Who Has "The Burden of Proof"??

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

The whole world has hundreds of thousands of structural engineers, physicists, chemists, architects, and forensic scientists. Every one of them has the opportunity to refute the investigations.

Everyone of them has the opportunity to lose their jobs and be painted as unstable and unpatriotic for being honest about their findings.

How so? What is your evidence to support that claim? How would all those with the qualifications to do so from China, India, Malaysia, Sweden, Hungary, Switzerland, virtually every country in the world have the opportunity to "lose their jobs and be painted as unstable and unpatriotic for being honest about their findings?" Please explain how this incredible state of affairs could possibly come about.

Originally posted by Griff

This is true. Except when your evidence and proof are already physical laws adhered to by the physics and engineering community at large. Nothing I have said contradicts those laws are far as I'm aware. It is not up to me to prove those already proven laws. It is up to others to dispute why those laws were not followed that day and why.

Got it yet?

Griff is simply claiming that what he says is the evidence, the proof, and the physical laws, is a given. Because he says so. He continues to absolve himself of anyresponsibility to demonstrate that his claims are correct and that the burden of proof rests entirely on him to support his claims.

This is absolute denial in its most egregious form. Griff has no clue that he cannot ever be considered credible in any way with that completely non-scientific approach to evidence.

Hopefully someone can knock some sense into him.

Originally posted by jthomas
Griff is simply claiming that what he says is the evidence, the proof, and the physical laws, is a given. Because he says so. He continues to absolve himself of anyresponsibility to demonstrate that his claims are correct and that the burden of proof rests entirely on him to support his claims.

jthomas is doing nothing but trolling. I don't have to prove the first three laws of physics. They have been proven time and time again. If you don't believe then fine. I will not be duped into getting warned or banned because you can't get that through your thick skull.

This is absolute denial in its most egregious form.

This is absolute trolling.

Griff has no clue that he cannot ever be considered credible in any way with that completely non-scientific approach to evidence.

jthomas has no clue that I don't have to prove the laws of physics, material strengths, and engineering principles.

Hopefully someone can knock some sense into him.

Would you be that someone? Because so far, all I've heard from you is ad hominim attacks and trolling. Saying "show us the proof" and "the burden of proof is on you". When we ALL know the burden of proof is on the official side first. THEY are the ones with the claim that planes and fire brought down those buildings. If you can't understand that, then there is no hope for a discussion with me.

BTW. Isn't that considered a personal threat?

jthomas,

You did not answer my questions why should I answer yours??? I will answer your question....if you answer mine.

Also I would like to thank Griff for his honesty! Not just on this thread but on the many contributions I have read that Griff has made.

I think it is obvious Griff is interested in the truth wherever that may lead.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Griff is simply claiming that what he says is the evidence, the proof, and the physical laws, is a given. Because he says so. He continues to absolve himself of anyresponsibility to demonstrate that his claims are correct and that the burden of proof rests entirely on him to support his claims.

jthomas is doing nothing but trolling. I don't have to prove the first three laws of physics. They have been proven time and time again. If you don't believe then fine. I will not be duped into getting warned or banned because you can't get that through your thick skull.

You are simply avoiding your responsibility to support your claims about 9/11. We all know that.

When we ALL know the burden of proof is on the official side first. THEY are the ones with the claim that planes and fire brought down those buildings. If you can't understand that, then there is no hope for a discussion with me.

All of the investigations are available to you. That you refuse to acknowledge that you are making claims against those investigations and that the burden of proof is on you to support your claims and demonstrate why the evidence, methodologies, and conclusions of those investigations are wrong, leaves you standing in the desert whining.

So, Griff, just WHEN are you going to file charges against the Bush Administration?

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
jthomas,

You did not answer my questions why should I answer yours??? I will answer your question....if you answer mine.

I addressed your claim. You are free to avoid it.

Also I would like to thank Griff for his honesty!

Not just on this thread but on the many contributions I have read that Griff has made.

I think it is obvious Griff is interested in the truth wherever that may lead.

Great. So just when do you both expect to file charges against the Bush Administration? Just how do you expect to get a new investigation and who would be the investigators?

Do you really think wishing will make it happen?

Originally posted by jthomas
So, Griff, just WHEN are you going to file charges against the Bush Administration?

You must have me confused with someone who has accused the Bush Administration of wrong doings. Complete incompetence (they themselves even admit to), yes. Masterminding 9/11, no. I wonder how many times I will have to state this before it sinks in?

As far as NIST, why would they ignore proven scientific analysis from FEMA about strange corrosion of steel that FEMA even states could have happened before collapse? Talk about burden of proof.

