A reasonable doubt

by **michael meiring** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:55 pm

As far as i can gather, under american law if a crime is commited, the law states that if a reasonable doubt exists, then that SHOULD be enough to quash a guilty verdict. whether the judge is a shill or the witnessess have been 'bought/intimidated' is another matter. Its not stated to prove beyond reasonable doubt, only a reasonable doubt, there may be more than one reasonable doubt as in 9/11 where there are thousands of reasonable doubts regarding the 19 Al Qaaeeeeeeeeeeda alleged perpetrators. the government puts forward its case against the 'alleged' terrorists. One can see instantly why the reopen 9/11 org will never see the light of day in an american court of law. One can prove, as in the 'death on the staircase' so beautifully defended by david rudolph, that even when proving hundreds of reasonable doubts, when you face corrupt judges, government lawyers etc, then you have lost before the trial even begins. When addressing the issues regarding the official 'conspiracy theories' peddled by the american government, one should keep in mind these points when debating the gaping inconsitencies regarding the government official conspiracy theories. If a suspect is accused of a multiple knife wound murder, and no knife wounds are found on the victim, there is a reasonable doubt. The defense would not go on to say, the wounds on the body were made by a handgun or a machine gun or a rifle or whatever else. its not there business to add other conspiracy theories into the discussion, only to refute what the prosecution claims. Such is the fact with the government conspiracy theory version regarding jet fuel bringing the towers down. the government states, ''jet fuel'' ''heat, steel, collapse''. if this was in a truly uncorrupt, unkangerooed court of law, the defense would put forward its defense in the form of, 1. no buildings have ever collapsed this way from heat alone etc....we all know the line of reasoning so i will refrain from explaining it word by word. This is a reasonable doubt. 2. Heat from jet fuel burns at X degrees, impossible to to melt steel beams to form their collapse, another reasonable doubt. 3. firefighters on the scene stated that they had the fire under control, and there was no danger of collapse, these people would be produced as eyewitnessess. another reasonable doubt. theres 3 reasonable doubts to start with. i could name many more reasonable doubts but i think you get the picture. At no time would a proper clued up lawyer or defense attorney start theorising what may have brought the towers, ie, explosives, CD, plasma waves, EMP, or giant rats gnawing at the beams. By diversifying in all aspects of 9/11, shills on these message boards and others are succesful in their task of throwing enough red herrings in to muddy the clearest and purist of oceans. Its important if people what to discuss 9/11 to newcomers to the subject to stick to some important debating tactics. 1. stick to the official 'explanations/conspiracy theories'. counter them with as many reasonable doubts as you can. 2. At no point try to throw in a version of what you think has happened, as this is just another conspiracy theory as muddies the water, excatly what the shills/spooks etc want you to do. A classic side tracking tactic of shills/trolls/spooks etc is to emroil people in an event, lets take the 'plane' that flew into the pentagon. Shills will encorage the discussion along the lines of if it wasant a plane what was it. Its vitally important not to engage in theories about missiles etc, thats excatly where they want you to go, just stick to the official version in establishing reasonable doubt about the plane, ie. 1. wheres the wreckage. A single reasonable doubt' 2. wheres the fuel. another reasonable doubt. 3. wheres the bodies. Reasonable doubt. 4. No black box. lol. Reasonable doubt. theres many other reasonable doubts and im sure yall get the picture. Stick to all reasonable doubts on the official versions and never go into tangents about what may or may not be other conspiracy versions you believe to have happened, this plays right into the hands of the perpetrators and wastes your valuble time and efforts to spread the word. When you apply this strategy to all the official versions of events you may well come to the conclusion that i am not sure what brought the towers down, but i sure as hell know what didant bring them down.

