Someone please debunk or explain this, II

ThatsJustWeird, I don't suppose anyone has ever taught you this.

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.

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.

Before I go into all that other crap you posted, let me ask you this....

Did you read the title of this thread?

Did you understand the title of this thread? Maybe I didn't make the title clear enough. I have to realize some people aren't as....fast upstairs....as most people.


(and another thing....what exactly else do you want me to provide you? I provided you with interviews from the terrorists themselves saying they were plotting 9/11. Is that credible enough for you? I've provided info from dozens of newspapers and news sources from around the world. Info from the CIA, DIA, NSA, FBI, MI6, Indo. intel, Italian intel, German intel. I'm not sure what else you want me to provide???)

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I'm not sure what else you want me to provide???)

Hand-written confession signed by OBL, all of the hijackers and verified by twenty witnesses

Just to clear up the burden of proof argument in a non-legal sense:

"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it."

Source: Wikipedia

So, let's see, whoever proposes the opening post has the burden of proof. That person must prove his/her claims or the whole argument ... err ... discussion is a waste of everyone's time.

TJW has provided his evidence in the first post, showing that terrorists had been planning 9-11 for years. He has met his burden of proof.

The theory that the government did it has yet to meet this burden of proof.

I think that is TJW point.

If that's the case, either he's been misunderstood or I'm overtired. Or both. My apologies.

Originally posted by Aotearoa
Just to clear up the burden of proof argument in a non-legal sense:

"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this". Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the person's responsibility who is making the bold claim to prove it."

Source: Wikipedia

So, let's see, whoever proposes the opening post has the burden of proof. That person must prove his/her claims or the whole argument ... err ... discussion is a waste of everyone's time.

You all are trying to make it way more complicated than it has to be.

Here's the deal....
I posted info.
People on this site don't believe that info because they believe the government was behind everything.
I'm asking...what's wrong with the info that I posted.
Tell me why the info I posted is wrong.

I'm not making any new theories or trying to prove this or that. I simply want someone to tell me why all that info is wrong
Hence the title "Someone please debunk or explain this"
I want to reword the title into something people will understand better but I don't know how to make it more simple.

No, it's my error. Where I come from debunk and sceptic have different connotations and that's where the problem lay.

I fully agree with what you posted. It was the "debunk" that threw me.

Plus I'm overtired. I'll now solve that problem by going to bed for a while. Apologies once again.

waves white flag

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Here's the deal....
I posted info.
People on this site don't believe that info because they believe the government was behind everything.
I'm asking...what's wrong with the info that I posted.
Tell me why the info I posted is wrong.

There's nothing substantial to support it. It amounts to a non-sequitur argument.

There you go.

The next logic step, on your part, would be to try to prove me wrong by trying to back up every major assumption with legitimate sources to show a conclusive link between the events you list and 9/11.

Good luck.

Originally posted by bsbray11
There's nothing substantial to support it. It amounts to a non-sequitur argument.

There you go.

There's nothing substantial to support what??
I didn't make up any theories or anything. I just posted verifiable info.

The next logic step, on your part, would be to try to prove me wrong by trying to back up every major assumption with legitimate sources to show a conclusive link between the events you list and 9/11.

Good luck.

This just proves you didn't even read what I wrote...
1. What assumptions were made?
2. lol, what in the world do you consider legit sources??

Originally posted by bsbray11

There's nothing substantial to support it. It amounts to a non-sequitur argument.

So then is the Northwoods document a non-sequiter argument also?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
There's nothing substantial to support what??
I didn't make up any theories or anything. I just posted verifiable info.

Not really:

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Debunk these terrorist exsisted. Debunk they were planning this. Debunk the fact that they finally carried the attack out.

You were suggesting that what you posted was evidence of terrorists planning and committing 9/11. You didn't post anything to support this suggestion, and it amounts to a non-sequitur. That's the problem with your thread.

If you're not arguing that, then the whole post is a straw man because I seriously doubt anyone here is claiming that Islamic terrorists don't exist. But then again, that has little to do with 9/11 to begin with.

This just proves you didn't even read what I wrote...
1. What assumptions were made?

See above.

2. lol, what in the world do you consider legit sources??

Anything that would normally be considered legit by most, but I want to know where the information originally came from. I'm only asking that you verify each assumption that you make with such legitimate sources.

That means if you want so make an assertion that the same terrorists behind any one of those events was also actively planning 9/11, then you have to offer some sort of solid documentation for this.

That's all.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So then is the Northwoods document a non-sequiter argument also?

Yes, when one argues that 9/11 was an inside job because Northwoods would have been.

No, when one is countering the argument that the US government would never consider attacking its own people.

Originally posted by Griff
We've known since 1995...that's 6 years that we didn't put new transponders on planes....

New transponders that did what? Were unable to be switched off? Who was going to bear the brunt of the cost? Because the airlines would have screamed blue murder about doing something that ate into their profits. In fact, they scream every time they have to update something on their aircraft.

