Physical Evidence v. Circumstantial Evidence

It seems - to me, anyway - that the reason so many of these threads here in the 9/11 forum get so nasty is over the issue of "evidence".

For example(none of this is verbatim):

"No way in hell that a 757 flew into the Pentagon."

"Really? So what you're saying is that the bodies strapped in their seats isn't evidence?"

"What bodies? And what seats?"

"Do you homework. Bodies were found still strapped in their seats, and identified. Bodies aren't enough for you?"

"Who said the bodies were the passengers of Flight 77?"

"What - are you saying they're lying about that?"

"It's hearsay - not evidence."

"So what - if YOU didn't see the bodies for yourself, it's not considered proof enough for you?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I won't speak for anybody but myself, but the big problem I have with the whole report is that everything about the investigation was performed by govt officials and people they chose to investigate, based on their "expertise". This was NOT an independent investigation by any stretch. Jeez, it was hard enough to get any kind of investigation at ALL! And the funds designated to conduct the investigation were so miniscule when compared to past murder investigations of a single human being.

Okay, so the govt conducts the investigation, but by their own rules. They called all the shots. They want us to believe them, but don't want to give us what we need to see in order to believe them. Physical evidence. Documentation. Video tapes. FDR and CVR audio from Flight 77. Even testimony under oath was off the table, but testifying in pairs was allowed.

As a souvenir of their hard work, they give us a book. The Holy Bible, King George Version.

So what is a person to do, if after they read the book, are even MORE convinced that they are being told a lie? They know that they are being told what the govt wants them to believe, nothing more and nothing less.

When someone, like myself, is not allowed access to any physical evidence, I have no choice but to research the circumstantial evidence. Contrary to popular belief, circumstantial evidence is not shunned in a criminal trial. In fact, people have been convicted of heinous crime, due largely to the massive amount of circumstantial evidence, ie. Scott Peterson. He was convicted based on his behavior patterns before and after Laci's disappearance/murder.

The last 6+ years, I have been placed in the position of reviewing the circumstantial evidence surrounding 9/11. It basically started with reading about bin Laden and al Qaeda....which led me in the direction of the CIA....which led me in the direction of GHWB....which led me in the direction of Saudi Arabia/Bin Laden family/Bandar royalty....and on and on and on it goes.

Tie all of it up with the PNAC membership and credo, and a 9/11 case based on circumstantial evidence is a slam dunk.

here's the link to the NTSB report on AA 77's FDR. Oh, wait...don't tell me. The NTSB's in on it too? Exactly what independent body would you suggest investigate plane crashes?

http://www.911myths.com/AAL77_fdr.pdf

for whatever reason, I was thinking about the audio evidence (CVR), but a temporary brain fart included the FDR. My apologies. The rest of my post still stands.

As for the NTSB, they are a govt entity. If the "9/11 terrorist attacks" were successful as a result of one major govt fuck-up, the govt has no right to be participants of the investigation. Are you telling me that only govt agencies are capable of conducting one?

than the NTSB to investigate. Do you think career civil servants are just mindless robots who do what they're told?

Below is only a partial list of rescue/recovery teams that worked the crash scene at the Pentagon. How likely do you think it would have been to coordinate the "9/11 Fable" with all of them, especially given the fact they had no prior idea they'd be involved?

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police

I do respect and admire that you obviously have put alot of time into researching the topic. Really.:)

But don't you see a pattern with your list? US govt, the whole lot of them.

I am also quite sure that many of them were NOT involved in the "gathering of evidence". My cousin, who is a medic in the Army, was at the WTC and wasn't allowed anywhere near the site. All they would let him do is direct the bodies to the makeshift morgues that had the space. In other words, SELECT people were allowed in certain areas.

Having said that....you ask me who I think should have done the investigation. Well, I don't know - but here's a suggestion: God knows that the US has butted into every other country's business. Maybe it's well past time that we allow another govt to check us out. Heck, gather a bunch of experts in the various fields, from all over the world - selected by the UN.

Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department,Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, Salvation Army Disaster Services, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State Police are most certainly NOT feds.

but there is a such thing as "chain of command".