But, you want to turn this around and say that I'm a Bush hater etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum. Or that I have to come to the table with smoking gun evidence and have a court order for Bush's arrest to ask questions? Get a life and go back to jref where you and your vitriolic ilk can hang out and slap each other on the rear. Why is this a game to you people?

Unless the vitriol stops now from you, I have nothing more to say to you.

[edit on 2/26/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
So, Griff, just WHEN are you going to file charges against the Bush Administration?

You must have me confused with someone who has accused the Bush Administration of wrong doings. Complete incompetence (they themselves even admit to), yes. Masterminding 9/11, no. I wonder how many times I will have to state this before it sinks in?

Let me quote you, Griff:

"The onus of proof is on you and your theory of planes and fires being the culprit. Which has NOT been done. "

"The only truth of the matter is that it is impossible to have symmetrical failure of a braced building with asymmetrical damage."

"Physics is the only burden of proof I need. BTW, the physical laws are on MY side."

"The onus is on everyone else to debunk what I say. At least to me that is. Not the other way around."

Are these your claims or not? Do you think anyone would seriously accept them when you state "physical laws are on MY side" and that's final, end of subject?

What do you intend to do, just make claims and assertions or take action?

Originally posted by jthomas

Griff is simply claiming that what he says is the evidence, the proof, and the physical laws, is a given. Because he says so. He continues to absolve himself of anyresponsibility to demonstrate that his claims are correct and that the burden of proof rests entirely on him to support his claims.

Just as you are claiming that the "investigations", "reports" and the "official story" (yeah, I know you claim there is no "official story", that makes NO sense whatsoever) that were given are irrefutable fact. Because you say so, the governments accounts are absolutely correct? YOU continue to absolve yourself and the government from demonstrating that their/your claims are correct, thus denying the burden of proof that rests with your side making the bold claims as to this is without a doubt how and why things occurred that day.

Example: Prove that the Shanksville crash was just that a crash, not a shootdown. You can't, especially when Rumsfeld has let is slip as to the latter. Prove that a PLANE hit the Pentagon. You can't, no credible debris, no credible video, other PUBLICLY known video evidence that has never been released...what are you hiding then? YOUR side controls all the evidence, so how in the hell can the burden of proof be put on our side?

Originally posted by jthomas

This is absolute denial in its most egregious form. Griff has no clue that he cannot ever be considered credible in any way with that completely non-scientific approach to evidence. Hopefully someone can knock some sense into him.

What can I say here. You seem to be projecting what we expect from you in order to support your arguements onto others, but as long as you state that the burden of proof is not yours, you will continue to do this. Remember, that it was not the 9/11 Truth Movement that told everyone this is what happened on 9/11, it was the government that did this. They put out the CLAIM, so they have the burden of proof to back up that claim. No one you have attacked in the thread is in denial, however you most certainly are. You are in denial because you are biased. As I said before, you seem to hold a deep believe that your government is total transparent, a true democracy, would never lie or harm you.....this has been proven over the last 8 years to be so untrue.

Why can't you accept this and begin to see all the "holes" that are scattered throughout their claim? You can't do it and won't even try. So you go on believing everything is okay and all us looking for the real answers will continue to do so. You are just here to stop that from happening, so jthomas, I end my communication with you, as you are just a waste of my time. I hope others see this too and refrain from the pointless bickering with someone so biased, arrogant, and stubborn. Don't worry, this is not a personal attack - ie someone needs to slap some sense into you, not me, it's not even worth trying!

Originally posted by percievedreality

Because you say so, the governments accounts are absolutely correct?

I never said the investigations were "correct". You claim they are wrong. It's up to YOU to prove it.

I'm still waiting.

YOU continue to absolve yourself and the government from demonstrating that their/your claims are correct, ...

FALSE. The results of the investigations are on the table. If you believe they are wrong DEMONSTRATE IT. The burden of proof is on you to prove it. No matter how you try to evade that fact, it ain't going away.

...thus denying the burden of proof that rests with your side making the bold claims as to this is without a doubt how and why things occurred that day.

Once again, you are forced to demonstrate there are "bold claims" and that the results of the investigations are wrong. Who do you actually think is going to do your work for you?

Example: Prove that the Shanksville crash was just that a crash, not a shootdown.

You have to demonstrate that it was a shootdown. Show me the evidence and refute the evidence that demonstrates it crashed during the struggle with the hijackers. Give us your irrefutable evidence, not your endless assertions

You can't, especially when Rumsfeld has let is slip as to the latter.

