So, it has been proported by Jango that there is no evidence Al Qaeda was behind 9/11, but tons of evidence proving the government was behind 9/11. This was started in a different thread, so I am moving it here. We left off with Jango demanding evidence Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. Sure. The evidence used in the Moussaoui trial to prove Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. After all, you can't convict Moussaoui of being part of the attack without first proving Al Qaeda was behind the attacks, right? So you have a court of law and a jury of peers determining that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. Here you have the 9/11 commission report. Unless you have evidence that shows the commission report is fundamentally wrong, their claims are far more credible than any truther or conspiracy site. List of videos released by Osama bin Laden. He confesses time and time again that Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11. The ONLY time he denies 9/11 is right after 9/11 when he is a "guest" of the Taliban who claimed they would turn Osama over if he were behind the attacks. Even then he claims he did not carry out the attack. Of course he didn't. He wasn't one of the 19 hijackers. In several of the videos, several of the 9/11 hijackers can be seen associating with Osama or talking about the upcoming attacks. Do you need more? Can you refute ANY of this evidence? I am still waiting for you to produce a single point of real evidence Al Qaeda wasn't behind 9/11 or that any of the other conspiratard theories are true like controlled demolition, Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, Flight 93 didn't crash in Shanksville or was shot down in Shanksville, or the other claim you are up in the air about which is that the "people" jumping from the towers were really mannequins made of ballistic gelatin. To be fair you altered your claim to only SOME of the "people" were mannequins, not all of them. You had to be shown a video proving beyond any doubt that the people were real, breathing people to "convince" you that at least some of them were real.
The proof that 9/11 was an inside job is crushing. Here's a link to some of it. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746 Anyone who's having trouble being objective about this evidence should watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4
And just like clockwork, Scott shows up spamming the same tired bull(*)(*)(*)(*) he can't defend. ANYONE actually believing Scott knows what he is talking about should read the threads where he constantly runs away because he knows he just got beat yet again and can't refute the evidence. For example. Scott NOW claims that Flight 77 came in at a DIFFERENT angle from the plane that actually hit the Pentagon. His evidence? A witness who has a different story from the hundred plus other witnesses AND the physical evidence. The problem is even his witness didn't see the plane pull up and over the Pentagon and go on to land at RIA. So, Scott. How do you explain two planes coming in at almost 90 degrees different from each other making it to the Pentagon at the exact same time, with nobody noticing one plane flies over the Pentagon? Oh, one other claim. You like to pretend you are some kind of expert at interpreting nose cones from a wide angle lens from a security camera. Since you use the video as "evidence", one can safely assume you believe the security tapes to be real. So why don't we see a plane flying through the frame? IF your retarded bull(*)(*)(*)(*) were true, Flight 77 would have flown almost directly over the security camera on it's way to land at RIA. Now run along, Scott. You've been owned yet again.
I've posted that before. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...-plane-flew-over-pentagon.html#post1060818311 You just keep playing dumb about it.
No. You haven't. You pretended both planes came in at the same time on the same line and nobody noticed. Of course you are still running away from the video camera issue. Face it, Scott. There are so many holes in your retarded theory that I am quite frankly surprised you're even willing to put your name to it. All you can do at this point is pretend you've answered it before, yet, for some reason, can't answer it now. Think anyone else is buying that bull(*)(*)(*)(*)? I don't. You probably know nobody else is buying it either. Is this just an ego thing for you? It sure can't be about credibility.
You got corrected before. In your link to another link, you make the claim that people saw a plane flying away from the Pentagon. Name them.
It is simply not physically possible to rig 267 floors of building for controlled demolition in in 8.5 months however much you and other's like wish to believe other wise it cannot be done by any currently existing technology.
Especially using thermite, a non expolsive that can only cut down and isn't used in controlled demolitions due to the inability to time the results or even insure the results work. Add on top of that that it would take tons of thermite per floor to cut the beams and the truther lies quickly fall apart. I do get a kick out of truthers pretending a layer of paint with 'nano' thermite in it can somehow cut a column....