Besides, I'm not talking about the rescue/recovery efforts. Heck, I'm not even talking about the Pentagon. How did we get back to that?

I'm talking about direct (physical) evidence versus circumstantial evidence.

What evidence do we have that proves Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda cohorts masterminded 9/11? How come Bush himself admitted that he didn't care where Bin Laden is? And how come, when I go into my main county post office, the Most Wanted poster of Bin Laden makes absolutely no mention of 9/11? I even went so far as to crouch down to read the fine print at the bottom. The poster was printed 1/2006. Huh. Five years later and still no mention of the attacks. How come, when Rumsfeld was interviewed in October 2001, he didn't say that a 757 hit the Pentagon, but rather, "a missile"?

I know, I know....I'm just being nit-picky. I should just accept what I've been told, no questions asked. How did Bushler say it? "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists". Awesome.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We have LOADS of access to obscene amounts of circumstantial evidence, no? And don't you find it more than just a little incriminating?

Can't you see the obvious?

1. The PNAC - who founded it; it statement of principals; their dream of a "New Pearl Harbor" - AGAIN, I ask you to look at the list of members of the PNAC, look at who has been a key player in the Bush Administration.

2. The 2000 election - look at the reasons why the State of Florida had to turn to the courts; look at who the governor of Florida was at that time, and then look at the list of PNAC members again. Use that CRITICAL THINKING of yours and think about why the election was rigged. Why were they so hell-bent on getting Bush in office at that particular time?

3. Donald Rumsfeld was given the job of temporary head of the National Military Command Center, just a couple months before 9/11. Placing him in that position gave him the power to be the sole authority to any military response. Again - look at the list of PNAC members.

4. Osama bin Laden - trained by the CIA and given the alias name Tim Osman. Loads of evidence that the ties between the CIA and OBL haven't been severed, as we were led to believe. Furthermore, when our forces had him cornered, they were told to stand down.

5. Long delay in military response on 9/11 - remember who was in charge of giving the go-ahead.

6. When Bush was told by Andy Card about the 2nd tower hit, why didn't he wait for a response from Bush? He immediately walked away. Bush was not whisked away by SS. He didn't dismiss himself. He just sat there while his people were being attacked.

7. The Patriot Act - an over 300-page document that was drawn up and signed 45 days after 9/11. OVER 300 PAGES.

8. Announcement of the creation of the Homeland Security Dept, nine days after 9/11.

9. All commercial flights were grounded, but the Bin Laden family was given special privileges - and let's not forget that the FBI was denied access to the family for questioning.

10. BushCo pushing for a non-investigation of the attacks; but when proven that investigation was inevitable, they refused to produce documents. Bush and Cheney would testify, only on the condition that it was behind closed doors, not under oath, and as a pair - not separately.

11. The decades-long lovefest between the Bush/Bandar/BinLaden families.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The points I posted above are but a smidgen of the circumstantial evidence I speak of. The way I see it, I have two choices here:

a. I could accept the 9/11 Commission Report - which tells us that Arab extremists of the amateur pilot variety, somehow, someway, managed to pull off aviational feats that most well-seasoned pilots admit they could never accomplish; and that all four planes vaporized or melted or disappeared (even though up to that point, it's never happened before); and that three buildings fell freefall as a result of fire, two of which were within 1-2 hours after impact and the other never having the impact of a plane hitting it (also unprecedented); that the Pentagon was penetrated by a 757 which was being flown at high speed and just above ground, a miraculous feat - and again, by an amateur pilot; and that the Shanksville scene was simply the result of a jet crashing into the ground; and that all of this happened because of the "confusion", "miscommunication" and "incompetence" of our national defense and federal law enforcement agencies.

OR

b. I could look at the extremely high improbability of all those unprecedented events having worked in the favor of inexperienced pilots, who had no way of knowing how our national defenses would respond; had no experience flying commercial airliners; miraculously cleared all security in the airports (think about that...all 19 of them cleared security); calculate the odds; and then think about who told us this story - the same people who have lied to us incessantly to achieve their agenda.

Conspiracy? Without a single doubt.

