Mumbai Shootings (23 Viewers)
- Thread starter .zero
- Start date
What's amusing is that people actually think nobody had prior knowledge to the attacks besides "Al Qaeda".
Give me a break. God, some people are just sheep. I'm sure that's just a "coincidence."
Look at all these technical indicators telling people to sell American Airlines stock.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=...n;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;sourc e=undefined
Remind me to call up my Al Qaeda stock broker tomorrow.
Give me a break. God, some people are just sheep. I'm sure that's just a "coincidence."Look at all these technical indicators telling people to sell American Airlines stock.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=...n;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;sourc e=undefined
Remind me to call up my Al Qaeda stock broker tomorrow.
and what evidence do YOU have to go on that the government of the USA was involved in the 9/11 attacks ??
The answer that you, Martin, and Andy have is ZERO evidence
you can speculate all you'd like, but until you get some credible evidence to prove otherwise, I think its best to keep your opinions to yourselves
The answer that you, Martin, and Andy have is ZERO evidence
you can speculate all you'd like, but until you get some credible evidence to prove otherwise, I think its best to keep your opinions to yourselves
Seven, I kinda think you lost this battle of wits to Vinman here. The burden of evidence is in the proof, not in the disproving, because the former is possible and the latter is ridiculously impossible. The best investigative minds in the world cannot even disprove that Santa Claus exists. 
So as a logical argument, the lack-of-evidence-to-disprove line of thinking is complete vapor. It's a red herring that has zero inherent value in its statement. Your argument may as well have been, "I like chocolate!" It would have carried the same critical weight.
So as a logical argument, the lack-of-evidence-to-disprove line of thinking is complete vapor. It's a red herring that has zero inherent value in its statement. Your argument may as well have been, "I like chocolate!" It would have carried the same critical weight.
Seven, I kinda think you lost this battle of wits to Vinman here. The burden of evidence is in the proof, not in the disproving, because the former is possible and the latter is ridiculously impossible. The best investigative minds in the world cannot even disprove that Santa Claus exists.
See, what we're saying is that the original "evidence" presented to back the official story isn't convincing. Either because it's incomplete, manufactured or has been tampered with. In order for you to say that we have to present evidence to disprove a supposedly established fact, this fact must first be established by consensus. A consensus we do not enter into. So we're still at square one here, something happened and we don't know what.
Orwell fail
Seven, I kinda think you lost this battle of wits to Vinman here. The burden of evidence is in the proof, not in the disproving, because the former is possible and the latter is ridiculously impossible. The best investigative minds in the world cannot even disprove that Santa Claus exists.
So as a logical argument, the lack-of-evidence-to-disprove line of thinking is complete vapor. It's a red herring that has zero inherent value in its statement. Your argument may as well have been, "I like chocolate!" It would have carried the same critical weight.
So as a logical argument, the lack-of-evidence-to-disprove line of thinking is complete vapor. It's a red herring that has zero inherent value in its statement. Your argument may as well have been, "I like chocolate!" It would have carried the same critical weight.
Wrong. And it's unlike you to mess up like this
See, what we're saying is that the original "evidence" presented to back the official story isn't convincing. Either because it's incomplete, manufactured or has been tampered with. In order for you to say that we have to present evidence to disprove a supposedly established fact, this fact must first be established by consensus. A consensus we do not enter into. So we're still at square one here, something happened and we don't know what.
Orwell fail
See, what we're saying is that the original "evidence" presented to back the official story isn't convincing. Either because it's incomplete, manufactured or has been tampered with. In order for you to say that we have to present evidence to disprove a supposedly established fact, this fact must first be established by consensus. A consensus we do not enter into. So we're still at square one here, something happened and we don't know what.
Orwell fail
But once again, media and government reports somehow manage to have the upper-hand in the credibility debate. It's like people are screaming, "HEY, we can't be lied to all the time!"
Wrong. And it's unlike you to mess up like this
See, what we're saying is that the original "evidence" presented to back the official story isn't convincing. Either because it's incomplete, manufactured or has been tampered with. In order for you to say that we have to present evidence to disprove a supposedly established fact, this fact must first be established by consensus. A consensus we do not enter into. So we're still at square one here, something happened and we don't know what.
Orwell fail
See, what we're saying is that the original "evidence" presented to back the official story isn't convincing. Either because it's incomplete, manufactured or has been tampered with. In order for you to say that we have to present evidence to disprove a supposedly established fact, this fact must first be established by consensus. A consensus we do not enter into. So we're still at square one here, something happened and we don't know what.
Orwell fail
The former is a burden-of-disproof scenario, and it is therefore meaningless. The latter is a lot closer to a burden-of-proof argument. But if a proposed answer fails the litmus test for the latter, that doesn't suggest nor imply the former. There's the incorrect leap of faith that's once again common to the "I can't explain quantum entanglement, therefore God exists" argument.