[quote="Patriot911]The evidence used in the Moussaoui trial to prove Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. After all, you can't convict Moussaoui of being part of the attack without first proving Al Qaeda was behind the attacks, right?[/quote] Wrong. This is a fallacious argument as your premise is the same as your conclusion. (e.g. statement A is true because A must be true). You have access to that list so you can easily be more specific and point out individual exhibits that are meant to prove your case and show how. No. You should do some research about this case. Moussaiu plead guilty, the court accepted this and THAT is why he was determined to be guilty. NOT because of a decision made by a jury. The only decision the jury had to make was whether he should receive the death penalty, as the prosecution wanted, or life in jail. They then heard this evidence and the prosecution made their case. The jury weren't convinced enough to condemn him to death. If anything, this "evidence" failed in court. If you'd like to use the 9/11 commission report as your proof, you'll have to show us how it can serve as proof. It's not up to others to "show the commission report is fundamentally wrong" and such a demand is shifting the burden of proof. I can show evidence that the U.S. government was behind 9/11... The evidence used in the Moussaoui trial to prove the U.S. government was behind 9/11. After all, you can't convict Moussaoui of being part of the attack without first proving the U.S. government was behind the attacks, right? So you have a court of law and a jury of peers determining that the United States government was behind the attacks.
I'd like to point out that thermite can indeed be explosive, depending on what you mix it with. It's just a really bad-ass incendiary most of the time but if you want you could get an explosion out of it. Even so, I would agree that it's not at all a practical means of controlled demolition and I'd doubt you could knock down two skyscrapers so suddenly with it.
You're misrepresenting what the video in the link from post #4 says to mislead those viewers who don't take the time to watch it. Start watching this video at the 1:10 time mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKbT9r-6IPQ
You got your ass kicked on this before. Why don't you go look up the legal procedure? If you're going to prove guy A was involved in a gang B and participated in crime C, you first have to prove the gang B actually did crime C. Otherwise why did they spend WEEKS proving Al Qaeda was behind 9/11? Why not just present the evidence directly against Moussaoui instead of all the evidence against everyone else? COMMON SENSE proves your claim is full of (*)(*)(*)(*). The vast majority of the evidence proves the members of Al Qaeda were responsible for the attacks. The only decision the jury had to make was whether he should receive the death penalty, as the prosecution wanted, or life in jail. They then heard this evidence and the prosecution made their case. The jury weren't convinced enough to condemn him to death. If anything, this "evidence" failed in court.[/quote] Way to try and defend your terrorist buddies by trying to pretend the evidence failed. Did the jury find the evidence lacking that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11? Nope. They found the evidence of a plot for a fifth plane lacking. Do some research before acting all sanctimonious. Source Wait. So I have to go and PROVE every point made in the 9/11 commission report when the 9/11 commission report is repleat with sources? WTF kind of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is that? It is a recognized authoritative source on what happened on 9/11. If you have evidence that it is fundamentally wrong, present it, but don't pretend everyone who wishes to cite the 9/11 commission report has to somehow prove it is true. We BOTH know that that is an impossible task because truthers such as yourself will just deny everything anyway. And now you're claims have entered the childish, retarded arena reserved for die hard truthers. You think that pretending rewording someone's post somehow makes your claim relevant? Wow. Any credibility you may have had left has just been trashed by you. So, to prove your claim I am sure you can present evidence that shows a government agent was behind 9/11? I've shown all the evidence presented by the prosecution which is what would contain evidence the government was behind 9/11. I have been through the evidence. It proves the 19 hijackers were behind 9/11, not government agents. Show us the specific evidence that proves the government was behind 9/11 and you will be the hero of all your terrorist buddies AND the truthers; two groups that have such high standing in society!
Really? As in high explosives like RDX that can cut steel? High explosives are defined as explosives that burn at 3,300 feet per second or faster. RDX burns at 26,700 feet per second.
