Leifer
Senior Member.
That's called an opinion.Not necessarily. An assertion can be true or false independent of the evidence provided.
That's called an opinion.Not necessarily. An assertion can be true or false independent of the evidence provided.
Not necessarily. An assertion can be true or false independent of the evidence provided.
After all, you could acquire the evidence on your own, open your eyes to the evidence, or simply stop living in denial of the evidence.
Anyway, you still haven't provided evidence for your beliefs, so it's not my responsibility to spoon-feed you evidence for mine.
That's called an opinion.
You really don't see any problem here? You posit something, but provide no evidence.
What are you even doing here?
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.
as a five-year-old.....I'll call it anything that people tell me it is......'cause I'm so gullible at that age.juror said:False. I'll walk you through this like you are a 5-year old.
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!!
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.
-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=tExternal Quote:
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.
External Quote: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, 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:
-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=tExternal Quote:
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.
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:
External Quote: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.
Can you not read, or what? Where in the above definition of 'evidence' do you see assertions as evidence?
Because they claim the U.S. government wasn't involved. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
While you are making a claim that it wasn't involved - why is it not up to you to support your claim?
Straw man.
I think you are just being argumentative, for argument's sake.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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
No wonder this board is as dead as a morgue.