Who Has "The Burden of Proof"??

The burden of proof
From Wiki:
"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.

Keith Lehrer suggests that "generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology [the study of ignorance] is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side …"

From Dave Lindorf:
"The case for impeachment just grew much stronger, with the US Supreme Court's powerful decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In that decision, the justices didn't simply say that the President was wrong and in violation of U.S. and the international law in arbitrarily claiming that the Guantanamo detainees were not subject to the Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War. The five-justice majority, which included conservative Anthony Kennedy, declared the President's bogus claim to have "special powers" as commander in chief in "time of war" to be just that--bogus.

What has been missed in almost all the mainstream media coverage of this important ruling is that this slap-down of Bush's justification for his Guantanamo decision also undermines his justification for many other of his constitutional violations.

Let's first look at the list of the president's High Crimes and Misdemeanors. They are:

1. "A Crime Against Peace." Initiating a war of aggression against a nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S.--a war that has needlessly killed 2550 Americans and maimed and damaged over 20,000 more, while killing over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children, is the number one war crime according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which was largely drawn up by American lawyers after World War II.

2. Lying and organizing a conspiracy to trick the American people and the U.S. Congress into approving an unnecessary and illegal war. This is defined as "A Conspiracy to Commit a Crime Against Peace" in the Nuremberg Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

3. Approving and encouraging, in violation of U.S. and international law, the use of torture, kidnapping and rendering of prisoners of war captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the course of the so-called War on Terror. Note that the Hamdan decision actually declares Bush to have violated the Third Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners of War, which means the justices are in effect calling the president a war criminal. Under U.S. and international law, if prisoners have died because of such a violation--and many have died in illegal US captivity because of torture authorized by this president--the penalty is death (a point made to the president in a warning memo written by his then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the text of which is published in full in the appendix of our book).

4. Illegally stripping the right of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution from American citizens, denying them the fundamental right to have their cases heard in a court, to hear the charges against them, to be judged in a public court by a jury of their peers, and to have access to a lawyer.

5. Authorizing the spying on American citizens and their communications by the National Security Agency and other U.S. police and intelligence agencies, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

6. Obstructing investigation into and covering up knowledge of the deliberate exposing of the identity of a U.S. CIA undercover operative, and possibly conspiring in that initial outing itself.

7. Obstructing the investigation into the 9-11 attacks and lying to investigators from the Congress and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission--actions that come perilously close to treason. (Former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who headed the Senate Intelligence Committee until his retirement at the end of 2002, has called this the president's most impeachable crime.)

8. Violating the due process and other constitutional rights of thousands of citizens and legal residents by rounding them up and disappearing or deporting them without hearings.

9. Abuse of power, undermining of the Constitution and violating the presidential oath of office by deliberately refusing to administer over 750 acts duly passed into law by the Congress--actions with if left unchallenged would make the Congress a vestigial body, and the president a dictator.

10. Criminal negligence in failing to provide American troops with adequate armor before sending them into a war of choice, criminal negligence in going to war against a weak, third-world nation without any planning for post war occupation and reconstruction, criminal negligence in failing to respond to a known and growing crisis in the storm-blasted city of New Orleans, and criminal negligence in failing to act, and in fact in actively obstructing efforts by other countries and American state governments, to deal with the looming crisis of global warming.

Crimes 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, and possibly crimes 1, 2 and 6 have all been justified by the president using the claim of "special powers" in his role as commander in chief, the claim that was ruled invalid by the High Court, in relation to crime number 3."
End Quote

With the exception of Katrina, All of these crimes, ALL OF THEM are the direct result of this administrations response to the attacks on 9/11.
9/11 is the justification held up in all these cases. Therefore it is important that we conduct a thorough unbiased investigation into this crime.

The administration managed to block an investigation for over 400 days and seriously underfunded what was supposed to be the final word on 9/11. It only took 4 days for the investigation to begin on the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The original budget authorized for the investigation was $3 million dollars. Compared to over $100 million alotted to the Clinton investigation.

The chairman of the 9/11 commission now admits that some of the evidence given to them was 'far from the truth'.

Preponderance of evidence...burden of proof. Where does the burden of proof lie?

The 9/11 investigations consisted of far more than the 9/11 Commission which had a limited mission and scope. As much as the 9/11 Truth Movement wants to narrow the conversation about "investigations" to the 9/11 Commission, it cannot dodge that the major investigations are forensic and scientific in nature: NIST, FEMA, and ASCE.

So let's examine WHERE the burden of proof lies given this fact.

Using the same wikipedia source:

Science and other uses

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see negative proof).

