Burden of Proof

The views express herein, to the extent they are incorrect, are mine alone, and not those of 911Blogger.

Burden of Proof


• Who bears the burden of showing that its version of 9/11 is accurate: the government or the 9/11 truth movement?

• Should we stick to issues like the stand down of the military and multiple war games on 9/11, along with the interference with the FBI’s ability to track the patsy terrorists and the facilitation of such patsies’ actions by Pakistan’s ISI, to which the CIA is the real puppeteer? Or should we also discuss the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center? Should we also discuss the anomalies of the Pentagon attack? Or should we discuss other theories about 9/11?

• How can the 9/11 truth movement win?

These questions are all related to a legal concept called the “burden of proof”. While I certainly do not have all of the answers, I am confident that a basic understanding of this issue will help to provide some insight concerning all 3 of these questions.

Initial Versus Shifting Burdens

The burden of proof can be defined as "The responsibility of proving a disputed charge or allegation".

Here's how it works. In any lawsuit, the burden of proof can shift back and forth like a ball in a game of tennis. One party bears the "initial burden of proof": that is, that party must set forth enough evidence to "hit the ball" over the net onto the other guy’s side of the court. Then the other side has to provide enough evidence to refute that argument and hit the ball back. This dynamic is called the "shifting burden of proof".

For example, in a murder case, the prosecution usually has the initial burden to prove that the defendant's act caused the victim's death, and that the defendant acted with malice in planning the murder ahead of time. If the prosecution fails to enough evidence on these issues to “hit the ball over the net”, then its case would fail because the prosecutor failed to meet its initial burden of proof, even if the defendant hasn’t mounted any defense whatsoever.

But if the prosecution does meet its initial burden of proof, than the burden "shifts" to the defendant to disprove the prosecution's claims or to prove some defense. In other words, the defense has to hit the ball back over the net.

In most civil lawsuits, the burden of proof is the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which essentially means that the plaintiff has proved his allegations with greater than 50% certainty (even if only 51%).

Some civil claims however, like fraud, require “clear and convincing evidence”, which is a higher burden of proof. And most criminal claims usually require proof of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is an even higher burden of proof.

Many 9/11 activists have incorrectly assumed that the government has the burden of proving that the official story is true. But it is the 9/11 truth community who would be filing lawsuits against the government, or convincing public prosecutors to do so. In either case, because the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks would be the defendants in such lawsuits, it is the 9/11 truth community which would bear the initial burden of proof.

Only if we can meet that initial burden would the burden shift to the defendant-perpetrators to introduce sufficient evidence to “prove” the official 9/11 story.

Of course, if the government brought a lawsuit against Bin Laden, the government would bear the burden of proof against him. The government clearly has not met its burden of proof against Bin Laden. Indeed, the U.S. never produced the white paper which it long ago promised would prove that Bin Laden was behind 9/11. Moreover, many years after the FBI first stated that it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11, the agency still does not have any hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime. So the government has failed to meet even its initial burden of proof against Bin Laden.

However, the burden of proof in a prosecution against U.S. government officials and other U.S. citizens is entirely different -- that would be an entirely different lawsuit or series of lawsuits, involving different players, than a lawsuit against Bin Laden and his cohorts. Not only would the defendants be different, but so would the claims. For a suit against U.S. government officials would include charges like treason.

The Court of Public Opinion

So far, we have been discussing the burden of proof in the legal context. That is, we are talking about the U.S. justice system.

But the same concept may be applied, by analogy, to other contexts. For example, the struggle for 9/11 truth is largely being fought for the hearts and minds of the American public; that is, in the “court of public opinion”. In that setting, as opposed to the justice system, who bears the burden of proof?

Unlike in the justice system, there are not clearly defined rules about burden of proof. However, the burden of proof in the court of public opinion obviously largely depends on whether the majority of Americans trust or distrust their government at any given time. Between 2002 and 2005, 9/11 activists had a difficult time breaking into the mainstream, largely because people just could not believe that their government could do something as horrible as inflict mass casualties on its own people (that is, carry out a false flag terror attack).

But with the new appreciation by many Americans that the current administration knowingly lied its way into the Iraqi war, that the administration cares as much for the lives of the people of New Orleans as it does for some third world people on the opposite side of the globe, and that there are other indications that this administration cannot be trusted, many more people are willing -- in 2006 -- to consider the question of what really happened on September 11th. To some extent, the government has become so untrustworthy in the eyes of a portion of the American public that it has the burden of proving its claims.