I don't have to. YOU do. Show me the evidence it was a shootdown and that Rumsfeld claimed it was.

Prove that a PLANE hit the Pentagon. You can't, no credible debris, no credible video, other PUBLICLY known video evidence that has never been released...what are you hiding then?

Why are you hiding the evidence of what wreckage was seen and/or recovered by over 1,000 people in the Pentagon if it was something other than from AA 77? Why, like Craig Ranke, do you persistently REFDUSE to present the statements of those 1,000 people? Why won't you tell us what the wreckage is from?

The burden of proof is not only on you to back up YOUR claim that there was "no credible debris" from a Boeing 757, you are also OBLIGATED to tell us what happened to AA 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon, and refute every eyewitness to the crash. Why do you refuse to honor your obligation to do this, percievedreality?

So you see clearly now that the burden of proof obviously rests on your shoulders. If you want to challenege it and refute ALL of that evidence, please be my guest. After all, we have been waiting for six years for your 9/11 Truth Movement to refute all of the investigations. And we are STILL waiting.

When you finally get the fact that you cannot have your cake and eat it too, you may get off your butts and assume your obligation to back up your claims and assertions.

Until then, we can only be left wondering exactly WHOM you think will bring charges against the Bush Administration based on your claims - the tooth fairy?

Originally posted by jthomas
Show me the evidence it was a shootdown and that Rumsfeld claimed it was.

For someone with such a high and mighty attitude, you sure haven't done your homework.

www.youtube.com...

Since this burden of proof somehow was diverted to a thread about ejected debris from the towers, I thought I'd post this answer in the correct thread:

Originally posted by jthomas
Griff is a perfect example and his evasions should serve you both as an illustration and education of the 9/11 Truth Movement's inability to make any headway.

I am not evading ANYTHING. I have said it once and I guess I'll say it again for the retards out there.

I would need the structural documentation to "prove my theories". But, since you nor I have those, neither you nor I can make certain that what we are being told is correct. But, in any case I will eat crow if I'm proven wrong.

So far, all I hear from you is ad hominim. Which should have gotten you warned at least by now. I wonder why you haven't? Biased mods on here again?

Anyway, get me the needed documentation and I'll have your peer reviewed report for you. Until then, it is all speculation. ON BOTH SIDES!!!!!!!

So, don't sit there with your jrefer attitude and keep saying over and over "the burden of proof is on you". No it damn well is NOT. I did not make the claim that planes and fire brought down 3 buildings that day. You want proof? Ask your precious government for it. Because so far, they aren't giving any out.

[edit on 2/26/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Leo Strauss


The person making an assertion has the burden of proof. Without proof, I'm not sure I'd even say you have a theory, but more of a guess/hunch, or if it's about a specific individual- slander.

Originally posted by Griff
Since this burden of proof somehow was diverted to a thread about ejected debris from the towers, I thought I'd post this answer in the correct thread:

Originally posted by jthomas
Griff is a perfect example and his evasions should serve you both as an illustration and education of the 9/11 Truth Movement's inability to make any headway.

I am not evading ANYTHING. I have said it once and I guess I'll say it again for the retards out there.

I would need the structural documentation to "prove my theories". But, since you nor I have those, neither you nor I can make certain that what we are being told is correct. But, in any case I will eat crow if I'm proven wrong.

So far, all I hear from you is ad hominim. Which should have gotten you warned at least by now. I wonder why you haven't? Biased mods on here again?

Anyway, get me the needed documentation and I'll have your peer reviewed report for you. Until then, it is all speculation. ON BOTH SIDES!!!!!!!

So, don't sit there with your jrefer attitude and keep saying over and over "the burden of proof is on you". No it damn well is NOT. I did not make the claim that planes and fire brought down 3 buildings that day. You want proof? Ask your precious government for it. Because so far, they aren't giving any out.

[edit on 2/26/2008 by Griff]

And I will provide my response to the above:

The conclusions of what happened on 9/11 came from thousands of lines of independent evidence and independent eyewitnesses that all converged to demonstrate what happened on that day. To date, six years later, the NIST report stands on it own, having demonstrated to the satisfaction of an overwhelming majority of structural engineers, forensic scientists, architects, physicists and chemists that the combination of the damage from the crashes of AA11 and UA175, and the unfought fires burning in WTC 1 and 2 were sufficient to initiate global collapse.

In addition, the NIST report's evidence, methodology, and conclusions are fully open to the world. Anyone, including you, are welcome to challenge it or refute it. During the investigation, NIST had many public hearings and welcomed people to write in their concerns. The world has hundreds of thousands of qualified people who have the ability to affirm, question, or refute the NIST findings or any part of them. In fact, some flaws have been found.