LOL, I love the made up stories by people taking one thing out of context in contrast to the overwhelming evidence that supports the truth. There is much too much evidence supporting the facts compared to the conspiracy theories yet the conspiratorial loyalists insist they are right because, well, that is a good question.
This wasn't "proved" in court.. Again, Moussaiu plead guilty. So they convicted him, simple as. You're trying to pretend they argued a case and proved it and THAT is how he was found guilty... Defendent A, Group B, crime C none of it was proven. Secondly, you can be found guilty of a crime when no co-conspirators are.. It happens.. Masked bank robbers rob a bank, and only one gets caught and the others escape. His involvement can be proven via the fact he was caught fleeing with a bag of money, even if the others escaped and were never even so much as ID'd let alone proven guilty. That would be a great way to support your case.. So show that evidence. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, just that your arguments are crap. So if you have actual evidence, you should have posted that. You can go ahead and do that now. The ONLY decision the jury made was NO to the death penalty!!! You want to sit around and claim like they all unanimously agreed that the war in Afghanistan was justified, that Osama Bin Laden has an ugly beard and that the Giants won't win any more super bowls. Forensic evidence doesn't come from a quote in a book.. Unless the crime is plagiarism or copyright infringement. This is regardless of how much of authority you think the book is. If it's replete with sources, then those sources can be your evidence. The commission report can be used as a secondary source to find them, much like wikipedia. Books are a good way to lead you to the evidence. They are not themselves evidence. Sometimes they are lacking.. Like the KSM story, the report completely LACKS the sources to confirm it, relying on CIA interrogation reports of tortured detainees. I was using the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT as you. I was proving how your idea is silly. You need more than just to claim Group B was behind Crime C that defendent A was found guilty for, don't you? Wait, you want "specific evidence"? By jove I think he's got it!
I need to clarify something here. When you say AQ was "behind the attack" I am operating under the assumption you are referring to whoever masterminded, planned and funded the attack. Not who crashed the planes. We are on the same page here right? I just noticed you said this: "It proves the 19 hijackers were behind 9/11, not government agents." Which leads me to believe we may not be on the same page here afterall. I was seeking specific evidence against the plotters not the hijackers.
By the way, you can cut it out with the personal attacks about how I must be a terrorist sympathizer. Pointing out weak arguments or improper claims to evidence made on a forum isn't the same thing as supporting terrorism, even if those weak arguments or improper claims to evidence are about terrorists.
In the even you're referring to me, I'd like to point out that when I said the government was behind 9/11, I was being sarcastic, to illustrate how silly it is to think that person A convicted for crime C means group B can represent any group you want, treating it like some kind of arbitrary and interchangeable wild card. I don't actually think this. Otherwise I've not made anything up. You want a real made up story, try this: "Otherwise why did they spend WEEKS proving Al Qaeda was behind 9/11?" This never happened in the Moussaiu trial. In fact this is what they were arguing about: Whether or not ZM "intentionally participated in an act... and the victim died as a direct result of the act." And his guilt was already determined by his guilty plea, this was to debate what his sentence should be. They were sentencing proceedings that he's referring to.
