Who Has "The Burden of Proof"??

reply to post by Griff


I'm not talking about incompetence at Presidential, JCS, Congressional levels. I'm talking about incompetence in agencies, that because of turf battles, no SOPS, or indecision, didn't get information to people that could have used it. I'm not saying that doesn't bother me, but ultimately I blame Al Qaeda, not some schmo in the FBI, for 9/11.
As for every fact being in, and a neat puzzle being solved, that's just not realistic. Very rarely does one ever have all the facts, to where there are no information gaps. You look at the preponderance of facts, and go with the best available info to formulate the most likely chain of events.

reply to post by Griff


By the way, I think that Clinton's incompetence did play a role. His lame responses to terrorist attacks emboldened our enemies. He spent more time worrying about Monica, than Osama.

My biggest issue with truthers is that they postulate a theory, and then try to work backwards filling in gaps, rather than taking known information and working forwards, until they arrive at a conclusion. Additionally, when one of their gaps is shown to be wrong, they don't change their theory, they just look for other angles to try to reach the conclusion they believe to be true.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Because Truthers are also making assertions, and they also have a burden of proof. Why is this so hard to understand? The government's assertion isn't a speculation- it's merely pointing out planes hit the WTC and Pentagon, they were hijacked, the WTC collapsed. All these things happened.

Just as "official story" believers like yourself are making assertions. The assertion that the "government's assertion isn't a speculation". The assertion "All these things happened." Says who, the government? You are going to take their word for it? Why?Your governments' word is not the infallable word of god, no matter how much that hurts you to hear!! Besides, 2 out of the 3 "government assertions" you listed could be debated, leaving the only unquestionable fact, that the WTCs collapsed.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Truthers on the otherhand are claiming conspiracies of all types, and all sorts of ways that the WTC collapsed, or what hit the Pentagon. That requires a lot higher burden of proof, when there isn't evidence that would lead one to immediately jump to that conclusion.

And can you blame us when we don't have access to the evidence we need to make our claims and properly back them up? All we can do is "speculate" as to why the official story doesn't add up! I say whomever controls the mass quantity of evidence in the case should retain the burden of proof. In this case, that is our goverment and they have failed to debate with the public about the matter, instead stubbornly insisting that it is open,shut, and questions asked are not good enough to even bother with! Too bad some of us can't live with that because we know it is not truth.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
By the way, I think that Clinton's incompetence did play a role. His lame responses to terrorist attacks emboldened our enemies. He spent more time worrying about Monica, than Osama.

I can't argue with that.

But, I was under the impression that Osama wasn't the real mastermind of 9/11? As stated by the debunkers as a counter to why 9/11 is not listed under his most wanted poster.

So, what does Clinton's incompetence dealing with Osama have to do with 9/11 then?

[edit on 2/26/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
My biggest issue with truthers is that they postulate a theory, and then try to work backwards filling in gaps, rather than taking known information and working forwards, until they arrive at a conclusion. Additionally, when one of their gaps is shown to be wrong, they don't change their theory, they just look for other angles to try to reach the conclusion they believe to be true.

Can this not be said of the government and their 3 letter agencies? Especially the 9/11 commision?

[edit on 2/26/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by percievedreality


Planes hit the WTC. The WTC collapsed. Where's the speculation there?
Saying holograms, cruise missiles, high energy beams, UAVs, Israeli agents, micro hydrogen bombs, thermite, etc.... were the cause, without one piece of evidence that has been found to show any of these to be the case is just bad detective work. If you want me to assign any credibility whatsoever, show me hard evidence leading to a unassailable conclusion.
The official story has more hard evidence than any conspiracy theory, even if all the facts aren't in. There isn't one CT yet, that has produced damning evidence. It's not my willingness to blindly believe what the government has told me. It's the CTers inability to give me some facts that would cause me to believe that I've been lied to.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Question BlueRaja:

What do you think of Dr. Jone's evidence of thermate? Do you even consider that it might be evidence? Or do you dismiss it off hand without another look? Just curious how people can be claiming that the "truth movement" isn't comming forward with "proof" when in actuality they are?

Edit: BTW, jthomas, notice I said "they" and NOT "we". Meaning I am NOT a part of the "9/11 truth movement" as you percieve it. I am out to find truth, but not as a political movement.



[edit on 2/26/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by BlueRaja


You said, "It's the CTers inability to give me some facts that would cause me to believe that I've been lied to."

I find this extremely hard to believe. How do you explain Rumsfields' slip then stating that the Shanksville plane was shot down? You also fail to see that the "liars" are withholding the evidence needed for us to do this.

You also said, "If you want me to assign any credibility whatsoever, show me hard evidence leading to a unassailable conclusion."