I'm not even sure where to start. Maybe we should start with the big picture. Wherever you read this stuff, do you even vet it to make sure it's remotely true? Do you bother to try to falsify it or do you just buy it outright. Your claim that "it's conspiracy...no doubt" makes me even more suspicious that you didn't do any independent research whatsoever. A lot of it sounds like it comes from "Loose Change" which is so error-ridden, it isn't even funny. I would actually love to see you repost this and link to any proof you have for these claims. And I don't mean link to a website that makes the claims, I mean whatever documentation they claim as proof.

Not sure though as I don't think anyone is tracking obscure 9/11 statistics.

What kind of "investigation" is that?

Not any kind I ever head of before, that's for certain.

"all the evidence" was NOT shipped to China:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3B.pdf

and BTW welcome to the dungeon. :hi:

Open your mind already, will ya? :evilgrin:

eom.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bdAIbwavmDI

Crimestop OTCers will come up with every imaginable BS objection to whatever you show them, but the case for no commercial jetliner hitting the Pentagon is a slam dunk.

That segment begins with: "You know, it, it might have appeared that way, but..." What's he referring to with that qualification? And why do bullshitters who call themselves "truthers" cut out that part of the report?

...Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x191665


Snap out of it buddy, you can do it -- truth will setcha free.

Jamie Mcintyre is obviously responding to a question. What was that question? And again, why do bullshitters who claim to be "truthers" cut that question out of the segment? Why, indeed, do most versions of that segment on bullshit sites claiming to be "truther" sites even cut out the "it may have appeared that way, but" qualification, picking up in mid-sentence so that Mcintyre seems to start his response with, "From my close up inspection..."?

And why are you trying to dodge my question? You seem to have developed a sudden allergy to the truth.

...said "it may have looked that way," but your pretense that it's important and/or that it's omission somehow debunks the video is a silly diversion from the content of the video that you can't address. You're the one doing the dodging.

MSM's own man, on the scene shortly after the incident, making close observations, said no plane had hit the Pentagon. You don't speak to that, nor do you address the photographic evidence that shows the assertion that a 757 slammed into it is simply ridiculous.

did you know that?

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/index.html

...of course when they get him back to the office he will be required to retract the truth of his first report. He first followed is journalistic instincts and told the truth about what he observed -- that's the point.

His eyes didn't deceive him, his corporate keepers did.

it's YOU who doesn't get it. You're doing the predictable "truther " thing by raising a red herring and ignoring what people are plainly explaining they meant by their own comments. He even puts it in context and makes it perfectly clear that he was responding to a question about a plane having crashed SHORT of the fricking Pentagon. That is what he's answering (in the negative). And, of course, the "truth" movement is completely ignoring the context to make it seem like he's answering a different question.

And when he points out how the "truth" movement is doing exactly what I just described, your fall-back position is something along the lines of, "well, he's part of the mainstream media and his masters have gotten to him". And you guys wonder why you're still a fringe movement when the answer is right in front of you. The dishonestly of the "truth" movement is, ironically, catching up with you.

"I don't know what Mcintyre was responding to when he said 'it may have looked that way'.", then try to pretend not knowing what he was responding to is extremely important. It also shows that you have done little real investigation on your own and appear to just largely what you hear from conspiracy sites. And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

...evidence which clearly demonstrates that it could not have been a commercial jetliner that did that damage.

the hole is largely obscured by smoke and debris? Wouldn't you at least want to get a clear view of the hole before you make yourself look silly? Wouldn't you want to get at least a high resolution image rather than a fuzzy one? Did you even look for one?

As you can see, it was taken before the collapse. I'll be interested to see how you try to refute this.

?click

> "... your pretense that it's important and/or that it's omission somehow debunks the video is a silly diversion from the content of the video that you can't address."

Oh really? In the versions of that clip that haven't been deliberately shortened to take Mcintyre's response out of context, this is the question he was responding to:

"... actually it was Bob Franken with an eyewitness who said that it appeared that that Boeing 757 -- the American jet -- American Airlines jet -- landed short of the Pentagon. Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?"

Now how does Mcintyre answer?

"You know, it, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. {Mcintyre's verbal emphasis}. The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in."

