Thoughts on Proof

What is "Proof?"

I've seen one side here offering it, the other demanding it, etc. Who among us KNOWS the TRUTH? Who's just making their best guess based on the evidence they've seen, interpreted by their opinions and biases? come on, be honest.

All I see anywhere is evidence, theories, opinions. I ain't seen proof 9/11 was in inside job. I don't need it. The evidence is thick enough to make that my best guess.

And disregarding all the links to regurgitated "debunkings" of straw-man arguments, no one has yet provided PROOF all the "failures" of the 9/11 defense/intel/etc. were all accident, and all the benefits garnered coincidental. I'm not even demanding such proof. Tho evidence is welcome. It seems pretty flimsy and circumstantial so far.

Edit: All caps title.




[edit on 26-2-2007 by intrepid]

At this point, it's opinions.
No proof. Just opinions.

I wish that posters would start their post with " It's my opinion that.."

Would be a heck of a lot more truthful than stating something as fact.

Just my 2 cent,
Lex

Okay, here are my thoughts on this subject....

9/11 was a very major event, made up from smaller related single events. (including all the possible planning that went into it)

What I think really needs to be done, is that some form of collaborative independent (from the Gov't) research into every single detail, one step at a time, piece by piece.

Once the obvious events (starting with the actual hijackings) have been fully investigated, then it might be possible to piece together the events that led up to the major events (i.e., the planning, and the planners)

It is very clear to me at least, until we can see the big picture, all we really have are bits and pieces, sometimes that are not directly related to each other. Seems to be some missing "links".


just my uneducated 2 cents worth.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
no one has yet provided PROOF all the "failures" of the 9/11 defense/intel/etc. were all accident, and all the benefits garnered coincidental.

This above statement cuts right to the chase. This is what the 9/11 Commission was supposed to do.

What the 9/11 Commission did instead was give us an explanation that relied on a) the NORAD/NEADSA officers being mistaken in their sworn testimony, and b) the FAA being "confused" about Flight 11 not hitting WTC1.

And this took up 1 page of their 500+ page report.

Is this evidence of conspiracy or incompetence? Or both?

They foreswore any real investigation before they even started work. It's on the record. Joint Intel Inquiry into 9/11 co-Chairman Bob Graham (D-FL) said on Feb 14 2002: “I have no interest in simply looking in the rear view mirror and playing the ‘blame game’ about what went wrong from an intelligence perspective. […] Both Chairman Goss and I are committed to a fair, non-partisan and thorough process.”
The 9/11 Commission Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton (D-IN) said on Feb 6 2003 "the focus of the Commission will be on the future. We’re not interested in trying to assess blame, we do not consider that part of the Commission’s responsibility.”

They weren’t even worried about even kind of deep truth coming out – the biggest worry was petty partisanship, and so the top Dem on each panel was sent out to confirm NO BLAME could stick at home.

Massive "screw-ups." Massive benefits garnered. No real investigation, nothing explained. "Oh it was some problems. Nothing sinister." millions buy it - literally and figuratively - and it becomes "established fact." Now we need to provide "proof" of anything contrary. And they reject all evidence as "conjecture."

Okay guys, I'll cede this. I can't PROVE my case. Now show me the proof of YOUR unsubstantiated theories. No evidence, now, just proof. And I'll tell you why what you post is NOT proof and to go back to the drawing board.

My proof, after ?
Nothing else in the U.S. has been blown up.
Enough for me.

Lex

Originally posted by Lexion
My proof, after ?
Nothing else in the U.S. has been blown up.
Enough for me.

Lex

Good cisrcumstantial evidence, Lex. I second that observation. Of course it'll be moot after the next attack becomes necessary - excuse me, slips through. But yeah, it almost seems that ordinarily we have some kind of defenses. None are perfect, but that's why there are layers pf protection. All those layers got a hole in them on 9/11, all the holes lines up, the attack passed right through.