How can we do this? The evidence is either, still in the control of the government or no longer existing (ie they destroyed it, ya know, like WH emails, interagation tapes, it is pretty much standard operating procedure to destroy the damning evidence)

In standard criminal cases, it is unlawful to withhold evidence (good or bad) from ANY party involved in the case...but this obviously does not apply to our own federal government! Criminal behavior anyway you look at it! I know (without hard proof) that we have been lied to! And everyday the lies continue....you might be okay with that, but many of us are not.

reply to post by percievedreality


In addition to the physical evidence, I haven't yet seen a credible explanation why folks, who having no prior background for mass murder and treachery, would all of a sudden all get together in collusion. The only things put forth are some sci-fi mind control, Zoolander type theory, or a mysterious shadow government. If they're really that powerful, why would they need to go to such lengths to creating a hoax?

reply to post by Griff


I've seen what buildings that have been prepped for controlled demolition look like on the inside. There's no way that amount of tampering could be achieved without the occupants, first responders, building security folks, etc.. to notice. Additionally, any miscalculation with regards to the placement of demo charges, or failure for the charge to initiate, would leave evidence behind, that couldn't be explained away.

reply to post by BlueRaja


That's true for a conventional demolition. Did you know that thermate burns without loud kabooms?

Did you know that severing just a few floors worth of horizontal bracing to the core columns would induce buckling (so that the whole tower would not have to be wired)? Meaning that the thermate doesn't have to burn horizontally through the column. Just vertically to sever the bracing. Like how they use thermite to weld railroad rails together. Only instead of welding the bracing beams together, it would be severing them from the core columns.

Just one scenario that fits what was observed. Also, that the thermate would burn up leaving little trace unless pesky people actually wanted to test the steel (Dr. Jones)?

And if it's proof you are looking for, look into Dr. Jone's work.

Or look into FEMA's corrosion analysis of some of the steel. Which fits perfectly into thermate I might add.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Leo Strauss

 

The person making an assertion has the burden of proof. Without proof, I'm not sure I'd even say you have a theory, but more of a guess/hunch, or if it's about a specific individual- slander.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

That's what I am asking YOU, Griff. Why can't you understand that the burden of proof is on you to support your claims?

The person making the assertation is the government agencies that have failed to provide their proof.

That claim is yours and yours alone, Griff. The vast majority are completely satisfied with the investigations. It is your responsibility to support YOUR claim that "the government agencies that have failed to provide their proof." How can you possibly sit their and deny that is YOUR claim, Griff?

So, why do you people follow it blindly and then complain about "truthers" not having any proof?

You keep demonstrating in every post that you refuse to accept responsibility for your claims, Griff.

Let's repeat so you get it Griff: It is your responsibility to support your claims. No one on earth is going to do YOUR work in supporting your claims against the 9/11 investigations.

I find it amazing that I have to lecture an adult on one of the most basic foundations of science and law that kids learn in high school. And you wonder why rational people get impatient with you 9/11 Truthers?

Amazing.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by percievedreality

 

In addition to the physical evidence, I haven't yet seen a credible explanation why folks, who having no prior background for mass murder and treachery, would all of a sudden all get together in collusion. The only things put forth are some sci-fi mind control, Zoolander type theory, or a mysterious shadow government. If they're really that powerful, why would they need to go to such lengths to creating a hoax?

You stated, "I haven't yet seen a credible explaination why folk, who having no prior background for mass murder and treachery,"

Whoa, no prior background? As long as humans have inhabited the earth there have been power showdowns between them, aka wars. What do you think Pearl Harbor was, a real attack that could not have been avoided? No, just as the case for 9/11, the government CHOOSE not to hinder the attack but rather capitalize on it with the effects it had on the citizens of its' state. They know that people are willing to fight when they perceive a threat, otherwise they are normally peaceful. Take one for the "team" and then you have envoked a mental change in your following and can now do whatever you wish as their "leader" including leading them into battle under the false assumption that they are doing a duty in protecting you. People are way more easy to manipulate than you think!

As to you statement, "If they're really that powerful, why would they need to go to such lengths to creating a hoax?" Well, then I will respond by asking you a question. If they are really that powerful, then why do you think it would be "such a length" for them to go to in order to create the hoax? It would have been easy, especially if they knew it was coming and had time to figure out how to direct it to their liking. Let's play some war games...ensure the WTCs come down, make sure the Pentagon is also hit, etc, etc.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by percievedreality]

Originally posted by Griff
The person making the assertation is the government agencies that have failed to provide their proof.

Originally posted by jthomas
That claim is yours and yours alone, Griff. The vast majority are completely satisfied with the investigations. It is your responsibility to support YOUR claim that "the government agencies that have failed to provide their proof." How can you possibly sit their and deny that is YOUR claim, Griff?

No, jthomas, I am sick and tired of this crap. This is MY argument too, not just "Griffs and his alone." The government made the claims and have not backed them up. WTF, I mean we just argued over the last two days about that exact topic, yet now it is completely his arguement. You are a true conservative aren't you, flip-floping in the wind as you see fit to win your arguement. You said, "The vast majority are completly satisfied with the investigations." Right, that is about as true as saying the vast majority are completely satisfied with our current president and his administration! Fantasy island, dude.

