not going to count right now)... an NNO video. Given that they had 14,000 combined pieces of media to work from they should/must have at LEAST referenced the media used to support their claims. They did not.

Gee... I wonder why.

Originally posted by Vushta
Because they didn't show persent it to you?......"Hey wait a minute..did anyone send this to Slapnuts?...we can't make our final evaluation until Slapnuts see it"

Because they presented it to NO ONE. Certainly NOT the people who fronted the $20,000,000 for the "investigation of the EVIDENCE.

you must IGNORE vushta

the ONLY LINK he/she provides is
rules for this forum......

HARDLY evidence/proof to show us OTHERWISE

most likely a paid govt/republican/war supporter

c'mon vushta, everyone ELSE has at LEAST 1 link to SOME KIND of evidence

you cry foul, BUT, produce absolutely NOTHING
to BACK UP YOUR IDEAS??

HIPPOCRIT...

so far i have been shown MUCH MUCH MORE PROOF
(ats links,news..videos..testimony....) pointing in the direction of PRIOR GOVERNMENT KNOWLEDGE.......

the ONLY PROOF TO SAY TERRORISTS did it
is STRICTLY HEARSAY........SO FAR.....and a VERY BLURRY pentagon cam video
that is MISSING FRAMES.....

WE seem to be using sherlock holmes' methods,,,

YOU are using peoples words, and what your government told you.

sorry guy but we at A.T.S. seem to need FACTS, videos,pictures, taped recordings,
and the professional opinions of true professionals

you want to SWAY OUR OPINIONS........
GIVE US LINKS/PROOF.................you have NONE!!!!

heres a question for you that i KNOW you CANNOT ANSWER AND HAVE NO PROOF OF

how can a building, GIVE OUT at the BOTTOM, that was built to HOLD UP 1000 feet plus of concrete and steel (lightweight styrofoam concrete for the floors only for sound proofing purposes)..... how can it POSSIBLY fail at the bottom/base???

ESPECIALLY by getting blown apart close to the TOP???


ESPECIALLY WHEN years ago, a truck bomb , blew out a few basement floors
AT THE BASE (fact...proven.) and with all that weight (1000 plus feet of concrete and steel )
on top of this and it STILL DID NOT FALL?????

answer me that, and i will believe there were NO EXPLOSIVES USED TO HELP IT FALL

you CANT!!

the empire state building took a hit, yes it was a smaller plane,,
(army transport plane if i'm not mistaken) not all that small
AND , the ESB building was built, BEFORE earthquake proof designs,,
and with LOWER QUALITY steel and concrete.................

since 1920's there have been lots of MANDATORY BUILDING CODE UPGRADES
which were implemented in the construction of W.T.C.

p.s.
mr left behind,,,,,,

there WAS a VIDEO of the FIRST PLANE hit the !ST BUILDING.........

i saw it live on cnn, apparently mr bush saw it too, and he wasnt supposed to admit it

in fact, it WAS on abc new.com BUT,, it VANISHED!!!!!!!!

www.google.com...:en-USfficial< br />
this video,, " 22010912wtcfirstplane_video_popoff " VANISHED!!!

last time i looked for it there was 3 (three) links to it on google

now NONE OF THEM WORK WTF???????

Originally posted by LeftBehind
And please, let's stop with the nonsense about no images of WTC 7. They have been shown over and over, Bsbray even has a youtube link.

That's right, you can't see any fire.

WTC5 and 6 were real infernos just behind WTC7, and they were putting out immense amounts of smoke. I can post images for you.

WTC7, no such fires, and yet a mass of smoke around it. I wonder where most all of it came from .

Originally posted by Vushta
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.

I see what you are saying Vushta. Although, I don't believe that NIST has met their burden of proof. What I'm talking about is just saying "global collapse was inevitable". They offer no proof to back up this claim for one. For two, I have yet to see any computer simulations on how the towers collapsed...they say they did them but don't proove their case by showing any computer simulation parameters etc. That's what I mean about the burden of proof being on their shoulders. But, I do agree with you about the CTers burden also.

c'mon vushta, everyone ELSE has at LEAST 1 link to SOME KIND of evidence

Start here.

wtc.nist.gov...