However, there is virtually hard-wired into many millions of Americans a respect for authority and a severe resistance to question their leaders. Therefore, while 9/11 truth is starting to gain some mainstream media coverage, and momentum is on the side of truth, we still have the burden of proof in the eyes of a large chunk of the American public.


The burden of proof with congress appears to be that we have to convince the congresspeople that they can only keep their jobs if they pursue 9/11 truth and justice. For example, congress only voted to impeach Nixon when it became apparent that if congress didn’t impeach Nixon, the American public would throw all of the bums out of office in the next congressional election cycle.

How Can We Meet the Burden of Proof?

Let’s say there are two lawsuits being prosecuted involving claims of first degree murder (i.e. identical claims, and thus identical burdens of proof, at least assuming they are filed in the same jurisdiction). The first involves an allegation that the defendant, after being fired from his job, got drunk, and then murdered his ex-wife after he caught her in bed with his boss. The second involves an allegation that the murderer was an alien from another planet who was jealous that the victim was more handsome than the alien. The prosecutor in the first case will have a much easier job meeting his burden of proof than the prosecutor in the second case.

Even if the space alien had killed someone out of jealousy, a good prosecutor would probably not talk about that in court. The prosecutor would, instead, probably prove that the defendant was at the scene of the crime and possessed a murder weapon, and paint motive with broad brush-strokes. But a prosecutor who wanted to obtain a conviction against the murderer would probably left unsaid the whole “space alien” part of it, even if true. Don’t believe me? Ask any good attorney you know.

This is what lawyers call "choosing the theme of the case". A lawyer looks at a large number of different facts, and then chooses the "theme" -- i.e. the particular story -- which is most likely to convince the judge and jury. A lawyer spends alot of thought before a trial in choosing his theme, as this is a key to winning or losing the case.

Likewise, different factual allegations about what happened on 9/11 will have more or less success.

5 Useful Questions

It might be helpful to ask 5 questions to help determine the amount of likely success in meeting the burden of proof concerning specific factual allegations concerning 9/11. Specifically, for the factual allegation to be true, we should ask:

(1) How many different people would have had to be involved?

(2) How many different agencies/companies would have had to be involved?

(3) How diverse would the agencies/companies have to be?

(4) How high would the technology have to be? Remember that most Americans only understand billiard-ball type 19th century Newtonian physics and old-fashioned technologies like phones. They hear a lot about new technologies, but don’t understand them. So the real question is whether the technology seems “normal” enough that people could easily believe it was used on 9/11.

(5) How obvious an attempt to cover up the true facts was made?

The meaning of these factors will become clear when we discuss specific examples.

Let’s start with a stand down of the military. For that allegation to be true:

(1) Cheney and maybe a few others would have had to be involved (see this discussion);

(2) Cheney and perhaps Norad were involved, so not many agencies.

(3) Cheney and Norad are both government-related, so there is no tremendous diversity involved;

(4) The technology involved is not that high-tech. Perhaps a system to inject false radar blips and perhaps (according to Michael Ruppert), the use of the Secret Service’s parallel communications system. I would argue that these are within the realm of “normal” technology from the public’s perspective; and

(5) Norad lied to the 9/11 Commission and the American public, and Cheney would not testify under oath to that Commission, so a concerted effort to cover up the facts was indeed made.

Thus, I think we can meet our burden of proving a stand down of the military.

Okay, let’s do the same analysis for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7:

(1) A handful of demolition and ordinance experts would have had to be involved, and someone would have had to let them in the towers;

(2) Such operatives may have come from a single government agency (and maybe Marvin Bush opened the door?);

(3) Very little diversity of agencies was required (if they’re all from the same shop, then there isn’t any diversity);

(4) The technology to demolish the Twin Towers was probably more high-tech than dynamite. After all, the towers collapsed from the top down, and it would be tough to sneak in enough dynamite to bring down the towers. But Professor Jones has demonstrated the likelihood that substances related to thermite and perhaps RDX might have brought the towers down. While something like “superthermite” is a high-tech invention, in the eyes of most Americans, the use of explosives would still be thought of as “normal” technology, and thus believable (but nuclear weapons, although around since WWII, are still thought of as high-tech and exotic by most Americans, and thus less “normal” and believable. Scalar weapons, if they exist, would be thought of as even more exotic and much less “normal”, and thus wholly unbelievable by the majority).

