British brothers and sisters, y'all wearing poppies or nah?

[Ted Williams' head]

Terrorizers

Yes! And midget truthers. I draw the ire of a strange demographic!

 

[member 1013]

Yes! And midget truthers. I draw the ire of a strange demographic!

Who's a midget? I love midgets. You ever tickle one?

 

[Leigh]

Yes! And midget truthers. I draw the ire of a strange demographic!

Well, your comments were a bit inflammatory. You place the burden of proof on the truthers but logically it is on the government.

 

[member 1013]

Well, your comments were a bit inflammatory. You place the burden of proof on the truthers but logically it is on the government.

Guilty until proven innocent?

 

[Leigh]

Guilty until proven innocent?

No, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim. Buildings were hit, an official report was made. The burden of proof is on that report. We know for a fact that the government will lie and are capable of false flag operations, so taking the report on face value is ludicrous

 

[member 1013]

No, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim. Buildings were hit, an official report was made. The burden of proof is on that report. We know for a fact that the government will lie and are capable of false flag operations, so taking the report on face value is ludicrous

I disagree, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to prove what they are saying is beyond a doubt, 100 percent true and to disprove the official timeline/occurrences of the events.

You have to prove to me they ARE lying, not that they have the capability to lie.

 

[Ted Williams' head]

No, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim.

When someone says that 9/11 was an inside job, are they not making a claim?

 

[Ted Williams' head]

You have to prove to me they ARE lying, not that they have the capability to lie.

Exactly. EVERYONE has the capability of lying.

I love how the government are this evil entity that can never be trusted, but your average joe is the gold standard of credibility.

 

[Leigh]

I disagree, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to prove what they are saying is beyond a doubt, 100 percent true and to disprove the official timeline/occurrences of the events.

You have to prove to me they ARE lying, not that they have the capability to lie.

No, that's logically incorrect. By that logic, you have to prove the truthers are lying when they say the planes were replaced by drones.

 

[member 1013]

No, that's logically incorrect. By that logic, you have to prove the truthers are lying when they say the planes were replaced by drones.

Absolutely you do...

If we are assuming the truthers are the position that is being challenged.

 

[member 1013]

Absolutely you do...

If we are assuming the truthers are the position that is being challenged.

Let me put it this way if you say some one's claims are lies in a court of law, you become the plaintiff. It is up to the plaintiff to prove the defendants guild.

So are the courts logically flawed?

 

[Leigh]

Exactly. EVERYONE has the capability of lying.

I love how the government are this evil entity that can never be trusted, but your average joe is the gold standard of credibility.

A LOT of strawmen in this thread. I never said average Joe should be believed either. If someone makes a claim, the burden of proof lies with them. If you do not understand this, you should brush up on your science.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Leigh]

Let me put it this way if you say some one's claims are lies in a court of law, you become the plaintiff. It is up to the plaintiff to prove the defendants guild.

So are the courts logically flawed?

Courts don't determine fact, they determine guilt (not innocence)

 

[member 1013]

A LOT of strawmen in this thread. I never said average Joe should be believed either. If someone makes a claim, the burden of proof lies with them. If you do not understand this, you should brush up on your science.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So where does making a claim end? The truthers aren't making their own claims?

 

[Leigh]

So where does making a claim end? The truthers aren't making their own claims?

No, they're challenging the claims of the official 911 report.

 

[member 1013]

Courts don't determine fact, they determine guilt (not innocence)

Using...

wait for it

FACTS.

I would like the same standard of guilt to extend to the social sphere. Again I want proof they are lying. The suggestion isn't enough for me.

No, they're challenging the claims of the official 911 report.

With their own unsubstantiated claims (it was a drone, it was a high level conspiracy from TOP MEN DOWN).

 

[member 1013]

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Pentagon

At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

And since blogs and youtube videos are now sources: The Soap Box: Embarrassing Conspiracy Theories: Drones were what really hit the WTC towers and the Pentagon on 9/11

Besides the fact that this theory ignores that there are no eye witnesses to any of the planes being allegedly shot down, it also ignores the fact that phone calls from people on board those planes were made to loved ones on the ground, telling their loved ones that the planes they were on had been hijacked, and that some of them had even called their loved ones very soon before impacting the World Trade Center towers, or the Pentagon, or that field in Pennsylvania.

To act like no one responds to the conspiracy theorist's claims is highly disingenuous.

 

[Leigh]

Using...

wait for it

FACTS.

Incorrect. They determine guilt using evidence. Eye witness testimony is not fact and courts don't determine innocence.

I would like the same standard of guilt to extend to the social sphere. Again I want proof they are lying. The suggestion isn't enough for me.

I don't care what you want. You're entitled to your opinion but your logic results in taking the word of a government with a history of planning false flags as fact.

With their own unsubstantiated claims (it was a drone, it was a high level conspiracy from TOP MEN DOWN).

SOME truthers make claims and I agree that their claims also bring a burden of proof. You've made another logical error, this time it is a False Dichotomy. We don't have to choose between tin foil hats and taking the official 9/11 report as gospel. Instead, the logical approach is to ask both sides making a claim to verify it.

A claim that the buildings were dropped in a controlled demolition requires proof. A claim that terrorists hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings also requires proof.

 

[member 1013]

Incorrect. They determine guilt using evidence. Eye witness testimony is not fact and courts don't determine innocence.


I don't care what you want. You're entitled to your opinion but your logic results in taking the word of a government with a history of planning false flags as fact.


SOME truthers make claims and I agree that their claims also bring a burden of proof. You've made another logical error, this time it is a False Dichotomy. We don't have to choose between tin foil hats and taking the official 9/11 report as gospel. Instead, the logical approach is to ask both sides making a claim to verify it.

A claim that the buildings were dropped in a controlled demolition requires proof. A claim that terrorists hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings also requires proof.

I don't give a fuck what you care about, how's that?

I never said to take the word of the government. But there is enough literature from the scientific community out there validating their claims that now I believe the burden of proof now lies on the naysayers.

 

[ThatOneDude]

Courts don't determine fact, they determine guilt (not innocence)

I was going to say using the legal system isn't the best example. That whole system is fucked.

 

[Leigh]

I never said to take the word of the government.

Well this sounds awfully close...

I disagree, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to prove what they are saying is beyond a doubt, 100 percent true and to disprove the official timeline/occurrences of the events.

You have to prove to me they ARE lying, not that they have the capability to lie.

 

[member 1013]

Well this sounds awfully close...

Yes I should have clarified, I believe that in this case, the burden of proof has now shifted.

 

[ThatOneDude]

Well this sounds awfully close...

But at the same time does that mean we never can believe the government because they've lied in the past? People have all lied at one time or another. Can we never believe anyone?
Yes this a ridiculous statement, but do you see what I'm trying to get at in my dumb mind?

 

[member 1013]

I was going to say using the legal system isn't the best example. That whole system is fucked.

so maybe im not the best debatenor

 

[ThatOneDude]

so maybe im not the best debatenor

Lol me neither man, me neither
I'm just stubborn as fuck and it wears people down