9/11 was an inside job.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I don't buy that. Sixteen years later and I still clearly remember where I was and how I watched the events unfold.

Seriously, it happens all the time. I remember reading a piece in The Guardian, some time last year, in which the author recalled seeing JFK get assassinated on TV, and was corrected by BTL commenters who knew the shooting was not broadcast.

More pertinently, ever heard of Major Billy Hutchison? A USAF pilot who appeared before the 9/11 Commission and testified to his airborne attempt to down the plane headed for the Pentagon. Except numerous records proved that he hadn't even got into his plane till half an hour after the Pentagon crash occurred. When the 9/11 Commission broke it to Hutchison that his story was a fantasy, Hutchison stormed out. There's no question that he believed he was telling the truth. Stress does very funny things to people.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Good gravy, GWB even lied about watching the first plane hit the North Tower on TV before the second plane hit. Well, either he lied or he was watching video footage/feed that the public never saw (which is an even more hinky scenario)!

Or he's an idiot and confused genuine memories with something he only saw on TV later that day. This scenario has the benefit of being based on a known fact. Anyway, I've never understood why this remark (by Bush) is meant to be significant.

I don't buy that. Sixteen years later and I still clearly remember where I was and how I watched the events unfold.

It's significant because GWB made up a story about how he found out the first tower was hit instead of telling the truth.

Would the truth implicate him somehow? Perhaps. And so it just adds more reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of the federal government with regard to 9/11.

ETA: Also, if he confused the time of day he saw the first plane hit and it was, indeed, later in the day...he wouldn't have said "I thought, 'My what a terrible pilot.'"

So that explanation doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

ETA 2: And he wouldn't have said he watched the video on a TV in the elementary school's corridor! He wasn't at the school, anymore, by the time the video of the first plane hitting the North Tower surfaced!

And his dad says doesn't remember where he was or what he was doing when JFK was shot

a reply to: audubon

I repeat:

If he confused the time of day he saw the first plane hit and it was, indeed, later in the day...he wouldn't have said "I thought, 'My what a terrible pilot.'"

And he wouldn't have said he watched the video on a TV in the elementary school's corridor! He wasn't at the school, anymore, by the time the video of the first plane hitting the North Tower surfaced!

So your explanation doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The story was a total fabrication.

Besides, all I am showing is that there is REASONABLE DOUBT about GWB's truthfulness regarding 9/11. Your speculation doesn't resolve that.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: audubon

I repeat:

If he confused the time of day he saw the first plane hit and it was, indeed, later in the day...he wouldn't have said "I thought, 'My what a terrible pilot.'"

And he wouldn't have said he watched the video on a TV in the elementary school's corridor! He wasn't at the school, anymore, by the time the video of the first plane hitting the North Tower surfaced!

So your explanation doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The story was a total fabrication.

My explanation holds up to scrutiny just fine. If a USAF Major can confabulate a fantasy about trying to protect the Pentagon, a President confabulating a fantasy about seeing 9/11 on TV (at a time when he couldn't have done so) is pretty small beer.

I think you have an unnecessarily melodramatic idea about how the human mind works.

Besides, all I am showing is that there is REASONABLE DOUBT about GWB's truthfulness regarding 9/11. Your speculation doesn't resolve that.

You are clutching at straws, and overstating your case by several orders of magnitude.

Also, you're not being honest. You are not "showing that there is reasonable doubt about GWB's truthfulness regarding 9/11". You are simply assuming that he told a deliberate lie, then assuming that the lie was in order to cover something up, which is why it must have been a deliberate lie. It's circular reasoning.

a reply to: audubon

And my doubts about his truthfulness are REASONABLE, despite your speculation about how innocent and meaningless the fabricated story might or might not have been.

You are clutching at straws, and overstating your case by several orders of magnitude.

I have no case. The federal government does and they have not proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. GWB's fabricated story is not the only evidence that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

ETA: I don't think you understand how reasonable doubt works. If a juror/jury has reasonable doubt, they don't have to make a new case and prove an alternate theory is true.

Could GWB have intentionally lied because he didn't have a legitimate story to tell about how he found out about the first plane hitting the North Tower?

Absolutely.

The end.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: audubon

And my doubts about his truthfulness are REASONABLE, despite your speculation about how innocent and meaningless the fabricated story might or might not have been.

My speculation is also reasonable, but I don't feel the need to type in block caps about it.

I have no case.

The most accurate thing you have said so far.

