Mumbai Shootings (6 Viewers)

[Bjerknes]

The US Government doesn't even have any proof against Osama Bin Laden in relation to the 9/11 attacks, as seen by his listing in the FBI's Most Wanted List. They are so devoid of proof that they do not even list the orchestration of the said attacks in his profile!

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

So, all this burden of proof stuff is nonsense when the people in charge of providing proof to the public are in fact empty-handed.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

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

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.

If you hadn't all been so on the defensive you would have noticed that I never said that the US government was involved in any way.

I do however disagree there with you swag. The burden of evidence is not in the proof. Not anymore. Because one of the factors that makes it possible for people to prove certain things is that they should be allowed to do research for themselves and that they should be allowed to get the facts. If this is not the case and we're talking about a national government, one should automatically assume that something is going on.

Otherwise you're just a retard. Don't act as if this is merely a legal case, Greg, it makes you look very foolish.

 

[Seven]

Seven's challenge to Vinman was to to show evidence proving the U.S. government wasn't involved -- not that the story as proposed by the U.S. government was convincing or not.

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.

That's the same bloody thing, Greg.

 

[Vinman]

But isn't the situation symmetrical? Seven asked what evidence you have to be so sure and you didn't answer. Is it the case that you're sitting on evidence and we have none?

Seven's challenge to Vinman was to to show evidence proving the U.S. government wasn't involved -- not that the story as proposed by the U.S. government was convincing or not.

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.

The US Government doesn't even have any proof against Osama Bin Laden in relation to the 9/11 attacks, as seen by his listing in the FBI's Most Wanted List. They are so devoid of proof that they do not even list the orchestration of the said attacks in his profile!

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

So, all this burden of proof stuff is nonsense when the people in charge of providing proof to the public are in fact empty-handed.

I dont want to get into all of the investigative facts of the case (they are all there for anyone to see if they look hard enough), but isnt Bin Laden's ADMITTANCE that he was involved proof enough ??

 

[Bjerknes]

He always denied he was involved, but did praise the attacks.

Seven years on and there is still no official case against Osama Bin Laden in relation to the 9/11 attacks.

 

[Vinman]

He always denied he was involved, but did praise the attacks.

Seven years on and there is still no official case against Osama Bin Laden in relation to the 9/11 attacks.

where did he say that he wasnt involved ??

Is that why he promised more attacks ??

its a little hard to have a case when you cant find him....just ask your pal Obama, he is making it a priority to find him

 

[Bjerknes]

where did he say that he wasnt involved ??

Is that why he promised more attacks ??

its a little hard to have a case when you cant find him....just ask your pal Obama, he is making it a priority to find him

At least in the first three videos "he made" after 9/11, he denied involvement in the attacks. That IS fact. But what he did say was that he wished for more attacks on the United States and promised more attacks from Al Qaeda. But never has he taken responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

 

[Seven]

I dont want to get into all of the investigative facts of the case (they are all there for anyone to see if they look hard enough), but isnt Bin Laden's ADMITTANCE that he was involved proof enough ??

Actually.. no, and it's quite scary that you think it is.

 

[Vinman]

Actually.. no, and it's quite scary that you think it is.

there are enough facts, and his admittance seals the deal

 

[Bjerknes]

Where does he admit it?

He's never admitted having anything to do with 9/11.

 

[Seven]

there are enough facts, and his admittance seals the deal

But the facts are given by one party.

Let's say the United States of America are the prosecutor and Osama's the accused.

The prosecutor hides evidence, doesn't show everything and is well known for fabricating intelligence.

The judge, who conveniently goes by the name US government as well, however does not want to listen to anyone else and convicts Osama.

How is that fair?

 

[Il Re]

Bin Laden NEVER i repear NEVER admitted he was involved in the attacks, he did however paraise the attacks and was happy about it, but he NEVER said he was involved

hope that clears things up on that topic

 

[Bjerknes]

It's a common mistake, actually. But the people presenting the news try to mislead people into thinking he did plan the attacks.

 

[Il Re]

yea i mean, it doesnt change the fact that he's a douche, and even though he was happy it happned, i think had he done it he would have amitted to it, it's the kind of thing he would be proud of, like a footballer wining the worldcup

 

[Vinman]

he did take credit for the attacks, and promised more.....unless the Arabic translations are off, he admitted his role

and guys, until someone proves otherwise, Al Queda is responsible for 9/11

 

[Il Re]

he did take credit for the attacks, and promised more.....unless the Arabic translations are off, he admitted his role

and guys, until someone proves otherwise, Al Queda is responsible for 9/11

WRONG!! he didn't, what ever you read or saw, the arabic translation must have been off

the whole issue with 9/11 is very suspiscious anyway

 

[swag]

With one key difference. The US government does in fact exist, does it not?

I don't know. Perhaps you need to ask some residents of New Orleans after Katrina.

The US Government doesn't even have any proof against Osama Bin Laden in relation to the 9/11 attacks, as seen by his listing in the FBI's Most Wanted List. They are so devoid of proof that they do not even list the orchestration of the said attacks in his profile!

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

So, all this burden of proof stuff is nonsense when the people in charge of providing proof to the public are in fact empty-handed.

That supports the charge of cluelessness, but not complicity.

This is my main beef with any conspiracy theory: people race to presume elaborate, evil plots to explain something when basic competence will suffice.

If you even have one iota of belief in the second law of thermodynamics, you have to acknowledge that the odds of being a screw-up are an order of magnitude more likely than a surgically precise sinister plot that goes undetected and without a hitch.

That's the same bloody thing, Greg.

Completely different. In one scenario, OSB is the defendant. In the other, the U.S. government is. That would be tried by any national or international court system as two entirely different cases.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

he did take credit for the attacks, and promised more.....unless the Arabic translations are off, he admitted his role

and guys, until someone proves otherwise, Al Queda is responsible for 9/11

remember that long forgotten concept upon which your country and the entire western civilization was built on? innocent until proven guilty

 

[Zé Tahir]

These guys are supposed to be Pakistani?

 

[icemaη]

Who are they?