Taken more generally, the standard of proof demanded to establish any particular conclusion varies with the subject under discussion. Just as there is a difference between the standard required for a criminal conviction and in a civil case, so there are different standards of proof applied in many other areas of life. (bolding mine.)

en.wikipedia.org...

The 9/11 Truth Movement is famous for claiming that the burden of proof is on the "government" to "prove its theory" that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and then asserting that it is "impossible" for the twin towers to have collapsed due to crash damage and fire, that "NO" 757 hit the Pentagon, and so on.

The issue, however, is quite clear. The separate and massive investigations of NIST, ASCE, and FEMA - NIST being made up of a majority of non-government scientists and structural engineers - have presented their evidence, conclusions, and methodologies that are fully open to the world to affirm, critique, or debunk. By every standard the forensic and scientific case has been made and is accepted by the vast majority of the world's forensic scientists, structural engineers, physicists, chemists, and architects.

Therefore, it is crystal clear that the burden of proof is on the 9/11 Truth Movement - the "movement" making claims against those investigations - to demonstrate the validity of its assertions by disproving every aspect of each report and to bring the evidence to the table clearly demonstrating irrefutably that what we accept did happen on 9/11 did not happen.

The 9/11 Truth Movement has failed to do that and continues to avoid the fact that the burden of proof rests on its shoulders. That is just one of many reasons the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is known by the more apt name: the 9/11 Denial Movement.

Every effort of the 9/11 Truth Movement to shift the burden of proof has met with failure. That is why its members still make the same false and debunked claims and why it has not been able to either make a case for a new investigation or to file charges against the "government." As long as it insists on burying it's head in the sand concerning the forensic investigations, the 9/11 "Truth" Movement will never be taken seriously and will continue to fade away into oblivion.






[edit on 25-2-2008 by jthomas]

Hey, if you think you got what it takes, then file a court case. Otherwise, preaching to the quire won't be very effective.

Personally, I wouldn't want the government pissing in my cheerios.

[edit on 2/25/2008 by Choronzon]

Originally posted by jthomas
Every effort of the 9/11 Truth Movement to shift the burden of proof has met with failure. That is why its members still make the same false and debunked claims and why it has not been able to either make a case for a new investigation or to file charges against the "government." As long as it insists on burying it's head in the sand concerning the forensic investigations, the 9/11 "Truth" Movement will never be taken seriously and will continue to fade away into oblivion.

Really? I guess you still haven't looked into Morgan Reynolds et al.?

Here's something to get you started.

stj911.org...

V. INFORMATION IN THE WTC REPORT VIOLATES OMB AND NIST INFORMATION QUALITY STANDARDS

A. Rejection of the Less Severe Damage Estimates

1. Information Regarding the Rejection of the Less Severe Damage Estimates from the NIST Computer Simulations Violates the OMB Guidelines and NIST IQS

[edit on 2/25/2008 by Griff]

Try again, Griff. Pay attention to what I wrote, this time.

Originally posted by jthomas
Try again, Griff. Pay attention to what I wrote, this time.

Sorry. My eyes glaze over when reading you and your ilk's tripe.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Try again, Griff. Pay attention to what I wrote, this time.

Sorry. My eyes glaze over when reading you and your ilk's tripe.

I think everyone here is well aware that you hate the fact that burden of proof is on you to prove your case and back up your claims and assertions.

If you had actually bothered to read my post, I made it clear that:

"The 9/11 Truth Movement has failed to do that and continues to avoid the fact that the burden of proof rests on its shoulders. That is just one of many reasons the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is known by the more apt name: the 9/11 Denial Movement."

Now, do you want to continue to deny that the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, Griff, or will you face the reality that it is incumbent on YOU to prove your case?

Which will it be, Griff?

Originally posted by jthomas
So let's examine WHERE the burden of proof lies given this fact.

Using the same wikipedia source:

Science and other uses

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see negative proof).

en.wikipedia.org...

The 9/11 Truth Movement is famous for claiming that the burden of proof is on the "government" to "prove its theory" that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and then asserting that it is "impossible" for the twin towers to have collapsed due to crash damage and fire, that "NO" 757 hit the Pentagon, and so on.

The issue, however, is quite clear. The separate and massive investigations of NIST, ASCE, and FEMA - NIST being made up of a majority of non-government scientists and structural engineers - have presented their evidence, conclusions, and methodologies that are fully open to the world to affirm, critique, or debunk. By every standard the forensic and scientific case has been made and is accepted by the vast majority of the world's forensic scientists, structural engineers, physicists, chemists, and architects.