The federal government does and they have not proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. GWB's fabricated story is not the only evidence that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Well, so you say. Others disagree. Particularly on what constitutes a 'reasonable' doubt.

For the record, I think the federal government has proved quite adequately the bits it wants to prove, and the real problem is the stuff it is hoping you will completely ignore. It's told the truth, near enough, but nowhere near the whole truth - because the whole truth is devastating. Most of the information is now available, but the US news media are studiously avoiding the task of presenting it.

originally posted by: audubon

My speculation is also reasonable...

So what? You haven't proven it's anything more than speculation and the burden of proof is on you.

originally posted by: audubon
The most accurate thing you have said so far.

I haven't said anything inaccurate, but yes, that statement was very accurate.

originally posted by: audubon

Well, so you say. Others disagree. Particularly on what constitutes a 'reasonable' doubt.

Great. And on a jury, disagreement is the difference between a successful prosecution and a failed one.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
So what? You haven't proven it's anything more than speculation and the burden of proof is on you.

That's because I am honest enough not to claim that my speculation is a proven fact, or at least I try to keep myself to that standard. Others clearly have other policies, but I fail to see why I should emulate them.

Great. And on a jury, disagreement is the difference between a successful prosecution and a failed one.

Great. So you accept the criminal convictions of

A) 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui, who pleaded 'Guilty' to all the charges put to him and received six consecutive life sentences in May 2006?

His crimes were as follows:
1) Conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries
2) Conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy
3) Conspiracy to destroy aircraft
4) Conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction
5) Conspiracy to murder United States employees
6) Conspiracy to destroy property

B) 9/11 "Hamburg Cell" plotter Mounir el-Motassadeq, who in 2005 was convicted of 3,066 charges of murder at the WTC?

(We're still awaiting the case of United States v Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and Walid Bin Attash, which is now long overdue, but hey ho, I am a patient man.)

So yeah, it looks like two independent Juries were strongly convinced - beyond, as you like to say, a REASONABLE doubt, in fact - as to the involvement and culpability of the two convicts mentioned above, in relation to the 9/11 attacks.

So do go on, please tell me again how the federal government has never proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

a reply to: Justoneman

You reasoning is faulty if you are talking about the scores of civilians seeing and attesting to a large jet striking the pentagon. Don't know your beliefs, this is just a quick example. If its a claim they are lying, then it's those that bring the accusations of lying who have the burden of proof. If you claim somebody is lying with no proof, that is unfounded and slanderous accusations.

Were do you put the coroners that released human rumans, and families that receive those remains for burial? Are they lying?

The part the truth move ignores is two fold. One, many local and state governments were heavily involved with the recovery of wreckage and remains. And many civilians from recovery, cleanup, and aspects of engineering. The American welding society studied and reported on the WTC floor connections, are they part of the federal government.

Two, individuals have rights. Again, if a person brings accusations of lying with no credible proof that is slanderous.

The burden of proof lies with those that use nothing but innuendo to bring allegations of lying. To accuse someone of lying, conspiracy, an accessory with no proof is considered slander in our court system. Is that a false statement.

originally posted by: audubon

A) 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui, who pleaded 'Guilty' to all the charges put to him and received six consecutive life sentences in May 2006?

(AND)

So yeah, it looks like two independent Juries were strongly convinced - beyond, as you like to say, a REASONABLE doubt, in fact - as to the involvement and culpability of the two convicts mentioned above, in relation to the 9/11 attacks.

So do go on, please tell me again how the federal government has never proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty (although he pleaded not guilty and then guilty and there was some definite weirdness about that, alone). So no jury deliberated any evidence. The official story was not prosecuted. The jury, in that case, was purely used for determining if Moussaoui was eligible for the death penalty.

AND

Mounir el-Motassadeq was found guilty in a German court.

Nice try though.

***

So do go on, please tell me again how the federal government has never proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gladly.

The U.S. government can't even say for certain who the 19 hijackers were. The official story would fail if prosecuted in the U.S. The federal government has never proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are so deep in this nonsense that you cannot even accept that two plotters have been found guilty, and thereby proven the federal government's case.

The fact that Moussaoui pleaded guilty is because he knew the evidence against him was overwhelming, and that the Jury would nail him. That is why he didn't change his plea till the last minute, hoping for clemency.

I mean, why do you suppose he pleaded guilty?

As for the other trial taking place in Germany, that's the most pathetic piece of misdirection yet. Unless you really think that German courts are so inferior to US courts that their verdicts cannot be trusted. And anyway, a trial taking place outside the USA's jurisdiction actually increases its credibility as an independent verdict, not weakens it.

