9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
That means you would be presenting evidence, not a lack of it.

Yes i would be presenting evidence but if you had no evidnece to support the official story then that would be evidence also. Lack of evdience that you could not support your side of the case.

[edit on 17-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Sorry, that's not how it works. If I don't present additional contradictory evidence that doesn't create an additional negative on my side, only a positive on your side.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes i would be presenting evidence but if you had no evidnece to support the official story then that would be evidence also. Lack of evdience that you could not support your side of the case.

Lack of evidence = evidence?

going by that theory

lack of money = money?

lack of job = job?

lack of experience = experience?

Originally posted by Disclosed

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes i would be presenting evidence but if you had no evidnece to support the official story then that would be evidence also. Lack of evdience that you could not support your side of the case.

Lack of evidence = evidence?

going by that theory

lack of money = money?

Ok let's not gloss over this no money=money thing. If this works, I think I might just be a kajillionaire !!!!!!

reply to post by jfj123


The dis-info thing was more of a joke than anything else. Obviously if you or anyone else was a dis-info agent, they wouldn't tell anyone anyways.

Sorry if i'm one sided cause i am. I thought these people who would talk about the 9/11 conspiracy's were a joke. Till i did some researching on my own and re-lived the same emotions that i did on 9/11. I wish i could live in denial cause ingnorance is bliss.

The question i asked of you was why building 7 came down? If your answer is the NIST report, it doesn't really cut it. "If" what i believe is to be true then the NIST report would be a cover up filled with lies. Please explain in detail how the building fell and why? Also why building 7 fell perfectly in it's own foot prints?

In my researching i have seen a building that has collapsed and other ones that had burned for many hours and none of them look like the WTC collapse. Not to mention the fact that they were the first steel structure to collapse due to fire. If that is true i strongly recommend that the world never allow Americans to design and build there buildings.

I will keep reading your thread and keep up to date on it, cause i would love to believe the offical report but i can't. Maybe in your thread you can change my view on it.

P.S i feel like i'm debating with my youngest brother on here and enjoy having these discussions. Thank you for clearing up your stance and why your doing this.

reply to post by Spaxz


I apologize for missing your question before. I am honestly not as familiar with building 7 as I am with 1 and 2. I will do some research and get back to you.

Thank you for your participation and honesty.

Originally posted by Spaxz
reply to post by bovarcher

 

You make a very good point about ENDGAME and Alex Jones, but to say there is no NWO plan or agenda is abit of a strech. If you watch and read the news and see what has happened over the last 60yrs you can see there plan unfolding. I always tell people that ENDGAME is full of "Theory's" but if you read Daniel Estulin's "The True Story of The Bilderberg Group" you will see how they operate and what they are truly doing. If you read that book you'll have a better understanding of what is going on than watching ENDGAME.

Thanks, I'll put it on my reading list.

Ok, to anyone who think's 9/11 is all fine and dandy, and the building burnt down, no one was involved at all, maybe you should watch Loose Change 1, 2 and final cut, and also 9/11 mysteries - demolition.

oh and to the person who posted about there being a plane wreck outside the pentagon, so you think a plane hit it, go and watch

then get back to me

Originally posted by Disclosed Lack of evidence = evidence?

Originally posted by jfj123
Ok let's not gloss over this no money=money thing. If this works, I think I might just be a kajillionaire !!!!!!

Yes in court a lack of evidence is evidence.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

From 1993 until June 2000, he was on the board of directors of the Sterling, Virginia company Stratesec (formerly known as Securacom),[1] which had contracts to provide security for United Airlines, Dulles International Airport, and the World Trade Center. The Securacom/Stratesec company was publicly traded and backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corporation.[2] In 1996, Marvin Bush had 53,000 shares in the company's stock, which he bought at 52 cents a share. In 1997, the stock traded at $8.50 a share. Marvin Bush was no longer listed as a shareholder by the end of 2000. [3]

this was a good one too...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed Lack of evidence = evidence?

Originally posted by jfj123
Ok let's not gloss over this no money=money thing. If this works, I think I might just be a kajillionaire !!!!!!

Yes in court a lack of evidence is evidence.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

NO, you cannot present the lack of evidence as evidence.
If you happen to know a lawyer or someone is law school, please ask them. They'll tell you the same thing as I and others have.

Hmph I always thought lack of evidence usually kept things from going to trial.
Or at the very least made it not be a very long trial before it was thrown out.
After all how could you say accuse someone of murder with no evidence to lead you to that conclusion?

I guess I need to rework my logic as well to believe this stuff.
As well as my ability to think independently.
And etc.


Or is this some sort of non-linear thought approach?