(5) A massive effort was made to cover up the true facts surrounding the collapse of the towers. In an unprecedented move, the government kept everyone (including the official government-hired researchers) away from ground zero, and carted the debris – under heavy security - off to China.

So, while I believe it will be more difficult to meet the burden of proof concerning controlled demolition than a stand down (as shown by the lower percentages in the recent Scripps/Ohio poll), given the outstanding work over the last couple of years by controlled demolition researchers, we can meet our burden of proof.

Finally, let’s take a look at the “no planes hit the World Trade Center” theory held by a small group of 9/11 researchers:

(1) The number of people who would have needed to be involved are unknown to me;

(2) People working for the government and people working for the mainstream media would have had to be involved. Presumably, therefor, people from different government agencies and many different media companies would have had to be involved;

(3) The diversity in entities/companies would have to be huge. Specifically, not only would governmental people have to have a hand in faking the video footage of planes crashing into the Twin Towers, but all of the mainstream television companies would have had to be in on it also, since they would have had to insert real-time images and allow those images to be broadcast world-wide;

(4) Because the vast majority of the American public does not know that real-time technology exists to insert fake video images (the fake first-down line in pro football is a wholly-different animal –- unmoving, and much less sophisticated), most Americans would not believe that this technology exists; and

(5) Personally, I know of no verifiable effort to cover up any facts concerning insertion of real-time fake video images on 9/11.

Let’s focus on factors 3 and 4. For the 9/11 truth community to bear its burden of proof for the assertion that no planes crashed into the Twin Towers, the judge, public, or congress would have to be convinced that the U.S. government the entire mainstream media was directly complicit in 9/11. This is exponentially more difficult than convincing someone that the government was involved.

And for the burden of proof to be met, the judge, public, or congress would have to be convinced that technology exited in 2001 to insert in real-time into the live video-camera feed moving images of airplanes. Again, this is so far beyond what most Americans think of as “normal” technology, that this task would be virtually impossible.

I have seen nothing to date that has convinced me that Boeing airplanes did not crash into the Twin Towers. But more importantly, even if that allegation were true, I believe that factors 3 and 4 would make it virtually impossible to prove the burden of proof on that allegation.

Does that mean that the "no planes" theory should not be researched or discussed? No. There is freedom of speech. And the truth should be pursued, if there is anything there. But presenting that issue to the judge, public or congress would -- in my opinion -- sabatoge the chances of the 9/11 truth movement in meeting its burden of proof. (That doesn't mean I'll close my eyes to the issue -- I'll keep looking at the allegations. I might be wrong, and I might end up owing a big apology to the no-planers. But it is unlikely that I will change my assessment that the no-plane theory is a losing theme of the case for 9/11 truth.)

I want to win the fight for 9/11 truth and justice. I believe that reflection on the concept of the burden of proof will help in this effort.

Postscript . . . A reader points out:

"In science or logic (not law), the burden of proof lies with the party that advances an argument or theory about whatever facts are available. If their theory cannot explain all of the facts, it should be rejected or 'accepted' only provisionally until a better theory comes along.

The official story is such a theory. Since this theory contains scores of anomalies, avoids counter-evidence, and does not come near to explaining all of the facts, it does not meet its burden of proof, and we are therefore bound by the rules of science and logic to look for other theories that can explain the facts better."

I agree that the 9/11 truth movement has already refuted the official version of 9/11 beyond any reasonable doubt. Again, this essay focuses on the burden of proving unlawful actions by elements within the U.S. government, other U.S. citizens, and/or their co-conspirators.

9/11 Chalk Blogging at MTSU

Wow - I just walked across campus here at Middle TN State Univ., and to my amazement, in the courtyard, someone took chalk and wrote in huge letters: "WATCH LOOSE CHANGE (ON GOOGLE VIDEO)". Then, as I'm walking into the library, I see written in chalk on the front columns: "911truth.org", "Don't trust anything", "Loose Change", etc.

This absolutely made my day. WE ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE!!!

