Evidence thread

[Patriot911]

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.

Show me the evidence that al Qaeda performed 9/11, please.

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.

[Scott]

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

[Patriot911]

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.

[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?

I've posted that before.
Proof positive no plane flew over the Pentagon

You just keep playing dumb about it.

[Patriot911]

I've posted that before.
Proof positive no plane flew over the Pentagon

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.

[Hannibal]

I've posted that before.
Proof positive no plane flew over the Pentagon

You just keep playing dumb about it.

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.

[garyd]

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.

[Patriot911]

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....

[happy fun dude]

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?

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.

So you have a court of law and a jury of peers determining that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.

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.

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.

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 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...

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.

[happy fun dude]

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....

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.