Therefore, it is crystal clear that the burden of proof is on the 9/11 Truth Movement - the "movement" making claims against those investigations - to demonstrate the validity of its assertions by disproving every aspect of each report and to bring the evidence to the table clearly demonstrating irrefutably that what we accept did happen on 9/11 did not happen.

The 9/11 Truth Movement has failed to do that and continues to avoid the fact that the burden of proof rests on its shoulders. That is just one of many reasons the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is known by the more apt name: the 9/11 Denial Movement.

Every effort of the 9/11 Truth Movement to shift the burden of proof has met with failure. That is why its members still make the same false and debunked claims and why it has not been able to either make a case for a new investigation or to file charges against the "government." As long as it insists on burying it's head in the sand concerning the forensic investigations, the 9/11 "Truth" Movement will never be taken seriously and will continue to fade away into oblivion.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by jthomas]

Sorry, but your argument is so flawed it is laughable. The GOVERNMENTS "official story" equates to "when anyone (OUR GOVERNMENT) is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility (9/11 Truth Movement) to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim (OUR GOVERNMENT) to prove it."

You seem to believe that the "separate and massive investigations of NIST, ASCE, and FEMA" supported this burden of proof that the goverment needed to provide since they made the bold claim, with their "official story". They didn't! They have not "proven" their "bold" claim. You also stated, "By every standard the forensic and scientific case has been made and is accepted by the vast majority of the world's forensic scientists, structural engineers, physicists, chemists, and architects." This is also NOT TRUE, as a large portion (and many founding partners) of the 9/11 Truth Movement are forensic scientists, structural engineers, physicists, chemists, and architects! End of argument, for they have not proven their claim of Bin Laden and his supporting terrorists as being the true perpertrators of 9/11.

Originally posted by jthomas
I think everyone here is well aware that you hate the fact that burden of proof is on you to prove your case and back up your claims and assertions.

If you had actually bothered to read my post, I made it clear that:

"The 9/11 Truth Movement has failed to do that and continues to avoid the fact that the burden of proof rests on its shoulders. That is just one of many reasons the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is known by the more apt name: the 9/11 Denial Movement."

Now, do you want to continue to deny that the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, Griff, or will you face the reality that it is incumbent on YOU to prove your case?

Which will it be, Griff?

Once again for you to start off with your arguement of "burden of proof" resting on the 9/11 Truth Movement is laughable! Read the meaning of burden of proof again, I think you are missing it.

Our Government made the original "bold claim", ie their "official story". It rests with them to prove it conclusively! You seem to believe that their "official story" was NOT the bold claim requiring the burden of prove. That is not the case, they made the claim, so they have the burden of proof! They have not fulfilled this burden of proof requirement, leaving many unexplainable factors, thus the 9/11 Truth Movement is asking them to provide more proof, that their bold claim (ie official story) is true!


[edit on 25-2-2008 by percievedreality]

One of the things I was trying to point out with my post was beyond 911 this administration has committed obvious crimes since 911.

It does not seem possible for american citizens to get these obvious crimes addressed in the media, in congress, or in a court of law.

To me this is the piece of the argument which should switch the burden of proof to supporters of the official story on 9/11. The preponderance of evidence is with the real skeptics...the citizens who doubt the official fairy tale.

It is illegal to kidnap torture(sometimes to death), to wiretap, to declare an unprovoked war, to lie to congress and the american public in order to start a war, to strip citizens of their rights, to out CIA agents...Karl Rove's tactics were just exposed on 60 minutes last night and Alabama was blacked out.

What is it going to take for some of you???

Originally posted by percievedreality

Sorry, but your argument is so flawed it is laughable. The GOVERNMENTS "official story" equates to "when anyone (OUR GOVERNMENT) is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility (9/11 Truth Movement) to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim (OUR GOVERNMENT) to prove it."

You seem to believe that the "separate and massive investigations of NIST, ASCE, and FEMA" supported this burden of proof that the goverment needed to provide since they made the bold claim, with their "official story".

First, just to make sure you understand, there is no "official story". There is only the evidence.

They didn't! They have not "proven" their "bold" claim.

Just because you say so? Sorry, you have to demonstrate it. Which is exactly my point. You haven't.

You also stated, "By every standard the forensic and scientific case has been made and is accepted by the vast majority of the world's forensic scientists, structural engineers, physicists, chemists, and architects." This is also NOT TRUE, as a large portion (and many founding partners) of the 9/11 Truth Movement are forensic scientists, structural engineers, physicists, chemists, and architects!

Guess what? Hold on to your seat. The whole world has hundreds of thousands of structural engineers, physicists, chemists, architects, and forensic scientists. Every one of them has the opportunity to refute the investigations. And just how many does the 9/11 Truth Movement have, and why can't they even agree with each other? And just how many actual peer-reviewed papers on 9/11 have been produced by your movement?