Claim an inaccuracy.
Site the page that contains the inaccuracy.
State why you believe it is inaccurate.
Provide reasons for your claim of inaccuracy.
Present some evidence in support of your claim.

you cry foul, BUT, produce absolutely NOTHING

I just gave you something. Work on it and report back.

so far i have been shown MUCH MUCH MORE PROOF

Great..you have an opinion. Can you back it up with evidence that consists of more than biased similar opinions from conspiracy theory web sites?

the ONLY PROOF TO SAY TERRORISTS did it is STRICTLY HEARSAY

They admitted it...they always do.

and a VERY BLURRY pentagon cam video that is MISSING FRAMES.

There are no frames missing.

YOU are using peoples words, and what your government told you.

Well no.. Its simply what the evidence show to be factually accurate. If you have some other evidence to present....present it already.

and the professional opinions of true professionals

True professionals in what fields? Who are these 'true professionals' that you refer to?

how can a building, GIVE OUT at the BOTTOM,

Give out at the bottom??

ESPECIALLY by getting blown apart close to the TOP???

Blown apart at the top???

ESPECIALLY WHEN years ago, a truck bomb , blew out a few basement floors

Irrelevent.

answer me that, and i will believe there were NO EXPLOSIVES USED TO HELP IT FALL

Welcome...and don't worry, your eyes will adjust to the light in time.

the empire state building took a hit, yes it was a smaller plane,,

Thats been gone over many many times.

Vushta... yet again providing NOTHING of VALUE to the debate.

Nice link to the NIST report that has many, MANY threads regarding it's contents.

Why dont YOU GO TO THOSE THREADS AND SUPPORT the NIST's position instead of trying to constantly "debunk".

The reasons you will not do this:

1. You have not read it.
and
2. It is undefendable.

Way to threadjack this by the way... You are truly a great debater.

Originally posted by Vushta
Start here.

wtc.nist.gov...

Claim an inaccuracy.
Site the page that contains the inaccuracy.
State why you believe it is inaccurate.
Provide reasons for your claim of inaccuracy.
Present some evidence in support of your claim.

Their drawing of a typical floor-framing plan is not to scale and does not have a note about not being to scale.

Page 90 of 280 in the pdf....page 28 of the report.

I have drawn a comparison CAD drawing using figures 2-12 and 2-11 as a guideline for dimensions of columns and placement.

Reasons why I feel they misportrayed this. When looking at their drawing, it looks as if the core columns are very big compared to the trusses. Without looking further into it, it gives the impression that the trusses were extremely very weak compared with the massive columns. When scaled to the right scaling, the trusses appear bigger than what NIST portrays them as. Remember that NIST's main cause of collapse are these weak trusses failing. Which by portraying them in the way they do gives the impression that they really were.

Evidence: I don't have time at the moment to load pictures but if you don't believe me do a search or something...I've posted them here before.

Here's a thread I started on this topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How's that Vushta?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Vushta
Start here.

wtc.nist.gov...

Claim an inaccuracy.
Site the page that contains the inaccuracy.
State why you believe it is inaccurate.
Provide reasons for your claim of inaccuracy.
Present some evidence in support of your claim.

Their drawing of a typical floor-framing plan is not to scale and does not have a note about not being to scale.

Page 90 of 280 in the pdf....page 28 of the report.

I have drawn a comparison CAD drawing using figures 2-12 and 2-11 as a guideline for dimensions of columns and placement.

Reasons why I feel they misportrayed this. When looking at their drawing, it looks as if the core columns are very big compared to the trusses. Without looking further into it, it gives the impression that the trusses were extremely very weak compared with the massive columns. When scaled to the right scaling, the trusses appear bigger than what NIST portrays them as. Remember that NIST's main cause of collapse are these weak trusses failing. Which by portraying them in the way they do gives the impression that they really were.