But what I'm looking for here is input from the "debunkers." C'mon, you're not intimidated by a challeger, are you? Gimme some PROOF that that was NOT intentional. Otherwise at least please quit flaunting your unsupported 9/11 commission incompetence theory and pretending it debunks our conspiracy theorists.

This place..where we are, is Purgatory.

You either have faith....or you do not.

Faith in the FBI investigation and the findings (as reported) from that investigation; Or think it is a lie...


I honestly feel the safest stance is to NOT reveal all of the intelligence right now.

It could blowback if conspiritors were able to gleen techniques from that type of sensitive information..and avoid it, for a better chance of future success.

As for Bin Laden my stance is IF the US kills him, the LAST thing the US should do is parade his head around on a stick (figuratively) ...It would be foolish to have him be seen dying as a soldier. Better him rot, broken, and diseased..than die as a Martyr.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Massive "screw-ups." Massive benefits garnered. No real investigation, nothing explained. "Oh it was some problems. Nothing sinister." millions buy it - literally and figuratively - and it becomes "established fact." Now we need to provide "proof" of anything contrary. And they reject all evidence as "conjecture."

This is the exact strategy that the 9/11 Commission and the DoD used re Able Danger. First, the DoD ordered 2.5 terabytes of data be destroyed, along with the charts, and then the 9/11 C concluded that there was no evidence to support Shaffer's, et al., claims.

Okay guys, I'll cede this. I can't PROVE my case.

Maybe you can't prove the complicity in 9/11 right now, but there is certainly evidence of some type of cover-up. A lot of times people get caught in the cover-up, like Nixon, Berger, Arthur Anderson, etc.

* Berger admits to stealing and destroying classified documents.

* The DoD admits to ordering the Able Danger data to be destroyed.

* The 9/11 C was caught lying about being contacted by Able Danger officers.

* 9/11 C "concludes" that Able Danger was not historically significant without ever taking testimony from witnesses.

* KSM and Richard Reid are not permitted to testify at the Moussaoui trial.

* Ali Mohammed is allowed to run loose in NYC by Patrick Fitzgerald, and then after he is arrested iand pleads guilty, is never sentenced.

* NIST and FEMA debacle re WTC7 collapse; steel being disposed of before it could be examined.

* FAA not notifying NORAD of Flight 77 hijacking for 30 minutes.

* Etc., etc., etc.

Originally posted by GwionX
This place..where we are, is Purgatory.

Well I'm glad you're here to guide me thru it. Never did study up on the bible stuff, so I'm pretty lost, till relying on Earth-based systems like reason and physics.

You either have faith....or you do not.
Faith in the FBI investigation and the findings (as reported) from that investigation; Or think it is a lie...

I do not have such faith. And neither evidence nor proof can override faith. So just hang onto that and you can ignore anything you like. It'll be easy sailing.

I honestly feel the safest stance is to NOT reveal all of the intelligence right now.

It could blowback if conspiritors were able to gleen techniques from that type of sensitive information..and avoid it, for a better chance of future success.

As for Bin Laden my stance is IF the US kills him, the LAST thing the US should do is parade his head around on a stick (figuratively) ...It would be foolish to have him be seen dying as a soldier. Better him rot, broken, and diseased..than die as a Martyr.

Don't worry, they already don't want to release it. Nat'l Security. And I guess we don't want to give the 9/11 Truth Nazi cabal any ammo. (And again, who are these guys?) But regarding the current challenge, these observations are neither here nor there. I still see no proof coming in of the official story. Not even evidence this time! But again Nick is able to easily lay out eight more good clues of complicity and cover-up.

Anybody seeing a pattern here? Who is it that needs to worry about proof?

Actually, my post about nothing happening since wasn't pro-conspiracy.
It was meant as the events occured pretty much ( as close as we'll probably know ) as we know it.

After the events, security tightened, we began looking closer at open cells,
and sleeper cells. We began harrassing the terrorist organizations enough
to keep them focused on staying alive and hidden, rather than openly
pursuing pilots license and such.