I am sorry to ruin your precious illusion. End of argument. Thanks for illustrating my case.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

It does not seem possible for american citizens to get these obvious crimes addressed in the media, in congress, or in a court of law.

You have an uphill battle to demonstrate #1, 2, 4, 5, 8. That means they are not necessarily accepted as true and/or actionable.

#6,7, 9. & 10 are probably dead on arrival

You have a better chance with #3.

All this means is that you have to demonstrate a case sufficiently for any or all to be actionable. Guess whose burden of proof that is?

To me this is the piece of the argument which should switch the burden of proof to supporters of the official story on 9/11. The preponderance of evidence is with the real skeptics...the citizens who doubt the official fairy tale.

As I point out repeatedly, there is no "official story" on 9/11. There is a mountain of evidence from thousands of sources and eyewitnesses, none of it originating with the government and the vast majority never in control of the government, fully transparent investigations and conclusions produced by the forensic investigations open to criticism and rebuttal.

It is illegal to kidnap torture(sometimes to death), to wiretap, to declare an unprovoked war, to lie to congress and the american public in order to start a war, to strip citizens of their rights, to out CIA agents...Karl Rove's tactics were just exposed on 60 minutes last night and Alabama was blacked out.

But none of that refutes the evidence of 9/11 or is evidence that Bush was behind 9/11 or let it happen.

What is it going to take for some of you???

It is going to take you recognizing that the burden of proof is on you.

Originally posted by jthomas

First, just to make sure you understand, there is no "official story". There is only the evidence.

No, there is evidence which was released and there is evidence that has been withheld. There is a "official story", that is the official account of the events that day from our government (call it an explaination). When you begin to question those accounts and put the government on trial as the defendant, you see that the evidence provided is not coming from the procescution. Why not, cause the 9/11 Truth Movement (or procescutors if you will) do not have access to all the evidence! HOW logical is that?

Originally posted by jthomas

Just because you say so? Sorry, you have to demonstrate it. Which is exactly my point. You haven't.

Are you kidding, same goes for the governments account of 9/11. Because they say so? No, they have to prove it. Which they have not. The 9/11 Truth Movement has countless arguements showing unexplainable (ie-burden of proof has not been shown) discrepancies in the governments accounts!

Originally posted by jthomas
And just how many actual peer-reviewed papers on 9/11 have been produced by your movement?

Don't get me started on peer-reviewed papers! You are seriously pursuing this as an argument. The 9/11 NIST reports skipped the peer-review process that it normal for such papers. But your type never see anything as a two-way street.

Originally posted by jthomas
I am sorry to ruin your precious illusion. End of argument. Thanks for illustrating my case.

Don't worry, you haven't changed anything for me or my "illusion". Can't beat a dead horse, they say, so let's agree to disagree. I just don't have the energy needed to try and fight with those who so stubbornly think that the government is perfect, would never harm you, or tell you a lie. Democracy is dead! Not only from the agenda of our government but from people like this! Can you imagine a person (with similar views as jthomas) being on a jury. The term non-biased comes to mind. I can see that you are not. Your value of true patriotism includes never questioning your government, even when there are boatloads of evidence showing wrong doing. You continue to have your illusion of reality.


[edit on 25-2-2008 by percievedreality]

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, do you want to continue to deny that the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, Griff, or will you face the reality that it is incumbent on YOU to prove your case?

Which will it be, Griff?

And what case would that actually be? Please spell it out what I believe and don't believe for everyone else (including myself). Because you have NO clue what I believe and what my case is.

Want to know? Here is the jist of it.

The towers were helped in someway to collapse. Who, what, where, when and why would only be supposition on my part. So, can we debate what I DO know? That being physics and engineering and building materials, etc.?

Oh, BTW, if the structural documentation would be released and I found that I have been wrong, I will gladly eat crow.

Can you say the same?

I tend to agree that to support one's own theories, you must have the support of documentation and facts to prove it. Even though there are differences in the types of evidence needed for proving a case in a legal case and a civil case are different, in both cases, you DO need to be able to back up what you claim with documentation and facts and not just assumptions. You do need to prove what you say is true. It is not up to the other side to prove that what you say in't true. They don't have to do a thing.

Originally posted by percievedreality

Originally posted by jthomas

First, just to make sure you understand, there is no "official story". There is only the evidence.

No, there is evidence which was released and there is evidence that has been withheld.

1) Evidence is evidence. It is not a "story."

