Best Evidence

Here'e the premise for the thread;

An international commission has been called to put 9/11 on trial, including Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Blair. The heads of state of every nation on earth are there to hear the testimony.

But there's a catch

The rules have changed so that the only admissable evidence must be tangible, or physical. It must be something you can see, touch, hear or smell.

And

You are only allowed one piece of evidence to present.

What piece of evidence would you use ? Please explain how it is signifcant to the case.

(obviously, since this is an on-line forum, you can post pics or vids to show the evidence)

[edit on 28-10-2007 by syrinx high priest]

29 views, no posts

does that mean there isn't any tangible physical evidence of a conspiracy ?

nothing you could hold in your hand, and show George Bush, point your finger at him and accuse him of murdering 3,000 people ?


please note, a 2 hour alex jones video is not tangible physical evidence, nor is a youtube video link.

I'm asking for something you could present as "item #1" in a court of law

[edit on 28-10-2007 by syrinx high priest]

reply to post by syrinx high priest

Short of a signed confession, there's really very little evidence that could be presented as things stand.

What you have to remember is that even if elements from within the US were involved in some way, that doesn't automatically mean that either WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7 were brought down in a controlled manner. Nor does it mean that no plane flew into the Pentagon. Nor does it mean that Flight 93 was either shot down or else didn't crash at Shanksville.

All of these events could have happened exacly as the government would have us believe. But that wouldn't be proof that it wasn't a conspiracy.

Tha said, it would have been more reassuring to have had the opportunity of examining as much of the material from the collapsed buildings as possible.

92 views, and no one can offer a single shred of physical evidence supporting the conspiracy ?

no wiring or blast caps from the controlled demo at WTC ?

no missile fragments from the pentagon ?


wow

Well, to begin it is absurd to ask someone to make his case by presenting only one piece of evidence.

If I had to choose though, I would present the side view video of WTC7's collapse. If I could present two pieces, I would include the photos from all around the base of WTC7.

If the collapse of the towers was so devastating to WTC7, then why did WTC7 collapse straight down in demolition fashion instead of leaning towards the area of damage? Are we to believe that the tower's collapse caused damage to the structural integrity of WTC7 on all sides of the building? Furthermore why is the official story that fire was the cause of WTC7's collapse, when this runs completely contrary to the video of its collapse?

so still no physical evidence you could bring into a court of law ?

I told you already, do I have to look it up?

so the best evidence the conspiracy believers have is a video ?

there honestly hasn't been one shred of physical evidence found ?

I'm not interested in video wars or link wars here. As you can see in my sig I have a video or link that debunks any of yours, so that is pointless.

You mean to tell me people still believe in this theory 6 years later, and there isn't a molecule of physical evidence to back it up ?

After 6 years ?

Well considering the Government had full control over the removal of debris from the incident I dont think this is a big deal. Also I would contend that video evidence is more valuable than physical evidence.

Furthermore, all debris from the towers was melted down well before forensics experts could look it over. Have you come across any physical evidence to support the government's theory? I sure havn't.

That's exactly why tampering and removing evidence from a crime scene is illegal. You want physical evidence to proove something, well what if I shot your mom and threw the gun in the river and the bullet went through her and vanished. Should I get off because there's no physical evidence?
I understand your point, but your point is moot considering the wealth of circumstantial evidence and the subsequent supression of further independent criminal investigation.

I changed my mind though. Here is evidence of thermite found in the dust of the towers, something the government has yet to explain.

www.iamthewitness.com...

Why dont you show us your evidence supporting the official theory? Anything tangible? Nope!

Yes, and can you explain why the Government removed and destroyed vital physical evidence within days of the collapse? this in itself is proof enough for me of a conspiracy.

Well there you go syrinx, nothing has been presented. Job done, case closed. You know what would be great?

[lol]If all the physical evidence wasn't destroyed and shipped away or locked up[/lol]

Something to hide have the defence? Matter or national security and secrecy you have? I claim mistrial.

It perplexes me your honour, that the only case the defence has for its claims or "official version" would be speculation based on photographic and video evidence and nothing physical to put forth and destroy this conspiricy case.

The only investigations that have been launched have found no fault of the Government on that terrible day and as of right now not a single person has been fired or even scapegoated. Are we to believe that the defence cannot stand up admit they made mistakes and the information wasnt relayed through the proper channels so that something could have been done?

I believe this is referred to as the "stand down" theory. But to date no one is responsible but a CIA funded organisation by the name of "Al Queda", who we are to believe are responsible for the attacks and the subsequent global collape of the twin towers in (near) freefall speed.

Why.... i do believe it was said that the Vice President at the time was informed that the plane was minutes away from the Pentagon... multiple times your Honour, yet he gave no order to have anything done about this. Because the plane crashed into the building.

Or so the defence would have us believe, but your Honour, this is another peice of the puzzle that the defence have been so secretive about. It is obvious that from the grainy low FPS camera footage that they have released, that they would have us argue and wonder about this till the end of time ad nauseum.

Where is the evidence from the Twin Towers your Honour, where is the evidence from WTC7, also known as the Solomon Building? Where is the evidence not based on speculation that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collapse of both towers and the Solomon Building was due to fires? The NIST report has told us that the collapse of WTC's 1&2 was due to dislodged fireproofing....

Really? Is that why the second tower that was hit (indirectly and not straight on like the first tower, i might add) collapsed globally before the first one? Had this second towers fireproofing been on the wrong side of the building?

What are the chances your Honour, of both buildings collapsing globally, considering the circumstances. As you can see from the images of the day, the mass below the collapse initiation point offered no resistance to the mass above. In fact the mass that was above the initiation point, seemed to go straight through the mass below.

I refer you now to the NIST website, and let the contents of this presentation speak for themselves.

wtc.nist.gov...

1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.
2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.
3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.
4) Only 12 total core columns were recovered from WTC-1 & WTC-2 combined.
5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.
6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.
7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

It speaks for itself. This is why i have previously mentioned the speculation based on Photographic and Visual evidence.


[edit on 28-10-2007 by Azriphale]

Where is the report on WTC7? Its still in the works your Honour, would you believe it, they admit that their best theory on this buildings global collapse only has a "low probability of occurance".

In fact, they have resorted to considering the demolition hypothesis for this WTC7 report....i believe that they have nothing else at this stage and all these years passed to consider.

I call a brief reccess your Honour, and i am wondering, if the defence had 1 peice of evidence they could offer up....what would it be?

Your honour, I present as my evidence this...

Azriphale, you're a genius.
Then in closing, turn to the jury, hit the little 'next' button on the slide projector, and ask them...


Does this LOOK like a fire related collapse to you?




(click Next)

so the truth movement is based on zero evidence ? and that's no big deal ?

interesting.

I figured the conspiracy believers would have to play the "gov't hid all the evidence" card, even though hundreds of volunteers worked at WTC, and numerous others at the pentagon.

heck, even JFK had the magic bullet.

reply to post by ANOK


click on my sig

case closed


c'mon people, I don't want to play link wars, does anyone have anything physical and tangible to offer ?

reply to post by twitchy


the fact that there is no evidence is a moot point ?

wow, there is denial, and then there'a that quote. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths the human mind will go to protect a cherished belief

conspiracy believers are like the 10 year old who knows there is no santa, but tell themselves anything they have to to gt one more year out of the deal