Evidence: I don't have time at the moment to load pictures but if you don't believe me do a search or something...I've posted them here before.

Here's a thread I started on this topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How's that Vushta?

Thats valid Griff. Usually all thats delivered by CTs (not that you're one)..is whiney complaints and finger pointing.

I don't really see how something not being drawn to scale negates the science behind the conclusions. However it looks on paper really doen't affect that. It could have been assumed to not be important and therefore not pointed out.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Vushta... yet again providing NOTHING of VALUE to the debate.

Nice link to the NIST report that has many, MANY threads regarding it's contents.

Why dont YOU GO TO THOSE THREADS AND SUPPORT the NIST's position instead of trying to constantly "debunk".

The reasons you will not do this:

1. You have not read it.
and
2. It is undefendable.

Way to threadjack this by the way... You are truly a great debater.

I don't have to support the NIST report. It stands on its own.


Listen...for the sake of the various discussions people are involved in, you should try and transend this 'thing' you have about me. It deflects threads and changes the subject of posts and thats not what the forum is about.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Any accusations made without proof are just slander. That is why so few people take this 9/11 conspiracy seriously. When the burden of proof lies with the accused you end up with failed systems like the old U.S.S.R. and current oppressive systems like China where you can end up doing slave labor for the rest of your life even though you broke no laws. Your only crime need be that you don’t agree with the powers that be. Any thinking person knows you can not prove a negative.

I can not find a single person outside of ATS that believes the U.S. Government blew up the trade centers. Believers are a nearly imperceptible minority of the population except on conspiracy sites. Don't be fooled into believing that ATS is a representative sampling of the general population. A poll conducted here only reflects the fact that conspiracy believers are far more likely to be involved on ATS.

If real proof were to be put forward news sources like the New York Times and many others would trample each other in the stampede to be first to publish. They are passionate in their hatred of the current administration to say the least. They also know that speculation and theory are not proof and would never make an accusation without legitimate proof. The mere fact that a small group of people who are prone to making wild accusations without actual proof believe in something, would not be enough to command their attention.

I personally believe there were many small conspiracies of cover-ups and lies surrounding 9/11 and they are being wrongly merged into a larger conspiracy that does not exist. The number of people who would have to be in on it and maintain secrecy for their entire lives would mean it would have been leaked long ago. If irrefutable proof is ever put forward, I will be among the first to take up arms, so I do see where everyone’s passion on this issue comes from. Until that time I have to believe that this theory is just an extension of some people’s inherent hatred of authority and anyone who wields it.


[edit on 27-7-2006 by Blaine91555]

blaine,,,thats the whole problem


all the evidence........disappeared!


THE CNN VIDEO THAT BUSH AND I SAW LIVE................GONE

THE WTC STEEL TO CHECK FOR EXPLOSIVE CHEMICALS......................GONE

PENTAGON SURVEILANCE VIDEOS........................GONE

THE GOVT.. confiscated almost everything, that proved otherwise

half of the cleanup crews.....are dying from the dust/chemicals...........gone

and let me guess.........since it was a "terrorist attack"
all photo's and videos, and evidence.......are all now.....STATE SECRETS...

40 years from now they will release it all and by then .....too late, doesnt matter anymore.......

Originally posted by yeah right
blaine,,,thats the whole problem

Point taken. I've never said that this is not possible just improbable due to the number of people that would be involved. I have spent more time searching for info on this subject than any other on ATS and have yet to see anything that would qualify as legal proof. If it is there I will be forever grateful to the person who uncovers it.

For now, I have to stay with my belief there were lots of little conspiracies surrounding failures and incompetence on the part of those involved. It would be against my pragmatic nature to do otherwise. My mind remains open to new proofs as always. The biggest roadblock to answering these questions lies with the questioner’s inability to approach things with logic and common sense. Emotion and gut feelings are not the cloth that good debate is cut from. In the end provable facts are the only foundation for advancing this to any status other than loosely based theory.