If one pleads guilty in a court of law AND THE JUDGE ACCEPTS THAT PLEA, then that person has been proven guilty in a courty of law. In the sentencing phase of the trial, the prosecution presented the jury with the evidence linking Moussaoui to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda to 9/11. Three of the six counts carried the death penalty. IF the jury considered Moussaoui innocent because they were not convinced Al Qaeda was behind 9/11, they could have come back with a very light sentence. They didn't. They came back with six consecutive life sentences, and it was by a margin of one juror that Moussaoui did not get the death penalty. That is completely irrelevant to this case. In this case, the criminal was not caught red handed and was not present during the execution of the crime by his "gang". He still had involvement in the crime, so the prosecution still had to prove the "gang" was the gang that carried out 9/11. I have presented that evidence. You're so gung ho on proving the terrorists innocent that you reject all evidence. Not my problem. Are you denying that the preponderance of evidence I presented deals with 9/11 and the 19 hijackers and very little evidence was directly against Moussaoui? Way to blatantly lie your ass off. You're pretty much a waste of time and air at this point. The jury had to make a decision between whether Moussaoui was a minor player in 9/11 or a major player like he was trying to pretend. If you didn't go off half-cocked and had read the source I linked, you would have seen that. Instead you want to make a fool out of yourself by pretending the decision was arbitrary and had no basis on what happened on 9/11. So you have evidence the 9/11 commission's use of forensic evidence is bad? The 9/11 commission clearly outlines the case against Al Qaeda repleat with the forensic information they used to come to their conclusions. Here is literally gigabytes of supporting documentation from the 9/11 commission. I am sure you will come up with some excuse to deny all that. So a single consolidated source of evidence isn't good enough for you and you need specifics? Tough (*)(*)(*)(*). Do some reading for yourself then. Pretending you are somehow worth busywork may stroke your ego, but it doesn't convince anyone of your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim I haven't presented the evidence. You've just admitted I've given you a source of tons of evidence. You wanting to play little miss nit picky about the strict definition of evidence to try and cover the fact I have presented tons of evidence is just a childish tactic that doesn't work. Did they rely heavily on KSM reports? Yes. Is that ALL they relied on? No. Another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) lie by you. And I have. I presented forensic evidence implicating Al Qaeda. So now you do the same. Present your forensic evidence that the government was behind the crime. If you can't see that difference, then there is no hope for you. I've presented that specific evidence. Tons of it. From several sources. You're so gung ho to get your terrorist buddies off the hook by pretending they are innocent that you deny any and all evidence as though you are some kind of authoritative source. You're not.
Do they or do they not have to clearly and legally define what the act was, who was responsible for the act? Why yes. Yes they do. Once again, the FACT Al Qaeda was involved and behind 9/11 has been proven in a court of law. The fact you can't deal with your muslim terrorist buddies being guilty isn't anyone's problem but yours.
When the only reason behind one's actions is to try and defend terrorists, I will call it what it is. All you do is deny any and all evidence linking your terrorist buddies to 9/11. Do you have an alternate explanation for your actions that a reasonable human being would actually believe?
So now you're moving goal posts? Al Qaeda is an organization. The planners are part of Al Qaeda. The hijackers were part of Al Qaeda. Moussaoui was part of Al Qaeda. KSM is a self professed member of Al Qaeda. Osama was a member of Al Qaeda. Numerous other terrorists are part of Al Qaeda. This isn't a hard concept to understand. Do you have evidence that proves the hijackers were NOT members of Al Qaeda and were instead operating under instructions from some other group? How do you explain the videos where Osama not only praises the hijackers as members of Al Qaeda, but shows some of the hijackers training with Al Qaeda? Or is it your position that the ONLY thing that can prove Al Qaeda was behind the attacks is to figure out who plotted the attacks? That would be a pretty retarded position to take. You sure you want to do that?
I apologize for my tardiness. Drama. Meh. Anyway, I have a weird way of reading things sometimes, especially lists, so I scroll to the bottom of the evidence page in the court case. I was confused about Phase 2. And... What is the story on two of the last three evidence pieces? I hadn't known of the drivers license. Ultimately, I believe both boil down to faith. And you happen to take their word for it. But how do you know that both were actually recovered, which looks to be the only evidence that puts any al-Qaeda on the airplanes. Dave talks about making decisions based off what is logical and the evidence. You and the others go off evidence. But how much of that is only the government's word. Or evidence that you have to take a leap of faith on. I mean, that DL somehow survived *everything that happened*? Wouldn't that hurt the going theory though? Since the fires, you know... And then the collapse. Then the burning fires that went on for how long? To be miraculously found.
If you reflexively reject whatever the government says but always believe what a source with a clear anti-government agenda says then your'e not really making decisions based off what is logical. True, the government has been caught in lies in the past but so have the truther sources.