Sorry if I was mis-leading.

Lex

Originally posted by Lexion
Actually, my post about nothing happening since wasn't pro-conspiracy.
It was meant as the events occured pretty much ( as close as we'll probably know ) as we know it.

After the events, security tightened, we began looking closer at open cells,
and sleeper cells. We began harrassing the terrorist organizations enough
to keep them focused on staying alive and hidden, rather than openly
pursuing pilots license and such.

Sorry if I was mis-leading.

Lex

I wasn't sure actually - but okay, I'll take that as evidence of the official story - our defenses were bad, intel disorganized, complacency and ineptitude, etc. 9/11 taught us, now we're tighter, no more attacks. Obviously that evidence cuts both ways or I couldn't use it as evidence for my side, but it's evidence. Yay! Lex has got the ball rolling! I'm still not convinced tho... Anyone else?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


But what I'm looking for here is input from the "debunkers." C'mon, you're not intimidated by a challeger, are you? Gimme some PROOF that that was NOT intentional. Otherwise at least please quit flaunting your unsupported 9/11 commission incompetence theory and pretending it debunks our conspiracy theorists.

en.wikipedia.org...

This article is about a logical fallacy. The term "negative proof" can also refer to a proof of impossibility.

This is a fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed. It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. Formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea.

en.wikipedia.org...(logical_fallacy)

All logical arguments depend on certain premises being accepted for their conclusions to follow, and most logical arguments require a certain level of informality to be stated in a compact and comprehensible form.[1] Therefore it is always possible to seek to discredit an idea by suggesting that the Burden of Proof should be set to an inappropriately high level.

Great thread and arguments Logic!

I recall doing a simliar bit about if this is a free country as the current edition of the widespread "American Dream" seems to proclaim (while beating on it's chest). "I'm skeptical of these claims". Roughly a couple thousand read it and many reponded, but not one arguement like we have here as well.

Originally posted by GwionX
This place..where we are, is Purgatory.

You either have faith....or you do not.

Faith in the FBI investigation and the findings (as reported) from that investigation; Or think it is a lie...

Problem is thier is no FBI or NTSB incident report on any of the 911 crime scenes. We saw no proper crime scene at the Pentagon or the flight 93 crash site.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by BlueRaja

en.wikipedia.org...

This article is about a logical fallacy. The term "negative proof" can also refer to a proof of impossibility.

This is a fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed. It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. Formally, the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea.

en.wikipedia.org...(logical_fallacy)

All logical arguments depend on certain premises being accepted for their conclusions to follow, and most logical arguments require a certain level of informality to be stated in a compact and comprehensible form.[1] Therefore it is always possible to seek to discredit an idea by suggesting that the Burden of Proof should be set to an inappropriately high level.

Excatly. That's what the 'debunkers' have done. "Not one shred of proof," they say. Well of course, I say. Proof is strong stuff, and one shred is all you need. but the evidence we provide is downgraded to "speculation," which is true, and proof called for as if its just evidence, like we should have piles of 'proof."

So I'm turninng it around. Unlike these certain debunkers, I don't expect to see any proof. I'm just interested in comparing evidence on a level playing field.

I.I.B: Scary pic but thanks! Yes, they'll do "drive-by" debunkings when you aren't looking, but faced with an up-front challenge, no way. They know they don't have a case basedon anything other than faith. It doesn't hold up in debates.

Ultima; I'm not sure what an accident reprt entails, but there were other factors at work, like 9/11being a crime, not acident, which means normal NTSB protocols are suspended, investigation handed over to FBI. The NTSB did do studies of the FDRs for Flgith 77 and 93, but otherwise I'm not sure that's really a good clue or not. Food for thought anyway...