“No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.” ~Edmund Burke

Only one truth exists

No matter how you look at this there "are" unanswered questions and inquiring minds continue to manifest speculation. Notwithstanding, when forensic information is withheld, distorted or incomplete what alternatives are there anyway? A complete and unequivocal independent analysis would timely resolve every issue that hangs from the threads of suspicion and doubt. Why not provide the American people everything (anything) that is presently locked away in order to liberate the truth and settle the historical record once and for all . . . hmmmm? The once minority is becoming a majority of millions of people demanding that this elemental data be released. For unless there "is" a big, bad secret there can be no basis for continued subterfuge. Alas, I am convinced that the pressure points are coming to bear a heavy burden. This week visit one of the many sites that purvey the survivor lists and pictures, look at these faces . . . let them not be forgotten. And remember that: "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.” Samuel Adams

Let's Hope

This doesn't fall on deaf ears.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

Only a complete truth is

Only a complete truth is obsolete.
Every hangout version is a sellout to the perps.


This Is Not Rocket Science...

I asked three random non-9/11 Truth people yesterday this question.

"What would you say if I told you no planes struck the towers on 9/11?"

The consensus was, "You're F_cking Crazy."

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

And that sums up the purpose

And that sums up the purpose of the NPT @ the WTC....


No question in my mind.

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

Gandhi Quote

Jon and All,

While I admire Gandhi for his passion and integrity, I have to give him a failing mark when it comes to his understanding of public propaganda and reactionary reality, at least as expressed in the cited quotation.

Clearly there is a public mythology that has been created by various malefactors surrounding 9/11. ABC's upcoming broadcast being the latest example: http://tinyurl.com/qf3hu

Other examples of public mythology include the Kean-Zelikow Report and recent movies "United 93" and Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center".

Rather than quoting Gandhi in regard to the possibilities that the truth about 9/11 will break out, we might be wiser to consider the views of someone who seems to be a mentor and predecessor to our current criminal administration and their malevolent minions in the media:

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1925

The fact of the matter is that 9/11 is the best Big Lie ever told. From the standpoint of the criminals who perpetrated 9/11 and profited from their crime 9/11 has been a stunning success.

"Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur" - The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived!

Not talking about propaganda

I agree with you about propaganda and the creation of modern mythology, but clearly that is NOT what Gandhi was talking about. He was pointing to a truth deeper than consensus reality which cannot be manipulated. You can certainly disagree with him about the existence of that kind of truth, but I think that quote suggests he was very aware of the nature of propaganda and believed that truth would prevail.

Only a Complete truth is. . .

For what it's worth:

I'm fascinated by the NPT, and Nico & Holmgren's research and writing on this. I don't necessarily BELIEVE it, but I believe it's POSSIBLE, and deserves serious scrutiny. (It's the ultimate science fiction nightmare scenario--global psyops, and why not? That's the world we're moving into. The Situationists foresaw all this 30 years ago already--"Society of the Spectacle"!)


GW frames the big picture well, from rhetorical and strategic points of view.

All that is required is to re-open the investigation IN THE PUBLIC'S MIND; there is more than enough evidence to do that now, as everyone agrees. So, yeah, focus on the unbeatable wedges in public activism, and keep the debate over the more speculative & maddening fine points to the forums and blogs, where possible. But it's prob. inevitable the MSM attacks will pick up NPT and run it with it.

The whole thing is such a con game-house of cards, it seems to me any "TRUE" investigation (not sure what that would consist of, exactly) will crack everything wide open--even the media's low or high complicity--and these other questions can be resolved with much more fact available than now, where *everything* has become questionable & up for grabs: the testimony, the photos, the seismographic records--it's all a kind of delirious freefall, no ground to stand on, & that is driving recrimination among the researchers, and confusion and disbelief among the newbies.

Fun to watch, tho, in a black humor sorta way.

That's my 2c, don't know if it helps!

Britain's second biggest newspaper covers 9/11 truth

The Daily Mail, Britain's second biggest-selling daily newspaper with millions of readers, has a largely favourable article about the Scholars for 9/11 Truth today:


Here's another story linked in above article...


Ever wonder why they could not have, or never even attempted to, ID at least 1000 of the victims? Think about this.

In a regular building collapse (think earthquakes), in almost all cases they are able to recover most of the bodies intact. Right?

Instead, here we have the remains of at least 1000 people that cannot be identified. What happened to them?

I have a hypothesis. They were blown to bits!!! Pulverized like everything else...little minute fragments probably still sitting in a goddamed landfill.

Sorry for my harsh tone. Not trying to sound disrespectful. But just had to tell it as is.

Oh my God!