Originally posted by jthomas
Let's repeat so you get it Griff: It is your responsibility to support your claims.

Right, same arguement again, ad naseum....but this dosen't hold true for the governments claims, just us in the private sector! They don't need to support their claims, not even when we question them? No, really they don't have to, because there seems to be plenty of people like you that accept everything they say hook, line and sinker. Your government is fallible and does lie to you on a daily basis, but you go ahead living in your total state of denial, looking the other way, but quit attacking those that decide to take a deeper look. But then again, I am sure you are just doing your job as you have been brainwashed to do.

jthomas,

I have given you an example (proof) of why I feel the investigation was not complete. I don't have to prove that FEMA said corroded steel, analysed said corroded steel, and reported that further testing needs to be done. That was FEMA. NOT me. Plus, as you say....it's out there for the world to see and dispute.

The burden of proof is only on me to show that NIST didn't do it's duty as a testing agency hired to research this. Which I have shown. No more burden is mine. The ball is in NIST's court now to answer that question.

And no, I'm not going to write them. As I already know their response. Of which I believe is utter crap. And if you want another proof, I believe it's utter crap because it can't be duplicated in a lab the way they "think". At least not that I have found. Again, the ball would be in NIST's court to show that what they "believe" happened to that steel is possible and reproducible.

THAT is the scientific way. NOT the way you are saying. That's like saying the burden of proof is on me to say that Darwin is wrong. You would be right, but first, Darwin would have to come with HIS evidence first. Following yet?

Now, I have done my part and shown two proofs of where I am comming from. Are you able to do the same? Or will I be told to read a report or Mark "Gravy"'s website?

Can you come to the table and debate without the attacks and attitude? We'll see.

Unfortunately this thread is going the way of most of the others...I know these guys are on a mission assigned by the amaaaaaazing randi...for the life of me I do not see how a grown up could be so influenced by a magician????

That aside I will state as fact the head of the 911 commission has said he was lied to by government officials. Torture is illegal, wiretapping is illegal without a court order, NISTs models are seriously flawed and based on unsound assumptions. WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane yet collapsed completely. The Japanese parliament has recently called into question the official explanation of 911 and is beginning to demand that the Japanese goverment open an investigation into 911. The Japanese debate was held on Japan national television. The EU parliament is just starting to question the official explanation.

What do most Americans think? Most people have not given 911 much thought and accept what they heard on the news that day. Most people believe the official story and they also believe that Iraq had something to do with the attacks hence the war. Wonder why they believe that???

Even "the decider" has been captured on camera saying Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 911. Well Mr. Bush what are we doing in Iraq?? Oh right weapons of mass destruction...what's that you say there weren't any weapons...oh ok. Maybe we should apologize to Iraq if we were so wrong.

It is truely bizarro world ...beyond Orwell. In fact present time puts Orwell to shame! I can call torture extraordinary rendition. Sounds complicated hmmm. Enemy combatants...that's complicated ...too wordy for me to understand.

But I sense that the tide is beginning to turn...

Originally posted by Griff


THAT is the scientific way. NOT the way you are saying. That's like saying the burden of proof is on me to say that Darwin is wrong. You would be right, but first, Darwin would have to come with HIS evidence first. Following yet?

Here's where you're at: You say Darwin's conclusions are wrong. Then you say Darwin must accept your claims. And your claims are based on the "laws of physics." And Darwin must modify his conclusions according to your claims and the burden of proof is not on you to demonstrate your claims, because you have the "laws of physics" behind you.

Any questions?

Can you come to the table and debate without the attacks and attitude? We'll see.

I only require intellectual honesty with those with whom I debate. I have low tolerance for dodging.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Unfortunately this thread is going the way of most of the others...I know these guys are on a mission assigned by the amaaaaaazing randi...for the life of me I do not see how a grown up could be so influenced by a magician????

You started this thread and now imagine Randi is here??? No wonder you won't accept when the burden of proof is on you.

Amazing.

Originally posted by jthomas
Here's where you're at: You say Darwin's conclusions are wrong. Then you say Darwin must accept your claims. And your claims are based on the "laws of physics." And Darwin must modify his conclusions according to your claims and the burden of proof is not on you to demonstrate your claims, because you have the "laws of physics" behind you.

Any questions?

Nope, no questions. You pretty much got it except you left out one important thing. Those laws and precedents have already been proven and reproven already. By far greater minds than my own, I might add.

Oh, and also, you forgot that Darwin hasn't even brought his full plate to the table to begin with. So, trying to prove hiden information is futile.

I only require intellectual honesty with those with whom I debate. I have low tolerance for dodging.

I have given you your proof of where I am comming from. Sorry that is not enough for you.

[edit on 2/26/2008 by Griff]