In context, Mcintyre is simply saying, no, it didn't appear that the plane hit short of the building, near the Pentagon, because all he can see is the crashed in side of the building and lots of small debris. You claim that this intentional omission of context doesn't change the "content of the video" in the very same post that you claim he said "no plane had hit the Pentagon." But your lie about what he said -- in which you help to remove the context by omitting the word "near" -- reveals the deliberate intent of the omission of the question he was responding to.

Half-truths -- taking statements out of context and twisting their meaning -- is about as good as it gets with "no-plane truthers." This distortion of reality is served up to buttress the bald-faced lies that the hole was too small and that there wasn't any plane debris.

You spread this bullshit around the web and then have the nerve to say "the truth will set you free." LMAO, when I read that, I couldn't help imagining you with spinning spirals for eyeballs.

You're about as "free" as a heroin addict, Jefferson: you're addicted to bullshit.

...You really do get worked up when this video gets pulled out. Why is that, William? Maybe you'd better have another look:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bdAIbwavmDI

How 'bout addressing the content of the presentation instead of just more nuisance/distraction? Please explain those pre-collapse pics of the impact area -- if you can.

... about what Mcintyre really said, and then answer my question: Why do bullshitters who call themselves "truthers" cut out the question Mcintyre was responding to, which would give a clue what he was really saying? After you explain that, maybe we can discuss why bullshitters who call themselves "truthers" keep insisting that the hole was only 16 feet wide and that there was no plane debris.

... just bug the shit out of you. Here it is again. Why don't you have another look, and this time rather than name calling, why not explain the pre-collapse pictures from 4:02 to 4:50 -- explain how that second floor is left in tact. Did the stabilizer somehow fall off and disappear into some other dimension just prior to impact? And where is the plane wreckage? This was supposed to be a 757 commercial jetliner.

Or you could just call me some more names.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bdAIbwavmDI

Here's a 757 jet:



They don't just disintegrate/vaporize/disappear when they crash -- except, of course, on 9-11.

Did you expect it to just stay near the perimeter? There are also NUMEROUS pictures of wreckage of AA 77 on the lawn. How did it get there?

You forgive yourself for that, because you're on a mission. You forgive the idiot who made that video for lying about the size of the hole and "no plane wreckage," because he's on a mission, too.

I've mentioned before what bugs the shit out of me: coming across one of those rightwing asshole sites with a link to a completely idiotic post on this board, and all the "HA HA HA, look what the DUmmies are saying now. I can't believe they're that stupid. Oh, I can, 'cause they're Dems." That happened again, and I'm pissed. But it doesn't bother "no-planers" to embarrass this board like that, because they're all on a mission. Go ye into all the lands and spread the idiotic bullshit that no planes hit the Pentagon or the WTC.

Take your bullshit mission somewhere else, Jefferson, and I promise you I won't follow you there to rub your nose in it.

only 16 feet wide. It's only off by 74 feet, as the hole was 90 feet wide. See the American Society of Civil Engineering Report:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

There are also clearer photos here.



http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-2#airplane-outlines

More dishonesty from the "truth" movement. Why am I not surprised?

open your eyes and look. The denial on the CT side is astounding.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

...authority on 9-11 is about on par with looking to Dick Cheney for credible reporting on how the invasion/occupation of Iraq is going.

I'm sure, btw, that Uncle Dick would be in complete agreement with all your 9-11 rhetoric -- that alone, ought to tell you something.

You have no clue how the NIST operates, obviously.

NIST had the 140,000 member strong American Society of Civil Engineers do the work. They're the fricking experts. I despise Dick Cheney. But I don't let my disgust for him cloud my judgment when confronted with facts, unlike you. If you can refute the ASCE, be my guest. Screaming repeatedly that all the experts are "in on it, too" isn't very impressive, especially when they can prove their claims and you can't.

...that no commercial jetliner could possibly be what hit the Pentagon, and instead just repeatedly cite government reports -- it's a bogus and transparent distraction tactic to avoid acknowledging the truth.

photos that show a hole much larger than what the "truth" movement claims was supposedly created by anything other than a 757, pictures and video that show the lawn and the crash site littered with debris easily identified as an AA jetliner and the eyewitness testimony of people describing exactly what they saw (and which you and the "truth" movement twist beyond recognition) aren't reliable. Really.