by **zundel** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:36 pm

zundel Unregistered User (10/8/05 3:01 pm) Reply 9/11.........What Did It For You.............? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What.......caused you to become sceptical,cynical, doubtful, etc ...about the official version of the events of 9/11. ? Here are some of the factors that got me curious..........in random order;- 1)...Bush happily listening to the goat story in Florida. 2)...Prior knowledge by "Odigo". 3)...The "Fred Dibnah"../controlled implosions of the twin towers and the miraculous WTC7 collapse. 4)...The "Dancing Israelis'" ......with their cameras and fancy dress. 5)...The vision of the "PNAC"....and their desire for a "pearl harbour".....hence Afghanistan, Iraq,...........and down the road, Iran and Syria. 6)...The significant role played by the "neocons/neolikud" in the higher levels of decision making in the USgovernment. 7)...The instant list of "Al Qaeda" terrorists, especially when one considers many are alive and well. ...The "Kryptonite" passport of Mr Atta. 9)...The selling of airline stock prior to 9/11. 10)..Important establishment figures in America not flying that day. 11)..The immediate denial of involvement in 9/11 by Osama Bin Laden. 12)..The "black boxes". 13)..The miraculous flying skills by the pilot of the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon. 14)..The phantom plane in Pennsylvania,...and all those mobile phone calls. 15)..The thousands of people who didn't turn up for work on the morning of 9/11. The Next Question Is Why.? If in doubt ..........Who Benefits.?????? Chip you are a sad shill. !!! banned Unregistered User (10/8/05 4:25 pm) Reply The dog that didn't bark -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, none of it added up for me--the way Bush acted (not just sitting there like an idiot, he IS an idiot--the fact that if the country was under attack his handlers didn't get him the hell out of their fast), the fact the towers came down exactly like a controlled implosion, of which I had seen two live in my life, plus time lapse photos of the Pittsburgh stadium, so I know what they look like--but I suppose the closer for me was that fighter jets weren't immediately scrambled which is standard protocol. If that didn't happen, which it didn't, then it had to be an inside job. This was right after it happened, long before the info about the war games/drills being run came out. Everything else that came out--the PNAC longing for another "Pearl Harbor", the asbestos passport, Bush flying from hither to yon that day--in truth, nothing I heard remotely supported the view that it WASN'T an inside job. By the way, I still believe that the original plan called for Air Force One to be attacked and Bush killed. But something went wrong, planes were grounded too fast, maybe. So he was superfluous, instead of having Cheney take over an America enraged by the murder of its President and push through martial law right then and there, they had to figure out what to do with Idiot Boy so they flew him around while they came up with a Plan B. Remember, that day there was talk of Air Force One being a target, yet it was allowed to sit on the tarmac, they took their time moseying Bush to it, then instead of getting him under cover in Colorado he goes from Barksdale to Offutt--Tinker to Evers to Chance. Bush is a programmed agent, folks. A wind up toy. I doubt the guy has had a clear thought unaided by booze, recreational drugs or prescription drugs since he was a kid. He's been mind-controlled all along. He acts like it, to anyone who has eyes to see. The winking, strutting, smirking--simply an "alter" who's been convinced he's the cleverest dude on the planet, when actually without his handlers he couldn't find his ass with both hands at this point. But now he's falling apart. The vacant look in his eyes, the droop of his mouth, the perseveration of statements with no basis in reality. By the time they're finished with him he'll probably be sitting in a padded room somewhere staring at the wall repeating fragments of inane phrases over and over again. Or they'll come up with another plan to kill him and blame it on Osama to justify their final takeover. Or they'll Nixonize him and Big Dick Cheney will tell us solemnly, "Ladies and gentlemen, the system works." Any way you look at it, think about the kind of man Poppy Bush is to let them use up his own son and then throw him away.

by **michael meiring** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:05 pm

It seems we just cannot control the urge to go off on tangents and speculate. The facts are there, then you go and spoil it by bringing your alternative conspiracy theories into things, excatly the thing i was trying to eradicate. Dosant matter if bush jnr is what you say or the 'sacrificial goat' in the story he was so engrossed in. You cannot prove your conspiracy theories so why waste time speculating and diverting attention from the known facts? Theres thousands of reasonable doubts when you add them all up, why go off in tangents and introduce a few more conspiracy theories into the poy?