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Ultima; I'm not sure what an accident reprt entails, but there were other factors at work, like 9/11being a crime, not acident, which means normal NTSB protocols are suspended, investigation handed over to FBI. The NTSB did do studies of the FDRs for Flgith 77 and 93, but otherwise I'm not sure that's really a good clue or not. Food for thought anyway...

You might want to read my post more and do some more research. The FBI did not take over the Pentagon as a crime scene for 10 days. The after stating it would take 30 days to complete the scene handed it back to the military after only 5 days.

www.defenselink.mil...

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24, 2001 -- The FBI assumed crime-scene jurisdiction at the Pentagon terrorist attack site Sept. 21 from the Arlington County (Va.) Fire Department, officials said.

FBI officials estimate the crime scene investigation would last about a month, Arlington Fire Chief Edward P. Plaugher said. He said he expects "additional remains will be discovered during the course of the FBI investigation" and mortuary specialists will remain on site to process them.



WASHINGTON, Sept. 26, 2001 -- The FBI handed over Pentagon crash site management to the Army Military District of Washington at 7 a.m. today.

The transfer of responsibility marks the end of the FBI's crime scene investigation following the Sept. 11 terrorist attack against the Pentagon. MDW will oversee ongoing security operations around the damaged area of the building. FBI investigators will move their operations to the Pentagon's north parking lot and continue to sift through debris for more evidence.

More on the legal expects of aircraft crime scene and the NTSB invovment.

911commission.gov...

By law, the FBI becomes the lead investigative agency when airline crashes are the result of a criminal act, and the NTSB provides support when requested. [37] However, the families were advised by FBI officials that the FBI is investigating only the terrorists. Why, then, have we heard nothing from the NTSB?

According to Mary Schiavo, former Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, "In every single aviation disaster, whether there was criminal activity or not, in every single one in the course of aviation history it has been followed -- not only where necessary a national criminal investigation -- but also a National Transportation Safety [Board] investigation into what went wrong in the aviation system so that it never happens again." [38] NTSB experts would examine flight and data recorders, and ATC radar tracking data,
as well as evaluate the transcripts of air controller-pilot conversations and study air traffic control service on September 11th. They would have also collected airframe wreckage at the scenes and interviewed eye witnesses. Finally, the NTSB would have assessed survival factors, based on documentation of impact forces, emergency planning and crash-fire-rescue efforts, [39] all of which would have contributed to a better understanding of what happened that morning.

Maybe you're right. I've seen contradictory info that FBI was in charge within the day of 9/11. I'm not gonna argue tho. More possible evidence of complicity/cover-up then from Ultima 1, and still no good evidence that the government did NOT assist the attack.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Maybe you're right. I've seen contradictory info that FBI was in charge within the day of 9/11. I'm not gonna argue tho. More possible evidence of complicity/cover-up then from Ultima 1, and still no good evidence that the government did NOT assist the attack.

What more evidence would you like about the crime scenes and FBI or NTSB ?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Excatly. That's what the 'debunkers' have done. "Not one shred of proof," they say. Well of course, I say. Proof is strong stuff, and one shred is all you need. but the evidence we provide is downgraded to "speculation," which is true, and proof called for as if its just evidence, like we should have piles of 'proof."

So I'm turning it around. Unlike these certain debunkers, I don't expect to see any proof. I'm just interested in comparing evidence on a level playing field.

The point debunkers make though is that, they're being asked by the conspiracy theorists to disprove a negative. If one proposes a theory about an event, the burden of proof is on them. It's not possible to prove an impossibility, which is where the logical fallacy comes into play.
If one were to go to court, and try to prove guilt or innocence, the evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard can't be, "you have to prove that it was impossible that this could have occurred."

Take this into consideration, perhaps some of the evidence that might disprove conspiracies is classified info(i.e. disclosure could reveal weaknesses/vulnerabilities, procedures/SOPs, be embarassing, etc...).
Furthermore, being that conspiracy theorists don't trust the government, even if evidence were provided, they probably still wouldn't believe it.