-----------

Having wandered through the links provided in the Opening Post, I feel that I'm looking at tangible evidence that terrorists planned and carried out the events of 9/11.

non sequitur (from the Latin "it does not follow"):
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

As regards the above argument about non sequitur, the inference of the opening post is that terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks. Unfortunately for the non sequitur adherents, if you read all the links provided (and there are a lot of them), the inference and conclusion do follow from the premise/s or evidence. It also follows logically for those who are not blinkered.

- Prior knowledge that people with known links to OBL were in America
- Prior knowledge that hijacking of aircraft was planned
- Prior knowledge that those aircraft would be used to destroy high profile targets
- Prior knowledge that those aircraft might have explosives on board
- Prior knowledge that a lot of Arab men were taking flight training
Everything leading up to 9/11 except the date.

Whether the CIA, FBI, etc took those reports seriously is not part of the chain of evidence. Apparently they didn't take a lot of it seriously, although some people were arrested and US Customs checked out odd flows of money into and out of several bank accounts held by Arab immigrants. In one case, more money was moving around than a taxi driver should be making. Personally, I'd be red-flagging that at the time.

The warnings were there. The proof was there if you know where to look. Only the date and the actual targets were missing.

Originally posted by Aotearoa
non sequitur (from the Latin "it does not follow"):
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.

And some examples:

Mary loves poppies and plants them in her garden, so therefore she is a heroin addict (1).

"Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large." (2)

If I am an ape, then I am a mammal. I am a mammal. Therefore I am an ape.

Islamic terrorists commit terrorism, so therefore they carried out 9/11. (Such as this thread.)

Or:

Islamic terrorists don't like the US. 9/11 was an attack on the US. Therefore islamic terrorists carried out 9/11. (Another such as this thread.)

Or:

Islamic terrorists were in the US taking flight classes. Therefore the US was totally uninvolved with 9/11. (Yet another such as this thread.)

Unfortunately for the non sequitur adherents, if you read all the links provided (and there are a lot of them), the inference and conclusion do follow from the premise/s or evidence.

No, they don't. If you're going to give a definition of non-sequitur, you can at least know what the hell you're talking about before you weigh in on the topic.


Just for the record, I believe the hijacker suspects were involved. But they were only patsies. And there's not even any hard evidence for OBL being involved at all.

- Prior knowledge that people with known links to OBL were in America

Show me the source documentation from which this claim comes.

- Prior knowledge that hijacking of aircraft was planned

Show me the source documentation proving that this would have involved only Islamic fundamentalists and definitely no one else.

- Prior knowledge that those aircraft would be used to destroy high profile targets

Same. Show me the Muslims weren't just patsies.

- Prior knowledge that those aircraft might have explosives on board

Same.

- Prior knowledge that a lot of Arab men were taking flight training

And a lot of Arab men are undoubtedly taking flight training right now. It's because you get an easy Visa when you do so. So what? Another non-sequitur.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just for the record, I believe the hijacker suspects were involved. But they were only patsies. And there's not even any hard evidence for OBL being involved at all.

You believe they were only patsies, but you back that belief up with....nothing.

and just for the record, OBL had knowledge of the attacks I'm sure (as evidenced by his phone calls - www.cooperativeresearch.org...), but Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind.

- Prior knowledge that people with known links to OBL were in America

Show me the source documentation from which this claim comes.

From my links
Mohammed of course
Ramzi Yousef
Mohammed Haydar Zammar - Wasn't in the U.S. but was arrested by us
Can't forget the hijackers...
Alhazmi and Almihdhar
Alshehhi
Atta
Jarrah
Hanjour
etc.

Again, most of these are more connected with Mohammed than Osama

- Prior knowledge that hijacking of aircraft was planned

Show me the source documentation proving that this would have involved only Islamic fundamentalists and definitely no one else.

lol, show me ANY source that even comes close to suggesting anything but terrorists were involved

Bojinka

1998
ex CIA agent warns Mohammed is going to hijack planes
CIA and a foreign intel agency warns of terrorists flying bomb laden bombs into WTC - www.cooperativeresearch.org...
US intel again warns of bin Laden planing to use Aircraft as weapons - www.cooperativeresearch.org...
And again... - www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Niaz Khan

2000:
Italian intl - www.cooperativeresearch.org...

2001:
Word out of Afghanistan - www.cooperativeresearch.org...

etc.

- Prior knowledge that those aircraft would be used to destroy high profile targets

Same. Show me the Muslims weren't just patsies.

See some of the links above.


Show me that they were.

- Prior knowledge that those aircraft might have explosives on board

Same.

Well, Osama wanted to fly bomb laden planes into airports and buildings etc. I guess that would have been too difficult to pull off though.
On 9/11 some of the hijackers claimed they had bombs and even had devices that looked like bombs
Sweeny

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You believe they were only patsies, but you back that belief up with....nothing.

Because I'm only stating my opinion here and not trying to persuade you of it, or provoke you with non-sequiturs.

