When you assert something, the burden is on you to back it up. In this thread, let's say that you're asserting that terrorists acting alone carried out 9/11 because they were planning it years in advance. So now you have to prove that they were planning it years in advance; you have to offer substance for your claim.
So far, the closest you've gotten to this has been in your thread post. And it only amounts to a non-sequitur argument. I don't suppose you know what that means yet, but suffice it to say that I haven't seen you offer a conclusive link. Just because terrorists have allegedly wanted to fly hijacked planes into buildings before (something that needs credible documentation within itself) does not mean necessarily that they therefore committed 9/11 by themselves.
That's non-sequitur logic. "It does not follow." It's like concluding that a particular car bomb was committed by Islamic extremists, before looking at any other evidence or taking anything else into account, just because Islamic extremists are supposedly known to rig cars. Can you not see how this logic is faulty? It's unreliable.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Since you and other believe so strongly that it was the gov. Disproving that terrorists didn't plan and carry out 9/11 should be easy right? Well then let's see that evidence.
Again, I point out that when you make an assertion, you back it up.
How did Kepler or Galileo establish their work? By making baseless assertions and then asking the Church to prove them wrong? No: they backed their own work themselves. That's how it works.
If either one of them had simply made assertions and then tried to establish them by nagging the Church to try to prove them wrong, history would have viewed them as idiots and more than likely their work would have been extremely flawed in the first place.
Or in scientific journals, how is material submitted?
"Here's my new theory on alien bacteria living on the star Rigel. Anyone feel free to debunk me. Otherwise, I guess it's legit because you guys have nothing on me."
You see nothing wrong with that? And keep in mind that the (il)logic you're using is non-sequitur, so it makes about as much sense as the logic used in the example above in the first place.
By your own admittance terrorists have been planning to carry out a 9/11 attack for years.
Where did I "admit" this?
I'd love to see you try to quote me on this. This is going to be creative.
I HAVE posted it. If you want more info read what I have posted. I've DONE the research it's up to you to read it. It's way too much in a thread that's why I said go to the places so you can read everything for yourself.
I'm simply asking for you to post your evidence of a direct, conclusive connection between any of those events and 9/11. That includes credibly sourcing the assertions of plans to hijack planes, the planners, and everything required to make such a direct and conclusive link. If you know what you're talking about then it shouldn't be that hard for you. Just another copy and paste, FBI reports or whatever.
This thread isn't about me proving terrorist did it. It's about you proving the didn't.
'Cause I don't even remember making this thread. Funny, huh?
But seriously, if that's the case, then your whole thread is asinine for thrusting the burden of proof onto one to whom it doesn't belong. The Islamo-fascist terrorist 9/11 bit isn't mine, and it's not my burden to prove or disprove it. Especially on this thread, which you obviously authored and in which you have obviously tried to push an assertion.
(I just had to cash in on that owl btw. XD)
This thread is NOT for me to prove that terrorist did it.
Then you shouldn't have made a thread, silly.
Honestly I think you're just saying this now to get out of trying to back up what you were trying to push in your thread post.