by **slimmouse** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:32 pm

Please Sir, But I saw a Grey plane on my telly live on the day crash into those buildings, not a red, white and Blue one ? I saw not 2, but 3 buildings "pancake" down at freefall speed ? I didnt see a plane hit the deserted bit of the pentagon, nor any wreckage from flight 93 ? Do I have a basis to investigate further my reasonable doubts ?<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

by **antiaristo** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:32 pm

You're right, Michael. It all seems to depend on the opening assumptions. Thereafter the "reasonable doubt" element serves to prevent changes to those assumptions. They never go away. With 9/11 it was "19 Arab hijackers" With David Kelly it was "Suicide" With Jean Charles de Menezes it was "Terrorist" On the third of these they got caught out because one woman with guts did the right thing. The difference between the "opening assumptions" and the truth is vast. Then you throw in "Saddam's WMD" and the importance of Operation Mass Appeal, the NYT and the Niger forgeries is clearly the creation of these "opening assumptions". Whose idea? Well, in Britain they have reversed the assumption of innocence already. If you exercise your right to silence the jury is now permitted to draw inferences. All you need then is a slight lead from the judge.... In practical terms it means WE must play the role of the jury and throw out the usurpers who tell us what to think. And next atrocity we need to go hard on the offensive and challenge EVERYTHING we are fed.

by **michael meiring** » Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:27 pm

slimmouse, Are you missing my point here? We are led to believe that it was american airlines that flew into the towers. The fact that the planes that flew into the buildings were painted up diffrently than american airlines is sure reasonable doubt to me. The point i try to make is, its then not much use going off into where the planes went, whether they landed at this AFB or if they landed on mars. What we do know is that they were not american airliners. Valuble time and energy is wasted trying to determine where or what happened to the airliners, never mind where they went, nobody knows. Flight 93, no wreckage and no bodies, reasonable doubt. If you say there's video footage of flight 93 landing somewhere, fine, great, i havant seen it. Anti aristo. 19 saudi, Al Qaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeda 'terrorists' we are led to believe were on the 'american airliners'. The fact that, is it 9 the last count who have turned up alive and well? theres another 9 reasonable doubts there. If you produced those witnessess in a court of law, the 'prosecution' into the alleged 19 saudi Al Qaaeeeeeda's would collapse there and then. I know as well as you, and you know more than anyone just how corrupt these judges and lawmakers are. From the government pathologist 'especially selected' for the 'home win banker' regarding dr kelly, to the government archeologists spinning every last shred of history. The last roll of the dice is fast approaching, desperate people do desperate things. Get ready for a massive state of emergency one way or the other.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:40 am