What we note is, in the years since the NIST report came out on WTC 1 and 2, is that the findings and conclusions about what happened have been challenged by you and others. What we do not see is any massive refutation, thousands of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating that the several hundred NIST investigators got it wrong.

Now, in all these "debates" we have many of you here stating, as you do above that "I did not make the claim that planes and fire brought down 3 buildings that day." Furthermore, you state that I "...keep saying over and over "the burden of proof is on you". No it damn well is NOT."

All you are doing is claiming is that the NIST report does not demonstrate that it's conclusion is correct.

So, Griff, if you claim that the burden of proof is not on you to demonstrate NIST's conclusions are wrong, just WHO do you expect is going to?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Leo Strauss

 

The person making an assertion has the burden of proof. Without proof, I'm not sure I'd even say you have a theory, but more of a guess/hunch, or if it's about a specific individual- slander.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

The person making the assertation is the government agencies that have failed to provide their proof.

So, why do you people follow it blindly and then complain about "truthers" not having any proof?

Huge double standard if there ever was one.

And if you can't see it, you are either not very bright, in denial, or are here not to find truth.

Take your pick.

reply to post by Griff


Because Truthers are also making assertions, and they also have a burden of proof. Why is this so hard to understand? The government's assertion isn't a speculation- it's merely pointing out planes hit the WTC and Pentagon, they were hijacked, the WTC collapsed. All these things happened. Truthers on the otherhand are claiming conspiracies of all types, and all sorts of ways that the WTC collapsed, or what hit the Pentagon. That requires a lot higher burden of proof, when there isn't evidence that would lead one to immediately jump to that conclusion.

Originally posted by Griff
And if you can't see it, you are either not very bright, in denial, or are here not to find truth.

Take your pick.

Or perhaps I'm none of the above, and have come to different conclusions than you have, and don't feel that there's more truth that still needs to be discovered. Whatever coverups happened in my opinion were to hide incompetence, not complicity.

No skin off my nose! You think you are right but you are wrong. Can you even admit to fault or personal failure ever? I think not, for in your mind you never make a mistake! I really have no respect for those types of people. 90% of the people on this board would agree with me, not you, in this debate.

You will never comprehend, that it was the government who did their analysis, put forth a "bold claim" (their official account of 9/11) and THEY failed to show a preponderance of evidence in the case. That is the exact reason why over the last 6 1/2 years the 9/11 Truth Movement has been able to question nearly every account they put forth....their story doesn't hold water and is riddled with assumptions and peculiarities.

It is what they want us to believe WITHOUT question. 9/11 skeptics will question it with good reason...you can't cover up all the sloppy discrepancies, just like Rumsfelds' freudian slip about shooting down the plane. Done, that is it, I swear, I will spend no more time responding to your comments, as you sir are a lost cause. Like I said before, you go ahead and keep believing that the powers that be really care about you individually and are totally honest with you, all the time. Sleep tight, sweet dreams!

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Because Truthers are also making assertions, and they also have a burden of proof. Why is this so hard to understand?

It's not. And I can agree to a certain extent.

The government's assertion isn't a speculation- it's merely pointing out planes hit the WTC and Pentagon, they were hijacked, the WTC collapsed. All these things happened.

Yes, all those things happened. But, why did the "government's assertions" leave out the things that didn't fit nicely into their pre-concieved notions?

Truthers on the otherhand are claiming conspiracies of all types, and all sorts of ways that the WTC collapsed, or what hit the Pentagon. That requires a lot higher burden of proof, when there isn't evidence that would lead one to immediately jump to that conclusion.

Actually, for me at least, it is the witholding of the evidence that the government DOES have that has made me "jump to conclusions". If it's all fuzzy bunnies and white light, why are we kept in the dark?

Or do you believe the five year old that has chocolate smeared on their face when they say "I didn't eat the cookies out of the cookie jar"?

This whole burden of proof thing is rediculus to begin with. How are we to bring evidence to the table when evidence has been thrown away or kept from the public at large?

How can you trust them when they are hiding things from you?

Blind trust?

Not me. It didn't work with the great man in the sky and it's not going to work with 9/11 on me. I need proof. Not: "Trust me. There's nothing to see here. Move along".

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Whatever coverups happened in my opinion were to hide incompetence, not complicity.

And that's still ok with you?

I bet if it was Clinton covering up his incompetence, you'd be one of the first to yell "Impeach" right?

Why is ok for Republicans to be so incompetent? Is it because you are part of their party?

Again. Blind faith.