Evidence thread

[Patriot911]

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.

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.

[Patriot911]

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?

[Patriot911]

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.

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?

[Jango]

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.

[DDave]

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.

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.

[Patriot911]

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.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). That is a HUGE copout. We both know it. You take hard evidence and pretend "I have to take their word for it"?!? WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE ALL THAT EVIDENCE WAS FAKED? Right. I have to take your word that it is all faked simply because you have a beef with the government and wish to blame everything you can on t

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.

Wait... you admit to not looking at most of the evidence and then pretend that the pieces you looked at are the only evidence that puts any Al Qaeda on the airplanes?!? How utterly dishonest! How do we know they were on the planes? How about the flight manifests that show the names of the Al Qaeda hijackers? How about the 23 minute phone call from Betty Ong and Amy Sweeny, two of the American Airlines flight attendants that called their supervisor at American Airlines and described the hijackers, gave their seat numbers and told the supervisor what they had done so far? Is THAT made up as well? Do you have evidence the supervisor is lying and the phone call was faked? How about all the other phone calls? How about the attendants that remember checking in some of the hijackers? How about the video evidence showing some of the hijackers arriving at the airport?

But to answer your question, in order for evidence to be entered in a court of law, one has to be able to prove where the item was recovered from and where it was at every point until the trial. It is called a chain of custody. A chain of custody is designed specifically for people like you who deny everything based on pretending just asking "how do you know?" somehow wipes out all evidence they don't like.

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.

Some is government. Some is not. Evidence is evidence. Do you have evidence all the government evidence is tampered with or made up? Do you have evidence the government is lying? Your paranoia and distrust is not reason enough to toss out all non-truther evidence which would be all evidence. It also means tossing out all evidence the government has no control over like the people who dealt with the hijackers prior to 9/11, all eye witnesses, and all forensic specialists. How logical is that? It isn't. Especially not without evidence all the evidence is bad. Again, do you have such evidence? Are we just suppose to take your word it is all bad?

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.

You're proving my point and hurting your point. Think about it honestly. If you were putting together faked evidence, would YOU put stuff like that in the evidence? Why? You have more than enough evidence to place Al Qaeda hijackers on the planes. So why put in stuff that would raise eyebrows?

And there is no faith or leap of faith on my part. There is evidence. Faith is what YOU are running on. You have faith the government is lying, so you are more than willing to ignore the evidence you can't refute to stick to the belief the government is lying. I believe in the evidence. If the evidence is a document that somehow survived then you have to deal with the evidence. How stupid would an investigator be if they dismissed any and all evidence that "didn't make sense"? That is ass backwards. An investigator deals with all evidence.

You also have to deal with the fact you haven't bothered to find out the whole story. I don't know the whole story on the drivers license, but I do know the story behind the passport. The passport didn't survive the fires and the collapse because it wasn't IN the fires and collapse. It, along with numerous other articles from the plane, made it THROUGH the towers and was recovered BEFORE the collapse. Never exposed to fire. Never exposed to collapse.

[Jango]

That's not true though, it was exposed to fire, but I understand your point. Nevertheless, the reason this is a conspiracy is because people believe the government has dirty hands in the deed. My point was, the government story about the passport is shaky. You know that. The way it was found and turned in and reported by the FBI. And do you recall what senior British Intelligence operatives had to say about the passport? It just smells like a plant. The DL definitely smells like a plant. How probable? What are the odds?

Have *you* ever considered that "evidence" can be falsified? Our cops do it...

Look at the new FBI scandal.

[Patriot911]

That's not true though, it was exposed to fire, but I understand your point. Nevertheless, the reason this is a conspiracy is because people believe the government has dirty hands in the deed. My point was, the government story about the passport is shaky. You know that. The way it was found and turned in and reported by the FBI. And do you recall what senior British Intelligence operatives had to say about the passport? It just smells like a plant. The DL definitely smells like a plant. How probable? What are the odds?

Have *you* ever considered that "evidence" can be falsified? Our cops do it...

Look at the new FBI scandal.

OK, so let me get this straight. You want to base the claim that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated and carried out by our government based on your gut feeling that two pieces of evidence were planted despite all the evidence 9/11 was carried out by 19 Al Qaeda hijackers and the complete and utter lack of evidence to back your claim up. Yes, I consider that evidence can be falsified, but I am not even close to ignorant enough to believe that all the evidence of 9/11 was made up and that the entire 9/11 story was made up to cover up our government being behind the attack. I also don't just believe evidence is falsified because it fulfills my deepest desires to blame the government.

As for the "British intelligence operatives" that claim the passport smells like a plant. Which British intelligence operatives? Who reported it? Are these quotes from the same sites that are constantly lying to you yet you continue to believe without question? How intelligent is that?

So I've presented you with evidence. You have been unable to refute a single piece of evidence. You've given your opinion that the evidence is falsified, but have no evidence to back that claim up. Sorry, but you're going to have to do MUCH better than that to get people to believe the big bad government was behind 9/11.

[Jango]

So you believe then that both items of evidence I have questioned are in fact legitimate?

[Jango]

And you never said what the story was on the DL. One got past? Anyway, I would like to hear your voice say, "I believe the DL evidence is legit," rather than you simply writing it out here. PM me please.