I think that emotion blinds us all to facts that are looking us right in the eye. I’m as guilty of that as any other. It took me some time to learn to not loose my temper when confronted with someone who stubbornly clings to an unreasonable opinion. In particular those that defend the indefensible like strapping bombs to children. ATS has matured me greatly in that regard. I now understand there are little bits of truth contained in these tirades and now regard them as a necessary tool.

If these 9/11 conspiracy theories are even in the ballpark of the truth I pray that someone here or elsewhere comes up with the proof and does it quickly. I am on your side, I’m just not sure I’m ready to accept it as fact at this time. The circumstantial evidence does have value in that it will be there to use when and if actual proof comes forth.

Originally posted by bsbray11


WTC5 and 6 were real infernos just behind WTC7, and they were putting out immense amounts of smoke. I can post images for you.

WTC7, no such fires, and yet a mass of smoke around it. I wonder where most all of it came from .

You can't be serious. Watch the video.

Smoke is poring from almost every floor in the building.

Firemen reported a twenty story hole in the building.

There is video showing smoke pouring out of the building, clearly coming from the huge hole in the side of the building.

First you claimed, small fires, minor damage.

Now, after being shown proof of large fires and major damage, you want us to believe that the smoke is coming from a 10 storey building across the street.

This train of thought is mindboggling to say the least.


Are any of you even thinking this stuff through?

Why is it so hard to see that all that smoke is coming from a fire in WTC 7?

Originally posted by Slapnuts

not just a cloud of smoke in front of the building. Surely, given the prevailing winds that day and the size of the famed "crater" you can do better than that crapy gif that shows NO DAMAGE... only smoke.

What do you mean no damage? Watch the video, there is smoke emanating from the hole in the building.

Only smoke?

What do you mean only smoke? Did the Gubmint plant smoke bombs in WTC 7? Fires inside the building are obviously causing that smoke. What, other than fire, inside the building could possibly be causeing all that smoke? Thermite?

I mean are you guys even trying anymore?

Watch the Screw Loose Change video. It shows video of the south side burning. Five and six are across the street, and that video clearly shows smoke pouring from a hole in the building. The wind appears to be blowing south slightly, so there is no way that smoke is from 5 or 6, as they are to the south in the video.

www.lolloosechange.co.nr...

Or watch it here.

www.youtube.com...

During the second half is where I get this "crappy gif"



Here is the same picture showing the position of WTC 5 and 6, clearly illustrating why it is ludicrous to think this smoke is coming from them.





911research.wtc7.net...


[edit on 27-7-2006 by LeftBehind]

[edit on 27-7-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by Vushta


Listen...for the sake of the various discussions people are involved in, you should try and transend this 'thing' you have about me. It deflects threads and changes the subject of posts and thats not what the forum is about.

YOU reply to every single one of my posts... then ifI fail to answer one of your circular questions you "call me out" as if I am avoiding your tripe filled drivel. So I answer you... then you say I dodged the question.

Iwill not watch you come on here and spew pseudo-facts and regurgitate the same things in every thread. I WILL RESPOND and I WILL CONTINE to show newcomers and fence sitters that your positions are WEAK and generally baseless.

You are a "negative atacker". You NEVER support the position you hold so dear, all you do is attack the posts of those who disagree with questions and without citation.

I will not watch this happen and if the mods. choose to delete my posts then so be it... You notcie that this is NOT happening?

Originally posted by Vushta


Listen...for the sake of the various discussions people are involved in, you should try and transend this 'thing' you have about me. It deflects threads and changes the subject of posts and thats not what the forum is about.

Never 'called you out"..You're making that up. There are several topics where you harp on people..."Howard??..no response?..Harte?? Vushta??..etc. Anyway, enough of that.

My point speaks for itself. It was just a suggestion to focus on the topic and not swatting at me. I don't really care one way or the other, I just thought it might be annoying to others on the board. I think it was even pointed out.

A reminder to members posting in this thread.


Please focus your responses on the topic of discussion, not individual perceptions of other member's posting habits.

Thank you.


The topic is: 9/11 Theories and the Burden of Proof