[edit on 18-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

I'm still waiting for an example of a court case using "no evidence" as evidence. How could anything go to trial without evidence?

www.whatreallyhappened.com... this is all it took for me , seeing that im a welder i was skeptical that a fire or damge to steel 900 feet from the base (that is 3 football fields away from the base of the towers),could have any kind of effect on the base steel,scroll down to the image of the fireman on the radio(see the box steel beam cut at 45 or 50 degrees with molten slag hanging off the sides) this beam is 4 inch thick ,im sorry that steel is rated at 90,000 psi there is no way a flame and a open flame for that matter could ever reach the temp to creat slag on 4 inch thick steel in under 15 seconds(which is the time it took to fall STRAIT down from steel heating up from over 900 feet away from a flame that is not controlled but open air??? come on welders and cutters wake up)if what they say is true i could never boil water on my stove as the pot would melt and all demo crews should watch the towers fall as they could save alot of money by just useing a bunch of kerosene insted of expensive explosive.i couldnt cutt that beam in that shape with a plamacutter or a cutting torch (both exceed 3500 deg far)at least not in 15 secs and not to all 46 4 inch thick beams that suported the towers or the outer beams.for one a plasmacutter can only run for 15 min tops then must cool down then another 15 and so on so catch my drift. Enough from me sorry for punctuation and spelling . im a welder not a english major u get my point. good day to u all i love the site very very informed on here salute. PS please all welders and cutters out there wake up u and i both know what it takes to fuse or cutt metal of this quality please respond

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

reply to post by plasmacutter


You do realize that on the link you posted...the second picture down is NOT fireman looking into a molten hot area...as they lead you to believe. They are illuminated by a high intensity light while searching for victims. If you watch the actual video of that scene you would see. That is just a still from it.

here: www.youtube.com...

Start around 2:00 or so...you will see your footage.

Now granted, there were areas there that were super heated...but that photo was just put thee for dramatic effect. It had nothing to do with molten anything....just looking for victims.


[edit on 18-3-2008 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by plasmacutter
www.whatreallyhappened.com... this is all it took for me , seeing that im a welder i was skeptical that a fire or damge to steel 900 feet from the base (that is 3 football fields away from the base of the towers),could have any kind of effect on the base steel,scroll down to the image of the fireman on the radio(see the box steel beam cut at 45 or 50 degrees with molten slag hanging off the sides) this beam is 4 inch thick ,im sorry that steel is rated at 90,000 psi there is no way a flame and a open flame for that matter could ever reach the temp to creat slag on 4 inch thick steel in under 15 seconds(which is the time it took to fall STRAIT down from steel heating up from over 900 feet away from a flame that is not controlled but open air??? come on welders and cutters wake up)if what they say is true i could never boil water on my stove as the pot would melt and all demo crews should watch the towers fall as they could save alot of money by just useing a bunch of kerosene insted of expensive explosive.i couldnt cutt that beam in that shape with a plamacutter or a cutting torch (both exceed 3500 deg far)at least not in 15 secs and not to all 46 4 inch thick beams that suported the towers or the outer beams.for one a plasmacutter can only run for 15 min tops then must cool down then another 15 and so on so catch my drift. Enough from me sorry for punctuation and spelling . im a welder not a english major u get my point. good day to u all i love the site very very informed on here salute. PS please all welders and cutters out there wake up u and i both know what it takes to fuse or cutt metal of this quality please respond

Gotta call bs here. You're not a welder if you don't recognize the angle cut behind the firemen as being done with a torch.

All these were cut as part of the cleanup. Once you get your head around that, you will understand.

Originally posted by jfj123
please ask them. .

NO, you should ask then you find out that i am correct.

Originally posted by Disclosed
I'm still waiting for an example of a court case using "no evidence" as evidence. How could anything go to trial without evidence?

Just like i have been wating for a long time for someone to post actual evdience to support the official story.

Originally posted by DisclosedThey are illuminated by a high intensity light while searching for victims.

But these photos do show molten steel.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...



[edit on 18-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
please ask them. .

NO, you should ask then you find out that i am correct.

For grins, I asked my friend in the legal dept at my firm. He asked me if you were on crack or something. Lack of evidence is just that: lack of evidence. If he took something to trial, and said he had a lack of evidence to support it...the case would just get thrown out.

You are completely wrong.

two examples:
Lack of evidence sinks murder case before trial:
therepublic.com...

Natalee Holloway case closed for lack of evidence:
www.people.com...




[edit on 18-3-2008 by Disclosed]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
please ask them. .

NO, you should ask then you find out that i am correct.

You're not correct. The end. Thank you for your response though.

Originally posted by Disclosed For grins, I asked my friend in the legal dept at my firm. He asked me if you were on crack or something. Lack of evidence is just that: lack of evidence.

You might want to look it up. The judge will accept lack of evidence as evidence.

Originally posted by jfj123
You're not correct. The end. Thank you for your response though.

Thank you for showing that you do not know what you are talking about.


www.fallacyfiles.org...

Sometimes it is reasonable to argue from a lack of evidence for a proposition to the falsity of that proposition, when there is a presumption that the proposition is false. For instance, in American criminal law there is a presumption of innocence, which means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if the prosecution fails to provide evidence of guilt then the jury must conclude that the defendant is innocent.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]