So: Two court-obtained convictions of 9/11 plotters provided, demonstrating the level of proof you were demanding, and the best you can come up with is that old classic "Nice try." You, my son, have been owned and you know it. I have nothing further to say on this subject.

a reply to: audubon

The outcome of the trial hinged largely on evidence from captured al-Qaida prisoners, which United States officials withheld from Motassadeq's first trial and made available only in limited form at his retrial.

The case, which was complex at times, strained Berlin's relations with Washington as it tested how far the US was willing to go in providing sensitive evidence.

The US declined, on security grounds, to let the court question three captured al-Qaida prisoners being held at secret locations, including a key member of the Hamburg cell, although it did hand over summaries of statements they had made under interrogation.

"The point is we would have liked to have questioned them ourselves," said Judge Schudt.

The prisoners' statements did not constitute "sufficient proof in either direction", he said, and there was no way to check their veracity or to decide whether the information had been extracted under torture. He called this "an unsatisfactory situation".

The judge said that under a "division of labour" inside Atta's group, Motassadeq played an important role in running the financial affairs of other cell members and covering up their absence from Germany while they were preparing the operation that killed nearly 3,000 people.

He said Motassadeq must have known that Atta and the others were planning attacks using planes in the US, but there was no evidence he knew precise details of the plot.

"A general knowledge or an inkling" was not enough to prove he was an accessory to thousands of murders, he said.

The verdict came as a relief to the German government after previous failed prosecutions, including the acquittal of another man, Abdelghani Mzoudi, on the same charges.

Link

If you think THAT is the U.S. federal government proving the official story beyond a reasonable doubt, you are out of your mind.

Also, the federal government doesn't prosecute cases in Germany.

And, again, Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty after pleading not guilty, twice IIRC. I find that suspicious and it sure isn't an example of the U.S. federal government proving the official story beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sounds more like a deal might have been made behind closed doors so that they wouldn't even have to try.

And, again, the federal government cannot even prove the identities of the 19 hijackers. That, alone, would destroy a prosecutor's case for the OS.

When was the last time you heard of an *unknown* suspect being found guilty in a U.S. criminal court?

The only nonsense, here, is coming from you.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

One, you want to play the court game. What evidence do you have individuals are lying.

Two, the knew the terrorists movements. Accounts and financial records of the terrorists buying tickets. Accounts of terrorists boarding the jets. Voice and radio recordings of the terrorists in the cockpits. And the terrorists remains and DNA at the crash site.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

One, you want to play the court game. What evidence do you have individuals are lying.

Two, the knew the terrorists movements. Accounts and financial records of the terrorists buying tickets. Accounts of terrorists boarding the jets. Voice and radio recordings of the terrorists in the cockpits. And the terrorists remains and DNA at the crash site.

Just ignore him. Obviously, he has to claim that Moussaoui was hypnotised by the CIA or something into pleading guilty when he was innocent, because otherwise he'd have to admit that one of the 9/11 plotters 'fessed up to the whole thing in court. (And, obviously, no-one in the history of justice has ever changed their plea during a trial, right?)

How different it could have been if only Moussaoui's defence team had watched a few youtube videos about WTC7 and produced Dr Judy Wood as their star witness... why, there's not a court in the land would have convicted him. Clearly, a massive cover-up took place in that courtroom!

a reply to: audubon

And all because a conspiracist that ignores the fraud in the truth movement said so? While practicing what most courts would label slander on those that attest to towers buckling, and jets crashing.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: audubon

And all because a conspiracist that ignores the fraud in the truth movement said so? While practicing what most courts would label slander on those that attest to towers buckling, and jets crashing.

Hope you aren't referring to me. I believe the towers fell and jets crashed into them. I also believe there is fraud in the truth movement, although some of it may originate with OS disinfo agents attempting to discredit truthers. No way to rule that out.

SO, if you are referring to me, then I insist you cease & desist slandering me.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I didn't name any names, so I guess there is reasonable doubt that I was referring to a specific individual.

So a large commercial jet did hit the pentagon? And a large commercial jet crashed at shanksville?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I didn't name any names, so I guess there is reasonable doubt that I was referring to a specific individual.

Were you referring to me? You were responding to a comment that was specifically referring to me (although I am not a 'him' or a 'he.')

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Quote were I was addressing you?

a reply to: neutronflux

I didn't say you were. I asked if you were referring to me. Were you?