Two examples that support your contention <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Forensic mix-up casts fresh Lockerbie doubt Tony Thompson Sunday October 9, 2005 The Observer Dramatic new evidence of forensic errors could see the man accused of planting the Lockerbie bomb win a new appeal against his conviction, The Observer has learned. Lawyers acting on behalf of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi are said to have uncovered anomalies suggesting vital evidence used to convict their client came from tests conducted months after the terror attack. Pan-Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, when about half a kilo of plastic explosive was detonated in a cargo hold, killing 270 people including 11 on the ground. Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer and head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines, was convicted in January 2001 and sentenced to 27 years in jail after a three-year joint investigation by the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the FBI. His co-accused, al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was cleared. Fingertip searches of the crash site found fragments of a Samsonite suitcase and parts of a Toshiba radio cassette player as well as several pieces of clothing covered in explosive residue. Investigators claimed both the suitcase and clothing were linked to Megrahi. To prove that the bomb was inside the case, investigators set off a series of explosions using an identical suitcase and contents to check how they would be damaged. Megrahi's lawyers now believe material produced during these tests was mistakenly presented to the court as if it were the original suitcase. One source told The Observer: 'To say that the evidence recovered from the ground at Lockerbie and the material produced during the tests became mixed up would be something of an understatement. They became thoroughly confused. 'It casts serious doubts over the prosecution case because certain items that should have been destroyed if they were in the case containing the bomb are now known to have survived the blast.' In one instance a charred Babygro was produced as evidence that it had been used to wrap the bomb. However, new evidence has emerged which suggests the garment was completely undamaged when it was found. Instead, a similar Babygro used during the explosive tests was presented to the court. Megrahi has always denied involvement in the bombing and claims that he was set up so that Libya would take the blame. A key witness against him was the owner of a clothes shop in Malta where the items in the suitcase were allegedly bought. During the verdict, the judges admitted that the owner had failed to make a convincingly positive identification of Megrahi, but said: 'There are situations where a careful witness who will not commit himself beyond saying that there is a close resemblance can be regarded as more reliable and convincing in his identification than a witness who maintains that his identification is 100 per cent certain.' Megrahi's case is now being examined by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and his legal team believe that the new evidence is strong enough for him to get a retrial. The fresh doubts over the forensic evidence are being considered alongside recent claims by an anonymous former Scottish police chief who last month gave Megrahi's lawyers a sworn signed statement claiming that key evidence in the trial was fabricated. The officer said that he had expected Megrahi to be acquitted at the trial or on appeal, but came forward when this did not happen. After the trial, legal observers from around the world, including senior United Nations officials, expressed disquiet about the verdict. Many believed the true suspects in the case were members of the Syrian-led Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC), a terror group backed by Iranian cash. Documents leaked from the US Defence Intelligence Agency two years after the Libyans were identified as the prime suspects still blamed the PFLP-GC. Further tests are now set to be conducted to see how the mix-up happened. Dr Jim Swire, who led the campaign for justice after losing his daughter, Flora, in the bombing, has also expressed doubts over Megrahi's guilt. 'I am aware there have been doubts about how some of the evidence ... came to be presented in court. It is in all our interests that areas of doubt are thoroughly examined.' The Scottish criminal review is not expected to decide whether to refer Megrahi's case to the appeal court until next year at the earliest.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1588101,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/u...01,00.html</a> This looks remarkably similar to the manner in which Barry George was set up for the murder of Jill Dando. But I digress. The second example <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ricin jurors attack new terror laws 'Knee-jerk reaction' under fire on BBC programme Martin Bright, home affairs editor Sunday October 9, 2005 The Observer Three jurors in the so-called 'ricin trial', whose acquittal of four Algerian terror suspects in April caused deep embarrassment to the government, police and security service, will condemn the government's new terrorism legislation in their first television interviews tonight. It is unusual for jurors to speak to the media after a trial, but they have told The Observer they are furious that a number of the defendants have since been re-arrested and imprisoned without trial. Three jurors were interviewed for the BBC's Panorama programme, which examines new counter-terrorism proposals to be put before Parliament this week. One juror, speaking anonymously, told the programme: 'Before the trial I had a lot of faith in the authorities to be making the right decisions on my behalf ... having been through this trial I'm very sceptical now as to the real reasons why this new legislation is being pushed through.' A second added: 'I think they are probably a knee-jerk reaction to the recent terrorist incidents in London ... it's a classic example of the government's need to be seeming to do something to quell comment in the nation at large.' The third said measures introduced in response to the 7 July bombings were 'draconian', 'ill-considered' and 'hastily put together'. Home Secretary` Charles Clarke has already been forced to back down in introducing an offence of 'glorifying' terrorism. An arrest will now require evidence of incitement to violence. SNIP Two jurors told The Observer they were shocked when a number of the men they had freed after a seven-month trial were re-arrested earlier this year. One juror said: 'I was dumbfounded ... During the trial there were clearly different degrees of evidence against different defendants. But in a couple of cases, the evidence was so flimsy you couldn't see where the arrest came from in the first place. To re-arrest them seemed totally unreasonable.' A female juror added that the trial revealed failures by the authorities: '[There was] poor intelligence, police having misinformation and not really understanding the background, the government willing something along because of the impending war and it gathered its own momentum ... Now they are trying to justify why the arrests happened.' SNIP The ricin arrests were made at the end of December 2002 and were used in the run-up to war in Iraq to suggest that Britain was under threat from weapons of mass destruction. The trial revealed that no traces of ricin has been found in the flat occupied by the suspects in Wood Green, north London.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1588232,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/u...32,00.html</a> It's all down to the CROWN Prosecution Service. In the old days (see Duke of Wellington in Guardian) there would have been a grand jury of ordinary men and women to return indictments Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 10/9/05 4:44 am

