Also: "The Burden of Proof" Principle
1]:Fake 9/11 Bird Flock Video:
First of all, here is an undeniably faked bird flock doing a glorious twin towers "fly-by" on 9/11, complete with its own pixel cloud following along, that is taken from an allegedly live 9/11 TV broadcast, as discovered/presented by 9/11 researcher Simon Shack, which can be seen at : 29min 08secs of the official TV archives:
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.
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.
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"?