A total of 20,730 remains, which include tiny bone fragments and tissue, have been recovered in the last five years. But 9,797 of them have not been identified.

That figure includes 760 remains found on top of the wrecked Deutsche Bank building at Ground Zero in recent months.



You have to a flipping idiot to not see this.

Man I'm mad!

Along the banks of denial

under the shady trees, it's a nice place to rest.

Daily Mail

hello Shoestring.

Thanks for the link.

Yes it was good to see the article.

What I was amazed at was the commenters.
Did you read the comments.
Of course there is someone filtering the comments. So, we don't know how many comments have been rejected or edited.

I put in two comments myself which had links to Thompsons timeline, loose change and terrorstorm as well as Griffins books. I don't know if Daily Mail will let them be published or it might heavily edit them.

About 20 out of 30 comments poo pooed the 911 truthers.
It was disgusting. I could just smell that very few of these people have even looked into it. It was a lemming kind of thing to bash the 911 scholars.

Nearly none of the 30 commenters stated anything beyond an opinion. Barely even a few comments had even a fact in it.

But one thing is for sure, these people probably can be easily swayed to the truth, at least to investigate. The fields are white people and ready for harvest. I don't think they could resist all the books, videos and facts we could send there way. Most people are simple. And these people sure appeared that way. We just need to get the truth into them either thru talking to them or writing something for them to read.

They talk with such certainty but I don't believe they are certain.

Britain's second biggest newspaper covers 9/11 truth--Excellent!

That is an excellent article^!!! Thank you Britain!!!

Most 9/11 Recovery Workers Suffered Lung Ills

Most 9/11 recovery workers suffered lung ills
70 percent of WTC responders developed symptoms, major study shows


NEW YORK - Nearly 70 percent of recovery workers who responded to the attacks on the World Trade Center suffered lung problems during or after their work at ground zero, a new health study released Tuesday shows.

Less than a week before the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Mount Sinai Medical Center issued the results of the largest study on related health effects.

It found, among other things, that illnesses tended to be worst among those who arrived first at the site, and that high rates of lung “abnormalities” continued years later.


WTF "Gov. George Pataki


"Gov. George Pataki signed legislation last month that expanded benefits for workers who became sick after toiling at ground zero, but Bloomberg objected to the laws, saying they were unfunded and would cost the city hundreds of millions of dollars."

Blumberg = Zionist pig?

Blumberg = Zionist pig? I think yes.

On September 18th, 2001...

"Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C., that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." - Christie Todd Whitman

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

I think this discussion is

I think this discussion is good, but may have lost sight of something even more basic.

As of today, 9/11 is fundamentally a scientific or logical/rational debate.

In science or logic (not law), the burden of proof lies with the party that advances an argument or theory about whatever facts are available. If their theory cannot explain all of the facts, it should be rejected or "accepted" only provisionally until a better theory comes along.

The official story is such a theory. Since this theory contains scores of anomalies, avoids counter-evidence, and does not come near to explaining all of the facts, it does not meet its burden of proof, and we are therefore bound by the rules of science and logic to look for other theories that can explain the facts better.

At this point, it not strictly necessary to advance any other theory as to what happened. All that is necessary is that we show that the official theory contains serious anomalies, ignores evidence, and/or does not explain all of the evidence. This has been done many times, and from many different angles.

A new investigation of 9/11 is the next logical step in this process, because only through a new investigation will we be able to examine all of the evidence openly and in a rational and dispassionate way.

A scientific theory must explain ALL of the facts. Once all of the facts are assembled and placed before the public, we will be in a position to fashion the best theory that fits them.

I agree that 9/11 looks like an inside job and also agree that it is good to advance this idea as it gets people interested more quickly than just saying that the official story has not met its burden of proof and therefore we must open a new investigation.

But the reality of where we are scientifically is that our strongest and most basic case is to say that the official theory is so full of problems, it cannot be accepted as the correct theory of what happened. And THEREFORE, a new investigation is called for.

"Burden of proof," if confused with the legal use of this term, advances the case too quickly. We are not in a law court yet. We are still trying to figure out what happened. We have a stronger position if we simply hammer at the weakness of the official story and demand a new investigation NOW.

Note: It might be better to use the term "requirement of total evidence" than "burden of proof." The "requirement of total evidence" means that a credible scientific theory must explain all of the relevant available evidence. It cannot cherry pick facts or leave things out, as the official story has done.


Your points are well thought out. However, if we rely on the scientific method prevailing without activism, legal action, and political pressure, what is to say that the next "investigation" won't be another politically-motivated whitewash?

In addition, do we have the time to wait another couple of years for another investigation? There might be another big false flag attack in the meantime. Partly tongue-in-cheek, see: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/08/investigate-this.html

I agree that political

I agree that political activism is of crucial importance.

I am completely on your side.

My point is simply that the strongest logical/scientific argument right now is to focus relentlessly on the failure of the "official theory" to meet its "requirement of total evidence," its scientific "burden of proof."

This argument is simply devastating to the official theory. All rational people are logically bound to accept it, and accepting it does not require that any other theory must replace the official story.

Also, using this argument avoids much of the confusion that arises in so many people's minds when they begin to think seriously about 9/11.

The goal right now, in my view, should be to have a new investigation into 9/11 opened immediately.

This argument is the best logical/scientific way to achieve that goal. It's simple, clear as a bell, straight to the point, and entirely irrefutable.

Once the official theory is smashed for good, there will be plenty of room for new theories that actually do account for all of the facts.

In saying this, I am not saying that other kinds of activity should be curtailed or that other theories should not be presented. Not at all. I am just saying that this argument is the next logical step, the simplest to understand, and the most devastating of all to the official theory.

Anonymous, you

are clearly a very intelligent and well-spoken person, and your points are well worth considering.

I do think we are on the same page. My essay stresses a slightly different angle from your posts, but I respect your points. Let's press ahead on both the scientific/investigative and political/legal fronts at the same time.

Completely agree. Let's

Completely agree.

Let's roll!

Human nature despises a narrative vacuum

I completely agree with you regarding the failure of the official story. However, the official story, in the minds of the general public, is THE STORY, and the story is an absolute necessity. Absence of story leads directly to cognitive dissonance (all these very upsetting facts -- no way to string them together meaningfully) which is intolerable for most people for any length of time. I know that in my own case, although I fundamentally know that I DO NOT KNOW the real story (the best telling of events that bases itself on the kind of hypothesis-testing that you describe) I get a lot of pleasure from Webster Tarpley's story. It's a place of meaning where I can hang my experiential hat. That doesn't mean it's right.

Authoring competing narratives is very problematic. Just deconstructing the official narrative without offering a substitute, however, faces a long uphill battle with human nature.

Good point. The narrative

Good point. The narrative always does enter into this. And the politics.

But in the news recently there have been a couple of stories (NYT, some other guy) in which someone claims that the controlled demolition theory cannot be true because it would be too hard to plant the charges. They usually jump right from this to the implication that the "official story" must therefore be true.

That's just sloppy reasoning, and a waste of everyone's time.

A person who wants to argue in that way should be cut off at the pass with a simple refutation of the official theory. We do not need to have a substitute theory to do that. Just show that there is such an accumulation of counter-evidence to the official collapse theory that it cannot be held to be true by reasonable people.

The person, if rational, is then forced to agree that a new investigation should be opened.

Clears the mind and the air real quick.

(By the way, of course it would be possible for someone to plant those charges.)

To completely demolish a scientific theory, all you need to do is show good counter-evidence, unexplained evidence, serious anomalies--anything that would cause a reasonable person to have significant doubt in the theory. For example, if I claim that I am the Queen of England, you do not need to prove who I really am to demolish my claim. All you need to do is show that there is significant counter-evidence to my claim. Since I am not a woman, I could not possibly be the Queen of England.

Similarly, when people say that the towers fell because the fires were hot, we can demolish their claims by showing the abundance of evidence that indicates that the fires were not hot enough to do what they say. No need to jump to the next step and advance the controlled demolition theory.

No argument from me.

There have been plenty of times when a 9/11 truther has been publically interviewed and backed into a corner. What you describe is the RIGHT way to handle it, but the temptation to start story-telling is very great. (No cell phone calls possible...people claim they got calls...voice synthesis!)

Your theory-demolition protocol might be most useful in handling the trollish types, who assert that if we cannot offer a competing story, we cannot argue against the validity of the official story. (Very interesting illogic -- I wonder if they go to school for that.) A recent example is related to the one you cite: Steven Jones says demolition is a better explanation of the collapses than jet fuel fire. Oh yeah? Then HOW MUCH WOULD IT TAKE in the way of explosives? HOW MUCH? If Steven Jones or another poster here cannot quantify the amount of explosives, then the official (cobbled-together Frankenstein of a FEMA/NIST/Nova) theory cannot be contradicted. So sayeth the trolls.