2) Evidence never went through a process of being "released." That is a fallacious statement and absurd. Evidence of what happened on 9/11 existed and was seen and touched by thousands of independent witnesses in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. You cannot claim that eyewitnesses who saw AA77 hit the Pentagon did not see anything. That is evidence, never controlled much less "released" by the government. Where do you get these absurd ideas?

3) If there was evidence "withheld" YOU and I would not know it.

There is a "official story", that is the official account of the events that day from our government (call it an explaination). When you begin to question those accounts and put the government on trial as the defendant, you see that the evidence provided is not coming from the procescution. Why not, cause the 9/11 Truth Movement (or procescutors if you will) do not have access to all the evidence! HOW logical is that?

I hate to tell you that it is highly illogical. The government never controlled the evidence. They never provided a "story". With your logic, we should prosecute the tooth fairy.

Get a grip and stop believing the bunk your High Priests want you to believe. They know you are gullible. They know they can make all their debunked, unscientific claims and have you as true believers.

I just don't have the energy needed to try and fight with those who so stubbornly think that the government is perfect, would never harm you, or tell you a lie.

It's a measure of your ignorance about the actual truth of 9/11 that what I believe - and every rational, skeptical person in the world believes - is that it does not matter what the government says about 9/11. We KNOW that the evidence does not come from the government and never did. It is you 9/11 Truthers who easily fell for the directly political claims by a relative handful of politically motivated "leaders" like Fetzer, Jones, Barrett, Griffin (in particular) and so on, and you by your own free will and ignorance of physical reality chose to believe them.

9/11 Truthers have been so easily taken in by those canards that none of you realize that a lot of us, if not most of us, HATE Bush and his administration, but we also know that no scientific or forensic evidence has ever been presented that could remotely demonstrate Bush was behind 9/11.

We care about FACTS and TRUTH no matter where it leads. Get used to that reality. As much as you have been misled to believe otherwise, we REAL skeptics who argue against you have no political agenda. If you are "just asking questions", why don't you question those who you profess to believe? Why won't you do your own research instead of repeating debunked nonsense that Griff and Anok repeat ad infinitum?

If anything, the 9/11 Truth Movement has succeeded through its absurd claims to impede any action against Bush for those things of which there is good evidence that he IS guilty. Your silly movement is a political movement and you have succeeded in making fools of yourselves and hurting any real chance you ever had of pressing legitimate charges against Bush.

You have got to rid yourselves of this fraudulent disease of "9/11 Truth" that you have bought into. You are shooting yourselves in the foot - and Bush gets the benefit of your gullibility.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, do you want to continue to deny that the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, Griff, or will you face the reality that it is incumbent on YOU to prove your case?

Which will it be, Griff?

And what case would that actually be? Please spell it out what I believe and don't believe for everyone else (including myself). Because you have NO clue what I believe and what my case is.

Want to know? Here is the jist of it.

The towers were helped in someway to collapse. Who, what, where, when and why would only be supposition on my part. So, can we debate what I DO know? That being physics and engineering and building materials, etc.?

Oh, BTW, if the structural documentation would be released and I found that I have been wrong, I will gladly eat crow.

Can you say the same?

Sorry, Griff, you put me on "ignore", remember? You'll have to come out of hiding first so I don't waste my time.

Just give the signal.

The whole world has hundreds of thousands of structural engineers, physicists, chemists, architects, and forensic scientists. Every one of them has the opportunity to refute the investigations.

Everyone of them has the opportunity to lose their jobs and be painted as unstable and unpatriotic for being honest about their findings.

Let me see would I be courageous enough to give up my job, my families security?? Maybe it is easier to ignore and hope...

Is this the climate for a fair investigation??? If you're wrong you lose everything....

Wally start with the the complete 911 timeline if you want evidence.

jthomas tell us what you think...your opinion...did the US torture innocent human beings to death?? jthomas is torturing human beings legal?? What is your personal opinion?

Don't hold your breath Leo, that kind of personal answer is not normally forthcoming from "official story" believers. Interesting thread, are all those examples really against the law?

Originally posted by Wally Conley
I tend to agree that to support one's own theories, you must have the support of documentation and facts to prove it. Even though there are differences in the types of evidence needed for proving a case in a legal case and a civil case are different, in both cases, you DO need to be able to back up what you claim with documentation and facts and not just assumptions. You do need to prove what you say is true. It is not up to the other side to prove that what you say in't true. They don't have to do a thing.

This is true. Except when your evidence and proof are already physical laws adhered to by the physics and engineering community at large. Nothing I have said contradicts those laws are far as I'm aware. It is not up to me to prove those already proven laws. It is up to others to dispute why those laws were not followed that day and why.

Got it yet?