This opinion is based on other events of 9/11 that I won't sidetrack into, but I'm sure you're familiar enough with them from the other threads.

From my links
Mohammed of course
Ramzi Yousef
Mohammed Haydar Zammar - Wasn't in the U.S. but was arrested by us
Can't forget the hijackers...
Alhazmi and Almihdhar
Alshehhi
Atta
Jarrah
Hanjour
etc.

Again, most of these are more connected with Mohammed than Osama

Well I guess that's about as close to source documentation as you're ever going to offer, huh?

Note that I was responding to a list of bullets Aotearoa posted. The list itself amounts to a series of non-sequiturs in argument that terrorists alone carried out 9/11, but some of the links you provide above provide sources for terrorists allegedly stating outright that they were going to be involved in an attack on the WTC. You wouldn't point these out, but that's the kind of thing you would look for if you wanted to provide original sources for certain assertions you make. Of course there's an assumption that the reports themselves are honest and not fallacious, but at least it's not total speculation or illogical correlations. Most direct witnesses, I think, are going to be reliable, especially when you can contact them and verify whatever they say.

Now, considering I think they were just patsies, I would have no problem with that specific information, that they were in the US and our FBI and CIA knew they were here and etc., and just didn't do anything and left them alone. (This is where all the assertions of a massive intelligence failure have come from.) And all of this still fits within the facts that you've presented (or half-presented) so far.

But you were going for something else with this thread, weren't you?

lol, show me ANY source that even comes close to suggesting anything but terrorists were involved
[...]
Show me that they were [just patsies].

Here you're again asking me to disprove you rather than supporting your own case.

As Aotearoa also posted:

Originally posted by Aotearoa
"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this".
[...]
So, let's see, whoever proposes the opening post has the burden of proof. That person must prove his/her claims or the whole argument ... err ... discussion is a waste of everyone's time.

Emphasis mine.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well I guess that's about as close to source documentation as you're ever going to offer, huh?

What?
If you actually look at the links you would see there's MANY more links within it. They didn't just make that stuff up. The sources in which they gathered that info are all in the links.

You're just being ridiculous now.

Now, considering I think they were just patsies, I would have no problem with that specific information, that they were in the US and our FBI and CIA knew they were here and etc., and just didn't do anything and left them alone. (This is where all the assertions of a massive intelligence failure have come from.) And all of this still fits within the facts that you've presented (or half-presented) so far.

You also have to remember this was pre 9/11, pre Patriot Act, etc. And this is the US. You just can't go around arresting people.

But you were going for something else with this thread, weren't you?

Yeah, I wanted someone (who believe the government was behind the attacks) to explain all that info. It contradicts their belief that it wasn't terrorists. I want them to explain specifically what's wrong with the info provided.

Here you're again asking me to disprove you rather than supporting your own case.

READ THE TITLE OF THE THREAD!!!!
This isn't about me making a case. My case could be...Aliens did it....for all you know. I'm asking for anyone who doesn't believe that terrorists did it to explain why. All that stuff I posted. Explain why it's wrong!

As Aotearoa also posted:

Originally posted by Aotearoa
"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this".
[...]
So, let's see, whoever proposes the opening post has the burden of proof. That person must prove his/her claims or the whole argument ... err ... discussion is a waste of everyone's time.

Emphasis mine.

I don't care about all that stuff. I'm not making a new theory or anything.
Why are you trying to make this difficult?
I'm asking a simple question.

What's wrong with the first two posts?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
If you actually look at the links you would see there's MANY more links within it. They didn't just make that stuff up. The sources in which they gathered that info are all in the links.

The only reason I'm giving you hell for this is because you aren't posting anything but links, and I can have no idea what specific pieces of information you're referencing, or what backs them up, or if you even know what the hell you're talking about.

You also have to remember this was pre 9/11, pre Patriot Act, etc. And this is the US. You just can't go around arresting people.

Aw, come on. You can come up with a better excuse than that. They knew these guys were terrorists. Read through your own links.

Yeah, I wanted someone (who believe the government was behind the attacks) to explain all that info. It contradicts their belief that it wasn't terrorists. I want them to explain specifically what's wrong with the info provided.

I don't see anything wrong with the info. Your argument is what's wrong. Non-sequitur isn't a logical argument, which has been explained to you a few times by now. The info you cite isn't proof that Islamo fascists carried out 9/11 by themselves.

READ THE TITLE OF THE THREAD!!!!
This isn't about me making a case. My case could be...Aliens did it....for all you know. I'm asking for anyone who doesn't believe that terrorists did it to explain why. All that stuff I posted. Explain why it's wrong!

See above.

See above with the questions you finish your post with, as well.

How does it not follow to say terrorists were planning attacks similar to 9-11 so therefore it is likely they committed the attacks on 9-11?

How about instead of dancing around the issue and attempting to dismiss what TJW is presented by attacking his method of argument, you actually attempt to answer the questions he asked?