That is so true. Here's one

That is so true.

Here's one of my favorite short links:

In two minutes he completely demolishes the official story AND makes you feel the horror without supplying any other theory.

No more b.s. investigations! Just slam them with truth!

Who the hell would trust the gov't or their paid shills to do another "investigation"??? Let's be realistic. Just use the Omission Report & NIST Report as proof of a criminal cover-up & fraud!

The Path to 9/11.

Hilarious. Our friends on the left are going apeshit over the Path to 9/11 movie, which blames 9/11 on Clinton for not taking out OBL when given a shot. But, they are using their good buddy Richard Clarke to support the cause, he of the 19 hijackers story.

Richard Clarke

the one who brought us the term Al Qaida?

The one that was a limited hangout with his "I failed you" comment to spin the grand failure theory of incompetence?

hello peak oilers.

Chevron Finds Promising Oil Source in Gulf of Mexico

Promising Source in Gulf of Mexico
Could Boost U.S. Reserves by Half


how to win

i think we need to stick to the really hard stuff like the norad stand down, war games, and mahmoud ahmed/pakistani isi wire transfer.

i would suggest wtc7 but perhaps not the twin towers for an argument concerning demolition. Although i believe wtc1 +2 probably were demolished with thermite type charges.. i don't think we have enough evidence to prove it. In the case of wtc7 the evidence is overwealming and can't be ignored for much longer if we keep pushing.

we also need to demand transparency on the able danger unit.

Peak Oilers


You might want to look at Peak Oil "theory" a little more closely.

This article suggests, based on one test-well, that the reserve could hold 3-15 billion barrels. The US has been in decline since 1970-1 (Hubbert's predicted peak date, btw!). Even if this adds 50% to US reserves, it will only slow the existing RATE of decline. Meanwhile the Cantarell super-giant field just next door (35 billion barrels) is starting to decline.

As the article noted, it's a fraction of Saudi reserves. From a global peak perspective, even discovery of a couple more super-giant fields, each a few times bigger than this one, would only slow global decline, not reverse it.

This discovery in no way contradicts what Peak Oilers have been saying for years. It confirms it. What oil is left to discover in the world is increasingly remote geographically, and hard to get at, technically. This oil is 5 MILES beneath the sea-floor. Plus, the energy and cost to extract this oil is higher = lower "net energy" from the oil for society-at-large.

Check out this comment thread at TheOilDrum.com:

damn, it took longer than i

damn, it took longer than i thought for a peak oiler to show up. i gotta be honest, i only posted that story to stoke discussion on the subject. i actually believe in peak oil to a degree, but im not as absolutist as a Mike Ruppert or someone because the science is purposefully murky. i dont think the Rupperts of the world are completely wrong, but i dont think they are %100 right either. i guess you could call me agnostic on peak oil. you have to admit the science of it all is very murky though. there are lies/spin/half truths to be found on both sides of the argument.

Oily Peakers


I've been obsessed with peak oil for about 5 years now.

Aside from politics around it, it is VERY technically complex. I mean, have you ever looked at the charts oil guys use to estimate reserves? They have multiple categories (proven, estimated, technically recoverable, blabla) and for each category they have probability ratings. Then there are the arguments over which types of oil, which categories and probability ratings go into the peak charts, etc.

I am constantly looking at the critiques of peak oil (abiogenic, corporate price-boosting, "secret" oil finds, etc), but they don't hold up very well. But oil has to be looked at from the economic angle - strength of the dollar, etc. High oil prices prop up the value of the dollar. . . To be honest, there's a lot I don't claim to understand, but it seems the peak oil analysis is one essential tool for understanding what's going on in the world.

Here is what some of the

Here is what some of the nerds are saying.
As one guy says, even if it has 15 billion barrels, that sustains this planet for 6 months. And that assumes you could get at all of it easily. Of course, there would be a steady increase to peak, then decline after which the remainder would be difficult to produce. At 400,000 bpd, that is less than one percent of the planet's daily consumption.

