David Ray Griffin, pillar of the 9/11 Truth Movement, page 4

Originally posted by mmiichael
A substantiable scenario of who actually financed and implemented the plan. It would have to have consistency with what has been documented - i.e. the Saudi royals and Middle East bankers channeling funds, the bin Laden infrastructure activities, Pakistan's ISI direct involvement and training, etc.

If the documentation you refer to exists, why hasn't Saudi Arabia been declared a state sponsor of terrorism? Why hasn't General Ahmad, of the ISI been extradited or kidnapped, since there is evidence to say that he wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 just prior to 9/11.

An analytical correlation of CIA, NSA, FBI, State Dept, etc reports of the period before and after.

What do you make of allegations that military officers conducting operation "Able Danger" were told by a superior officer to stay away from Mohammed Atta?

Details of involvement by any new or unacknowledged organizations, perpetrators, facilitators.

How about the Israeli connections? The "dancing Israelis" and Larry "Pull it" Silverstein's connections to Israel and those of his business partner, former Israeli paratrooper, Frank Lowy?

As to what constitutes evidence -

paraphrasing another source on required proof of WTC controlled demolition:

"- how, when and by whom it was planned - dates, places, a paper trail

-who supplied the explosive charges, when, what types, how much

- plus paper trail & documents

- ditto detonation charges

- ditto cabling & control devices

People planning mass murder don't generally leave paper trails.

The image below is of a list of Jews in Europe that Eichmann is alleged to have brought to the Wannsee conference, the meeting alleged to have been held to plan the "final solution" to the "jewish problem".

en.wikipedia.org...

It is very hard to tell that it is even a list of Jews. One can only infer that by noticing that it reports "Estland" (I'm assuming Estonia here) is "judenfrei", i.e., that there are no Jews in Estonia.

That's how careful the planners of 9/11 could be expected to be.

- someone, ANYONE in fact, going on record who fitted out any of these buildings for demolition, describing how, when and by whom it was done

That would be excellent to have. Who is going to run the witness protection program for that person? Do you see the problem with "turning state's evidence" when the state is alleged to be the perp in a mass murder case? In actual fact, huge numbers of people have "turned state's evidence", but for the defense.

That is where the betting money has gone with their shoddy science and phony computer animations, etc., their "wings that folded like an accordion" and other nonsense.

- POs, invoices, memos, any type of taped or recorded communication of any kind to support any of this obviously huge operation, which must have involved dozens if not hundreds of people over a long period of time

This is a naive statement.

9/11 is not a reality show about the world's dumbest bank robbers, but there actually have been some pretty dumb moments, whether it was Bush talking about seeing the first tower hit on TV the morning of 9/11, a day before everyone else saw it, or Rumsfeld's slip about the "the missile (inaudible) that did the damage at the Pentagon."

- any evidence of any kind, or corroborative testimony of any kind, from any witnesses - even one - who can and will attest on record to having seen any of this, or having any reliable information about it all"

The CIT guys have come pretty close to that in their conversations with Lloyd England, the taxi driver who got the light standard through the windshield of his cab at the Pentagon, but Lloyd knows he's not bullet proof and never quite states the truth baldly with his hand on the Bible.

What witness protection program can protect people from the state? You need an organized underground for that.

We're talking about accusations of a series of premeditated mass murders. No court will consider a case without demonstrable evidence.

Incriminating paperwork, untamperable recorded conversations, multiple corroborated testimonies, would be required. At the very least one credible witness providing unambiguous testimony is needed.

Otherwise we're dealing with hearsay, linkage, rumour, speculation.

Don't underestimate hearsay, linkage, rumour, and speculation. When you don't have reliable media, reliable law enforcement, reliable courts, you have to rely on yourselves. That is what the truth movement is doing and will continue to do.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by ipsedixit]