by **AnnaLivia** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:59 am

Michael, I wonder if you saw the post I put up (it’s on page 2 of the controlled demolition thread)…that largely resonates with what you’re saying. It was advice on debating 9/11 truth, from a guy I “knew” from another forum, and his approach made so much sense to me that I copied and kept the advice, and use it. You’re sure reminding me of that guy! (and good morning, anti. cyber-hugs to you.)

by **antiaristo** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:30 am

Why thank you, Anna! Many back in return. Keep 'em coming. Pure soul food.

by **marykmusic** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Any way you look at it, think about the kind of man Poppy Bush is to let them use up his own son and then throw him away. <hr></blockquote> It takes a special kind of person to sacrifice one's own child... also known as blood-sacrifice. Major mojo. Big power-gain. In July of 2002 I went to DC for the first time, for a govt-sponsored program for families of POW and MIA from Korea and the Cold War pre-VietNam era. I got friendly with a shuttle driver from my hotel (and the same man the following summer) who had been driving the previous year. He saw the MISSILE that hit the Pentagon right after it happened; it was right on his route. It took several hours to put up the tall fence to block the public's view... --MaryK

by **michael meiring** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:09 pm

Reply for Anna Livia. I have just been to check your post on the demo page . I had read it the other day. There seems to be an art to debating, but slowly and surely you can introduce people to certain points without throwing in other theories as to what happened. The older i get the more clearly i see this. I tried to introduce the reasonable doubt gambit to try to counter act the shills etc mostly. I can see you friends point of view too. The 'art' if engaging people reg 9/11 is to make it as simple as possible, not to throw too much in the mix if you will. Its suffice to just counter act the official explanations of whats supposed to have happened. 3 quick examples. 1. 19 saudi hijackers?, how come 9 have turned up alive and well, even the head of the FBI admitted publicly we will never know who were on the planes due to forged/stolen ID's. There's 2 reasonable doubts. No need to go into who benefits, whose secret service may or may not be invoved. 2. black boxes!!! the only time in history that no black box was ever recovered from the scence......and all 4 of them? Huge reasonable doubt. 3. The plane into the pentagon? where did all the bodies, wreckage, jet fuel go? and how did a plane manage to get into a hole 9 feet wide? diffrent debating tactics for different situations. But the amount of times i fell into the trap in the past of engaging shills and letting the lead me down the garden path by drawing out of me my theory as to what happened. This is the excat tactic all shills seem to employ, and most of us fall into the trap of theorising instead of just sticking to the official explanations. If the government for example came out with mrs x was murdered by machine gun fire and theres not a single bullet hole in the body, you would not get defense lawyers speculating on the cause of death, only the absence of bullet holes raises REASONABLE DOUBT.

A reasonable doubt

A reasonable doubt

9/11.........What Did It For You.............?

tangents

Please, Sir ?

Opening Assumptions

down the garden path

Re: A reasonable doubt

Re: A reasonable doubt

Re: A reasonable doubt

Re: A reasonable doubt

Engaging curiosity

Who is online