The bottom line is that in the last couple of years, it is confirmed that the number 2 and 3 largest oil fields in the world (Burgan and Cantarell) have peaked and declining steeply. The entire essence of the Matt Simmons argument is that the major Saudi oil fields, including world number one Ghawar, are 4 or 5 decades old and will collapse when massive saltwater injection can't keep up production. There is very good crcumstantial evidence that Ghawar has peaked. Regardless, we are talking a few years here and there for world peak, no more than by the end of the decade. To deny this is to ignore basic depletion rates around the planet.

As explained here, production rate follows the discovery rate by a few decades. World oil discovery peaked in the 1960's and the production peak is right on schedule.

I highly doubt that this discovery will pan out. Even if it does, by the time it gets cranking, it will be a drop in the bucket. And for all of the freaks that think oil shale and tar sands will save us, you don't just pop a straw in the ground and get that stuff. It takes massive freshwater and natural gas to extract it, not to mention a load of refinining. We are right near the end of easy to retrieve light, sweet crude, which is the end of cheap oil.


I suspect that the oil reserves are indeed finite -- ie, we will be running out eventually. The question is when. I think we have plenty of time to be jerked around by the oil-ocracy before the "running out" begins. And there's a huge profit potential in developing oil replacements.

Gone Are The Days

The creator of this topic is an idiot.

Gone Are The Days when the 9/11 truth movement could confortably pretend that "we don't really know what happened on 9/11" and give the government's bullshit story fair consideration. The spooks that towed that line for years are all outed and washed up.

The fact that 9/11 was a false flag Operation is old news. Many people around the world know it already. Instead of moving backwards like the creator of the topic wants, let us press forward and expose the names of the perps involved. The questions we should be asking are WHO did it to us? These criminals are located in the media and the private sector and we should already be circulating their names far and wide.

The few websites that are actually pushing the research forward and naming the names are.


But the spies always oppose hardcore 9/11 truth research and exposes. The spies in the 9/11 truth movement are doing everything to trick us into settling for a limited hangout which will ultimately let the criminals off the hook. A 9/11 truth limited hangout means that the 9/11 perps have succeeded and we have lost. ONWARD WITH TRUTH!


Top 3 disinfo sites? lol

Peak Oil? When? Not according to 60 Minutes...

60 Minutes reported (Google it) that enormous amounts of oil are locked up in the soil/sands of Canada, particularly Alberta. When oil was $5/barrel, it was not feasible to extract it. At today's prices, and with newer technology, it is! We won't run out of oil for a very long time!


There is nothing but Truth. Your incredible American novelist Samuel Clements (Mark Twain) wrote something like this about Truth:

"Lies will spread half way around the world while the truth is still just barely tieing its shoelaces." (Paraphrased)

What's really strange is the motive behind all this skull-duggery. I don't really get it. These men of power are mostly dead as it is, at their age. Why would they inflict all this carnage and rack up a heap of bad karma for themselves and their children and their fellow countryfolk? Are they under somesort of seige, threats or blackmail?

Whatever it is this does not bode well for your nation. Thank you for your efforts to turn the tide of lies and please, also note what happened to Europe and Germany not to long ago as a result of similar fake flagging.

One, I think we really are

One, I think we really are dealing with "Dr. Strangelove" mentalities, and people that are psychopaths and sociopaths in the first place.

Two, the deeper you go down the rabbit hole, the worse it gets, as far as the big conspiracy to try to control the whole globe.


what a blog GW you have a knack for this

The Ball Is in Bush's End of the Court

Quite simply, our case is already made. It has been amply demonstrated that the Bush regime is lying. We do not need to argue about the physical evidence, which is just being used to bait the 9/11 truth movement. 9/11 researchers have amply demonstrated that Bush's story does not hold water. The morphing explanation for why fighters could not intercept the "hijacked" passenger aircraft does not make sense. The regime does everything it can to avert our eyes from the multiple, simultaneous war games on that morning. The 9/11 Commission's report is a joke.

These and other points have been well made by the 9/11 research community. Now the ball is in Bush's end of the court. Instead of allowing our attention to be distracted by baiting about why the towers collapsed, we must sidestep this trap and demand that Bush come up with an explanation that holds water. We must demand that he give us a timeline that works. That he explain why the six or more war games did not paralyze and divert air defenses. Clearly he cannot do this, and that is the reason for the recent NIST and media onslaught of physical-evidence baiting. They are trying to keep the debate focused on the towers.

I repeat: our case is made. Now is the time for a full-court press. Demand that Bush provide a timeline that works. He can't do it!