I cite "government reports" (of course, you're conveniently ignoring all the evidence/sources which have NOTHING to do with the government) because they CONTAIN the fricking direct evidence, which we should expect that they would do. Honestly, I don't think you're going to get very far with a pseudo-RW anti-government rant. Bush and Cheney are not trustworthy, but to impugn anyone and everyone who is a career civil servant (many of whom privately despise Bush and Cheney) is a gross disservice to them.

..."I've seen this, I've seen that, read the report," you're full of bullshit. Why can't you speak to the video evidence of post 11?

Here it is again:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bdAIbwavmDI

Why don't you respond to the pre-collapse condition of the supposed impact area and explain how that could have been done by a 757?

The reason is obviously because you can't.

you just prefer the ones that support your silly claims and are contradicted by the actual evidence.

...or that those pics are of something else? Or were taken before the 757 supposedly crashed into the Pentagon? -- you don't address them at all. Why is that?

is not clear enough for you to rely upon it to draw conclusions. Try the link below:


?click

:sarcasm:

closer, clearer and much larger. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

...Why wasn't that in your original response to my post #11? Could it be because it's so utterly lame, but it's the best you can come up with?

Try again, and this time look at the pre-collapse pics from 4:02 through 4:50 in the video. There's plenty of detail there and it's abundantly clear by the absence of plane wreckage and lack of damage to the building's second floor that no 757 hit could possibly have hit there.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bdAIbwavmDI

and open your fricking eyes, would ya? The ENTIRE time in both the video and the stills at the point you're talking about, the firefighters are SPRAYING FOAM on the site. How honest is it to pick that moment to represent that area to the viewer? Why don't the truthers let the viewer see an unobstructed view? Try to piece this together here. Which do you think is a clearer shot of the site? One in which foam is being sprayed or one in which it isn't, affording the viewer an unobstructed view?

Please don't flatter yourself by claiming you had to 'drag anything out of me'. This is getting silly.

a looooong time ago.

:rofl:

Duh.

That's not a missile. No missile is 14 feet wide, and explosion damage would be considerably wider (setting aside for the moment that no HE was observed at the Pentagon). So it's neither a penetration hole or damage from an immediate detonation.

What is it?

:rofl:

Crimestop knows no bounds -- carry on, poster child.

ASCE report. Jesus.

There was a lot of physical and documentary (photographic) evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, as well as a lot of eyewitness testimony -- nothing "circumstantial" about any of that. A certain group of "truthers" simply deny that the evidence is valid, based on absolutely nothing except that it conflicts with their conspiratorial speculations and suppositions. They just claim that all the physical evidence was planted and all the witnesses are lying, so anything is possible. That's not a rational argument, so trying to reason with them is a complete waste of time, and no "independent" investigation is going to change that. End of story.

I have been saying for quite some time that we need an international investigation.

BTW, looks like you have ruffled quite a few feathers...good on ya!

I dunno about that, Hope. I coulda SWORN I heard hissing and the sound of claws being sharpened in here! :)

Sometimes it is better to ignore as it is unlikely, as Lithos has pointed out, that anyone can change their minds. The same is true for the 9/11 questioners -- no amount of "noise" will change our minds.

unless you're not open-minded. For example, I am clearly not in the "truth movement" camp, but I could be persuaded with hard evidence that stands up to scrutiny. Every time I think someone can produce said proof, it crumbles when subjected to scrutiny. It's merely statements taken out of context, people drawing conclusions based upon looking at the entirely wrong thing (for example, the "there's no way a 757 could leave that small a hole" got its start when some truther genius mistook a smaller hole in the wall of one of the inner ringsfor the outer ring of the Pentagon) and, in some cases, deliberate misquoting, clipped quoting or omitting dialogue that contradicts the "truther" claim. If you want more of us to join your movement, come up with hard evidence, don't keep repeating the silly "crimestop" meme over and over.

You've got the wrong poster.

Unclear reference. I meant the "truth movement" in general, not you specifically.