what kind of evidence do we need to convince the judge and us its a inside job?

well what kind of evidence do we and the judge need to convince us its a inside job ?

any thoughts ?

and please please don't say we have evidence its done by bin laden

we have NONE! we have more evidence its done by the government

[edit on 27-5-2009 by dino1989]

reply to post by dino1989


I don't think the problem is lack of evidence. I think the problem is finding someone willing to go public and put their reputation on the line to bring this issue out into the forefront. Unfortunately, as long as people who question 9-11 are thought of as"conspiracy theorists", we won't be taken seriously. "Conspiracy theory" has such a bad stigma attachd to it. A judge may feel that publiclly questioning the official story may be committing career suicide. And I'm sure that's just how the PTB want it to stay.

reply to post by dino1989


We do need evidence, one more piece, in order to not only take this to court, but to convince people of the validity of our claims as well as to force, by law, a new criminal investigation.

This is the same evidence that FEMA, NIST, the 9/11 Commission and even the new Prof. Jones paper ALL claim we need to test for, yet for some reason NONE of them did.

These buildings were brought down by controlled demolition and yet nobody has ever tested for residual trace indicators of conventional explosives. Nobody.

Now why is that? Because, if a government agency tests for it and finds it, the "official story" is over and by law, the FBI and Justice Department MUST start a new criminal investigation.

Both NIST reports as well as the FEMA report all take care to state that they didn't run tests for residual trace elements of conventional explosives in the remaining evidence from Ground Zero. They had to do that. If they ignore the need for the tests they appear inept. Perhaps even criminally so. So they make up a justification not to do it. If they do the tests and lie about it, then they must publish the results of the tests in their study, and when the fraud is exposed, suddenly they become accessories after the fact to 3000 murders. So they couldn't do that either.

So why didn't they just run the tests and show no explosives were used to blow up the buildings and thus end the 9/11 truth movement once and for all?

Simple: because the tests will turn out positive for trace elements of conventional explosives... and they know it.

More disturbing still is the fact that I have had on-going communications with leading researchers in the "Truth" field for a year now, begging them to run these tests with their own samples, and they have flatly refused to do so. I was even told by someone who runs the most respected Truth site that they didn't need more investigations and that his time would be spent lobbying congress and that I should do the same. I was told that a year ago and his name appears on the new paper "Active Thermetic Material..." along with 2 others from his group.

Apparently they had time for all that research...

Thermite was proven to be incapable of "blowing up" or breaking up the concrete floor systems in the towers and so a while ago people like me were looking to find evidence of what could be used to do it. Around that time they started theorizing about "nano-thermite" and "thermobaric" devices... then lo-and-behold... they just happen to find it? These same people who won't test for conventional explosive residues yet in their paper they clearly state not only that they didn't test for them, but they think someone "else" should?

To answer your question; test for conventional explosives residues. By law, if found, the FBI must reopen the investigation plus, no one can say that rust and aluminum siding laying next to each other made PETN, RDX, or TNT... and that is a fact.

I don't think this question is about evidence anymore. It is about politics.

There is more than enough evidence already to at least open criminal investigations of parts of the 9/11 events. Unfortunately most of the roads that such investigations would have to follow lead to very big players in the political life of New York or of the country and to big players in the business world.

There is nothing unusual about political leaders and big business people getting a free pass on murder, mayhem and illegal profit taking. Happens every day all around the world.

There is a saying in legal circles: "Not only must justice be done, but justice must be seen to be done."

Justice must be out in the open to maintain order in society. It is a measure of how the character of American society has degenerated since the assassination of Kennedy and continues to degenerate. It is no longer necessary that justice be seen to be done in America.

Americans now take it for granted that justice is not being done. The "appearance of justice having been done" is increasingly scoffed at. Only a fool or a child believes in that sort of thing now.

So in answer to your question, no piece of evidence will move anyone to open a criminal investigation into any part of the 9/11 events. That will only happen as a result of political pressure countering the current political pressure which supresses investigations.

Originally posted by dino1989
well what kind of evidence do we and the judge need to convince us its a inside job ?

I'd say we'd need more evidence than the foolishness the truther movement has supplied us with so far.

Dropping innuendo, quoting people out of context, playing five degrees of separation "Kevin Bacon" games, spreading outright lies, and analysis of crummy photos that only show what you claim it shows when you squint while jumping up and down on one foot beneath the light of the full moon, isn't proof of anything at all, except perhaps to show that the truther movement's real agenda isn't to learn the truth, but to promote their beloved conspiracy stories regardless of what the truth is.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dino1989
well what kind of evidence do we and the judge need to convince us its a inside job ?

I'd say we'd need more evidence than the foolishness the truther movement has supplied us with so far.

Dropping innuendo, quoting people out of context, playing five degrees of separation "Kevin Bacon" games, spreading outright lies, and analysis of crummy photos that only show what you claim it shows when you squint while jumping up and down on one foot beneath the light of the full moon, isn't proof of anything at all, except perhaps to show that the truther movement's real agenda isn't to learn the truth, but to promote their beloved conspiracy stories regardless of what the truth is.

You're very humorous. Is it intentional? What if, when there is a new investigation, and they find out that this was, in fact, an inside job? That means everyone involved in the cover up is as guilty as those who commited the crime.

As much as you like to criticize the "Truthers", I wonder how you would feel if they decided to question YOU for your efforts to debunk all the 9/11 threads? What if all the posts you have made in an attempt to debunk scientific evidence could be used against you? Just a thought.

[edit on 29/5/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]