2]: “False In One, False In All”
Secondly, let us remind ourselves of the simple, basic legal evidentiary review principle usually known as “false in one , false in all”[falsus in uno,falsis in omnibus].
Many 9/11 researchers remain completely in the dark regarding this very important , simple principle which “should” be applied when reviewing ALL alleged 9/11 alleged “evidence” [at least by any serious, honest researcher].
Simply put, there is a fundamental, basic legal principle named “false in one, false in all[falsis in uno, falsis in omnibus],whereby a judge may instruct a trial jury that should they find that any part of a witness/entities testimony to be false, then they each have the individual, incontestable right to discount all “evidence” provided by that alleged witness/entity.
Therefor, applied outside of a courtroom, if a person wished to utilize that very same legal principle as a 9/11 research tool/principle, and according to that well established, very old legal principle:
3]: Burden Of Proof:
Thirdly, it might also be worth your while to consider another very simple [but similarly very important] legal principle- the burden of proof issue, during your 9/11 investigation.
According to this principle, the burden of proof always lies with the accuser- in this case the US federal government:
Utilizing that principle, it is important to understand that any/all alleged evidence [i.e. all photographs, all “live”videos, all eyewitness testimony, all government agency reports, etc. etc.] that the US government has used to date to try to “prove” its case, outside of a courtroom, or alternatively, that it could, or might use in future as “evidence” in an actual criminal trial to prove its case [in the extremely unlikely event that that ever actually occurred], must first of all be established to in fact be genuine, reliable evidence, and not just hastily pre-judged/pre-assumed to be genuine “right off the bat”, without ever having undergone any serious tests in order to try and determine whether or not that so-called “evidence” is in fact genuine.
The Idle Speculation And The 9/11 “Truth Movement”:
Meaning that, outside of a court trial, any honest, independent 9/11 researcher who is interested in a genuine search for 9/11 truth, must, assuming they are aware of this principle, consistently apply that principle [burden of proof] to their very own research [as well as using the previously mentioned “false in one-false in all” principle in tandem], and, in my opinion at least, hold in high suspicion all of the research of any/all claimed 9/11 investigators who consistently avoid applying both of these basic, simple, and very important legal principles – in truth, such “researchers” findings simply cannot be trusted and are really nothing more than idle speculations.
“Chain of Fools”?
And yet to date, as with “false in one-false in all”, in their own 9/11 research, practically every researcher [and yes, I’m including nearly all of the supposed “big name” 9/11 researchers here: Fetzer, Jones, Wood, Hall, Khalezov, Baker, Reynolds, Johnson etc. ] , have consistently chosen to also ignore this extremely important, very simple to understand legal principle, and have mostly assumed, without ever having thoroughly tested and cross-tested, to try to establish whether or not any of the various photos, videos and eyewitness testimonies and government reports they all rely on to “prove” their particular version of 9/11 “truth”, are in fact genuine and therefor even reliable as evidence.
Question For Ya:
Why are all of these persons listed [and others] consistently ignoring both the amazingly simple, easy to understand,”false in one, false in all” principle, and at the same time almost entirely ignoring the equally simple , and equally important, burden of proof concept, in their various 9/11 “investigations”?
Your guess is as good as I mine, I suppose 🙂