That's called an opinion.Originally Posted by Juror No. 8
That's called an opinion.
"You've been Blaylocked !!"
What a crock of brown sticky stuff.
"What to government asserts about 9/11 isn't evidence either."???
Bzzzttt.....yes it is. Even your baseless assertions without support are evidence - very poor evidence that is easy to assess and dismiss as lunatic ravings, but it is still evidence.
you have no idea what evidence is, you have no idea how to construct a position and support it with premise, you just lather denial on denial on denial, without regard to anything except your own preconception. You do not have evidence so you challenge people to prove you wrong - even though you cannot show any reason why people should believe you in the first place!
There is an abundance of evidence around that AQ did the attacks on 9/11 - there are confessions, both in and out of US custody. What is your evidence that they DID get US Govt support - you are making a claim - you support it - that is called burden of proof, and I fully expect you to continue to argue from ignorance because I know you have no evidence. The total lack of any evidence of US Govt involvement constitutes evidence of absence - sucks to be you.
Had you any actual evidence of a conspiracy I would love to have seen it - but you don't - so all you can do is deny that anyone else has any evidence, and because of that you therefore conclude that your own assertions must be true.
and I am not excited by you - although I am sure it stokes your ego to think otherwise. I find it laughable that you attack me for attacking you....in respo0nse to you attacking me!! Unbelievable - at least I know why I attacked you - and have the evidence to back yup my assertions - you fail to do so even when asked directly!!
you are so far away from reality that you are not even wrong!!
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
You really don't see any problem here? You posit something, but provide no evidence.
What are you even doing here?
False. I'll walk you through this like you are a 5-year old.
If you ate lasagna for lunch today, but either can't or won't provide evidence of your having eaten lasagna for lunch today, is it really just your opinion that you ate lasagna for lunch today, or is it a true assertion that you ate lasagna for lunch today?
No, why would I see a problem? You're the mod here, and you posit stuff without providing evidence all the time.
So what are you doing here?
Bzzzttt.... no it isn't.
Apparently you don't know what the word 'evidence' means.Even your baseless assertions without support are evidence - very poor evidence that is easy to assess and dismiss as lunatic ravings, but it is still evidence.
And the rest of your post is just mindless babbling.
as a five-year-old.....I'll call it anything that people tell me it is......'cause I'm so gullible at that age.
But getting to your point...."An assertion can be true or false independent of the evidence provided."
...that is just a guess or a hunch at that point.....and when pressured, results in an opinion.
...or it's just stubbornness in light of the presented evidence.
Last edited by Stupid; May 6th, 2012 at 05:59 PM.
"You've been Blaylocked !!"
Confessions don't prove anything. For instance, I could confess to having slept at the Playboy mansion last night with five playmates on each arm. But that doesn't necessarily mean it happened.
Nope, the burden of proof is on your to prove the U.S. government was uninvolved in the attacks in any way.What is your evidence that they DID get US Govt support - you are making a claim - you support it - that is called burden of proof, and I fully expect you to continue to argue from ignorance because I know you have no evidence. The total lack of any evidence of US Govt involvement constitutes evidence of absence - sucks to be you.
Since you can't do that, it sucks to be you.
Likewise, I'd love to see your evidence of the al-Qaeda conspiracy theory you subscribe to, but you don't have any, other than what the U.S. government has provided you with.Had you any actual evidence of a conspiracy I would love to have seen it - but you don't - so all you can do is deny that anyone else has any evidence, and because of that you therefore conclude that your own assertions must be true.
Too bad.
Fine, where's your evidence proving that the U.S. government was uninvolved in the funding, planning, and carrying out of the 9/11 attacks?and I am not excited by you - although I am sure it stokes your ego to think otherwise. I find it laughable that you attack me for attacking you....in respo0nse to you attacking me!! Unbelievable - at least I know why I attacked you - and have the evidence to back yup my assertions - you fail to do so even when asked directly!!
This, coming from a U.S. government true believer.you are so far away from reality that you are not even wrong!!
You can't make this stuff up.
Still false.
What you're saying here is, if you eat lasagna for lunch, tell someone about it, and don't provide evidence that you ate lasagna for lunch, then you are just guessing that you ate lasagna for lunch today. If the person you tell doesn't believe that you ate lasagna for lunch, then anything you tell them is just an opinion.
Ha, ha, ha!
Well, if you're not going to provide any evidence, then could you at least explain why you are here.
Otherwise I'm going to have to assume you are trolling, and ban you for 24 hours.
As you say - there is evidence that AQ did it - you simply refuse to accept it because you dont' like the US Govt - that doesn't mean there is no evidence.
