'burden of proof' is mostly a convention. If I say the moon is made of cheese, I might be asked to prove it. If I say the moon is a rock, I probably won't be asked to prove it. If I say the moon is NOT made of cheese, I would not be asked to prove it. If I say the moon is NOT a rock, I would be asked to prove it. Et cetera.

I'm not saying 9/11 was an inside job. But it's totally possible that it was.

Here there are some basic facts that people in this site should be well aware of :

1) the military, as a monopoly, have incentives to create excuses for war.
2) the government, as monopoly provider of 'justice' and criminal investigations, is not efficient and can't be trusted
3) the government is investigating itself.

No reasonable person would dismiss those issues...

Mac Fall:

Some evil, collectivist people wanted to kill Americans mainly because of what the US government has done to them,

Well, some americans got 50,000 other americans killed in the vietnam war - and that's just one example. It's quite obvious that americans kill americans. So when you say 'evil collectivists' maybe you are talking about the american military, the american government and other american jingoists ?

Juan:

'burden of proof' is mostly a convention. If I say the moon is made of cheese, I might be asked to prove it.

Correct, because it is a positive assertion.

Juan:

If I say the moon is a rock, I probably won't be asked to prove it.

The burden of proof still stands. You would probably not be questioned because the evidence that the moon is a rock is common knowledge. If the person you are talking to is not familiar with the evidence, he would rightly ask for proof.

Juan:

If I say the moon is NOT made of cheese, I would not be asked to prove it.

You would not be asked to prove it if the person is already familiar with the lack of evidence supporting the "moon is cheese" hypothesis vs the "moon is rock" hypothesis.

If, however, the person is knowledgeable of the evidence supporting the "moon is cheese" hypothesis (the craters make it look like swiss cheese, whatever) but has never come across the "moon is rock" hypothesis and its evidence, he would rightly ask for evidence.

Juan:

If I say the moon is NOT a rock, I would be asked to prove it. Et cetera.

Because most people have already been persuaded by the evidence for the "moon is rock" hypothesis.

If the same person above, who has never heard of the "moon is rock" hypothesis, heard your assertion, he would not ask for proof, because to his mind the "moon is cheese" has the greatest amount of evidence.

Juan:

I'm not saying 9/11 was an inside job. But it's totally possible that it was.

Of course. For reasonable people, however, actual evidence is required.

 

Thanks for your content-free post zefreak and for skilfully forgetting to address my main points.

What was the end excuse of WT7? The 9/11 comission conveniently ignored that building, that report was garbage any ways.

It just happened. Forget it.

Juan:

Mac Fall:

Some evil, collectivist people wanted to kill Americans mainly because of what the US government has done to them,

Well, some americans got 50,000 other americans killed in the vietnam war - and that's just one example. It's quite obvious that americans kill americans. So when you say 'evil collectivists' maybe you are talking about the american military, the american government and other american jingoists ?

I don't think I need to mention on this site that the US government and military consist of evil collectivists. Do you need to be reminded every time someone mentions them?

Juan:

Thanks for your content-free post zefreak and for skilfully forgetting to address my main points.

You obviously do not understand the burden of proof if you think the examples you gave show either contradict it or show that it is selectively applied.

Juan:

Well, some americans got 50,000 other americans killed in the vietnam war - and that's just one example. It's quite obvious that americans kill americans.

Technically, they were killed by Viet Kong with some Soviet help. Of course, it was the American government that got the people there, but I haven't heard anyone suggesting that US paid the Viet Kong to do that ;)

alimentarius:

Prove that 911 was an inside job (red herrings don't count).

I'd also like to see some proof that the first WTC bombing in 1993 was also an inside job. As well as USS Cole and embassy bombings in East Africa. And how it's a coincidence that Ramzi Yousef's uncle is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and both were very interested in blowing up the New York landmark, among other things? It must be a family tradition or something.

You obviously do not understand the burden of proof if you think the examples you gave show either contradict it or show that it is selectively applied.

contradict what ?

I don't think I need to mention on this site that the US government and military consist of evil collectivists.

Are you sure ? I daresay that 'some' or maybe 'a sizable amount' of people who fancy themselves libertarians would object to that (correct) classification ?

Burden of Proof

Shouldn't "libertarians" and "anarcho-capitalists" be insisting that any "burden of proof" lies 100% with the government to prove absolutely every aspect of its story about what really happened on 911, and not with any outside party-  however described/ slighted, as a matter of course- or am I missing something? [ don't answer that ]

 

Juan:

Prove that 911 was an inside job (red herrings don't count).

prove that it wasn't.

Prove that God doesn't exist.

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

Burden of Proof

Shouldn't "libertarians" and "anarcho-capitalists" be insisting that any "burden of proof" lies 100% with the government to prove absolutely every aspect of its story about what really happened on 911, and not with any outside party-  however described/ slighted, as a matter of course- or am I missing something? [ don't answer that ]

 

9/11 Truthers should be able to put their theories to the test. For example, there's this super thermite that was discovered but who ever discovered that never tested his theory because it's so super that only the military has access to it. Yeah, right. Can't he just reverse engineer it from the red and silver chip he found? There's lots of tests you can do your own without a subpoena.

The 9/11 Truth Movement takes a legitimate concern (could Government have prevented the hijackings?) and used it to discredit any hope for a dialog.

 

solos:

For example, there's this super thermite that was discovered but who ever discovered that never tested his theory because it's so super that only the military has access to it. Yeah, right. Can't he just reverse engineer it from the red and silver chip he found?

Yeah the "super thermite" ingredients are all found in the primer paint of the steel. Amazing since the red chips look like paint chips.

Richard Gage (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (1/2) (30min)

Richard Gage (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (2/2) (30min)

Here's a nice one.

'Respectable' libertarians do believe the government lies, I mean, explanation, but point out that the US was attacked because of US interventions in the middle east. So called blowback.

Here's the thing though : the american military have been committing atrocities for more than a hundred years (it's their job after all). However acts of terrorism in the US have been non-existent.

There seems to be a lack of correlation (let alone causation) between american crimes abroad and 'terrorist' attacks in the 'homeland'...

weird.

filc:

What was the end excuse of WT7? The 9/11 comission conveniently ignored that building, that report was garbage any ways.

Huh?

solos:

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:

Burden of Proof

Shouldn't "libertarians" and "anarcho-capitalists" be insisting that any "burden of proof" lies 100% with the government to prove absolutely every aspect of its story about what really happened on 911, and not with any outside party-  however described/ slighted, as a matter of course- or am I missing something? [ don't answer that ]

 

9/11 Truthers should be able to put their theories to the test. For example, there's this super thermite that was discovered but who ever discovered that never tested his theory because it's so super that only the military has access to it. Yeah, right. Can't he just reverse engineer it from the red and silver chip he found? There's lots of tests you can do your own without a subpoena.

The 9/11 Truth Movement takes a legitimate concern (could Government have prevented the hijackings?) and used it to discredit any hope for a dialog.

 

In my opinion you have it exactly  "bass ackwards".

As I understand standard "libertarian" thinking [and assuming you are a "libertarian" or perhaps "anarcho-capitalist], the burden of proof lies solely with the government to prove its story, as the Bill of Rights was supposed to ensure,  not the other way round. 

Therefor, any self respecting "libertarian" is philosophically obligated [via the Bill of Rights] to start their investigation and review of any and all 911 evidence presented by the government [including all "witnesses", regardless of how trustworthy you might believe them to be] ,from the standpoint and mindset of someone who does not believe any part of of it - yes?, no?

Failing to start your investigation from such a consistently "anti government -story" mindset  more or less guarantees that you have  absolutely no hope of uncovering any part of the truth about 911 - assuming that you are even interested in such an undertaking .

Most likely, you are not [interested in searching for 911 truth] .

Most "libertarians" ,"Austrians" "anarcho- capitalists"  I run across here and elsewhere, appear to be more interested in preserving the sanctity of their movement , which they  appear to see as being threatened by 911 "truthers" etc., than they are  in any genuine  open-minded search for truth .

Hence, right at the outset of their own investigations and review of any of the alleged "facts" of 911, any pretense at adhering to the principles of the Bill of Rights and of not believing any part of the governments story merely on principle, conveniently goes "right out the window".

Butler Shaffer recently had an excellent article on just this subject [ preserving the sanctity of movements at the expense of truth] on Rockwells site.