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).
Originally Posted by "Patriot911
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.
So you have a court of law and a jury of peers determining that Al Qaeda was behind 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.
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.
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.
I can show evidence that the U.S. government was behind 9/11...
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...
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.
"As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions."
-Barack Obama telling a lie