Evidence means:
ev·i·dence
[ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=t
so there you have it - there are many meanings for evidence, including anything that tends to prove or disprove something - including your own baseless assertions....which are, of course, the worst sort of evidence and quite easy to disregard.
As for your contention that everyone else has to prove that the US Govt was not involved - why is that?
you are making a claim that it was involved - why is it not up to you to support your claim?
Clearly you did not look up my link to argument from ignorance - so here's the first part of it repeated:
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
I'm here to do what you're doing - discussing stuff without providing any evidence. I'm just following your lead.
Well, that's certainly a good way to "win" a debate for someone like you. Provide no evidence of your own while demanding evidence from others, and when they call you on your B.S., just ban them.Otherwise I'm going to have to assume you are trolling, and ban you for 24 hours.
No wonder this board is as dead as a morgue.
Can you not read, or what? Where in the above definition of 'evidence' do you see assertions as evidence?As you say - there is evidence that AQ did it - you simply refuse to accept it because you dont' like the US Govt - that doesn't mean there is no evidence.
Evidence means:
ev·i·dence
[ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=t
so there you have it - there are many meanings for evidence, including anything that tends to prove or disprove something - including your own baseless assertions....which are, of course, the worst sort of evidence and quite easy to disregard.
Because they claim the U.S. government wasn't involved. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.As for your contention that everyone else has to prove that the US Govt was not involved - why is that?
While you are making a claim that it wasn't involved - why is it not up to you to support your claim?you are making a claim that it was involved - why is it not up to you to support your claim?
Straw man.Clearly you did not look up my link to argument from ignorance - so here's the first part of it repeated:
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
well all you've provided is assertions and you say they are not evidence - so why isn't anyone else's assertions??
but of course the US Govt has provided a great deal of supporting evidence to back up its assertions - whereas you have provided none - is that the difference for you?? Assertions with information to back them up are not evidence, but assertions without anything to back them up are evidence??
but to answer your question - "that which tends to prove or disprove something" seems broad enough to include assertions for me - hence I consider your assertions as evidence - poor evidence that is easy to dismiss as incorrect of course, but evidence non-the-less.
My claim is that there is no credible evidence that the US govt is involved - certainly you have not presented any evidence why I should think it is, and they have presented a great deal of evidence to suggest that it was not.Because they claim the U.S. government wasn't involved. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Going by the preponderance of evidence why would I support your position which has no credible evidence over their mountain of evidence??
Indeed it is - I have not made that claim.While you are making a claim that it wasn't involved - why is it not up to you to support your claim?
Straw man.
My claim is as stated - there is a preponderance of evidence showing that AQ plotted 9/11 and no evidence that the US Govt helped them. my conclusion is that hte evidence supports the contention that the US Govt was not involved.
By all means give me good evidence otherwise - I am more than happy to look at it and change my mind if it shows otherwise.
Last edited by MikeC; May 6th, 2012 at 06:19 PM.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
I think you are just being argumentative, for argument's sake.
If there is evidence in front of you, and you over-look it in favor of making an assertion.....>> that's an opinion.....a biased one at that.
Equally, if there is no evidence in front of you, and you still make assertions......are those not just biased guesses ?
Last edited by Stupid; May 6th, 2012 at 06:33 PM.
"You've been Blaylocked !!"
I'd like to return to the OP and perhaps get back to the actual issue:
as a simple response, yes, I think it IS POSSIBLE that the US Government did as the question asked.Is it possible the 9/11 attacks were set up in the same way, under the watchful, approving eye of the U.S. government so it could justify an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy that the American public would never support otherwise?
So my next question is - is there any credible evidence that it actually did so?
I am not aware of any - I have seen many claims along these lines, but they have all been supported by poor evidence, at best, IMO.
I would be very interested in good evidence that supports the theory.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Well, the U.S. government controlled the investigation of the 9/11 attacks, so that's probably why there's no evidence pointing the U.S. government's way.
If we allowed the Mafia to control the investigation into a diamond heist they were likely involved in, they wouldn't release any incriminating evidence of their involvement either.
That's why we need a real, independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks. Hoping and wishing that the U.S. government told us the truth isn't much of an option, I'm afraid.I would be very interested in good evidence that supports the theory.
So there is no such evidence at the moment?
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
The board is not for people who argue simply for the sake of argument. Discussions should attempt to move the common understanding a little closer to the truth.
I'll ban you for 24 hours. Not as censorship, nor to "win", but to pause the conversation, and allow time for reflection.
Here's special agent Ryan Taylor's affidavit:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...ml#document/p1
It sounds like those bozos wanted to make trouble and the FBI provided them with a favourable opportunity to do so.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks