View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
marky 54 Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 3293
|
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Roadrunner wrote: | The onus is on those who believe in planes to prove their case. They can't. And that settles it. |
the onus is on nobody to prove wrong claims which people make. the onus is on people making claims to prove them.
however currently they are doing a really poor job and argueing a case using misleading/poor/wrong examples, and although some people will believe anything, most people will not, and it is those people you have a hard time convincing because they think for themselves and can see through the deception used by some researchers. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Roadrunner Moderate Poster
Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 200
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
You claim that planes hit the Twin Towers. Your claim came first. Now you must prove it. And you can't. You know you can't. 6 years later your lies are exposed as lies. They fail the evidence test. They come from sources that are completely unaccountable.
Case Closed |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Roadrunner wrote: | You claim that planes hit the Twin Towers. Your claim came first. Now you must prove it. And you can't. You know you can't. 6 years later your lies are exposed as lies. They fail the evidence test. They come from sources that are completely unaccountable.
Case Closed |
Nothing is more unaccountable than reality-denying no-planes trolls as you yourself clearly demonstrate in your avoidance of this:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11608
'Accountablity' is now required from you. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Roadrunner Moderate Poster
Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 200
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ask your questions on a separate thread and I will answer you without delay.
Now, will you finally answer the 3 questions on the BBC and its television coverage on 9/11/2001 ? Or shall I just stop asking ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Roadrunner wrote: | Ask your questions on a separate thread and I will answer you without delay.
Now, will you finally answer the 3 questions on the BBC and its television coverage on 9/11/2001 ? Or shall I just stop asking ? |
"Pride goes before a fall" _________________ "Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Stefan Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006 Posts: 1219
|
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, the onus is to disprove planes.
Nothing can be 100% proved except our own existence and then only to ourselves.
The 9/11 Truth movement has taken the official story and proved certain parts wrong - that is the logical method.
The idea that the starting point should be that everything was faked on computer and move onwards is pure nonsense.
We saw planes on TV.
Eyewitnesses, including a person I've met, saw planes.
The damage is consistent with planes.
That is our starting point
Now you can argue that we saw faked images on TV, that people who saw planes are lying, that the damage is not consistent with planes, and you can attempt to prove those claims.
But you don't.
Everyone of the arguments above have failed to stand up to even gentle scrutiny, that is why the overwhelming majority of people do not believe and indeed find laughable your claims.
Your faked images "research" is a joke. Your claims that people are lying are based on the above "research" and you continually dodge the requests to explain how anything but a plane could cause the damage we saw.
If you want us to dismiss evidence for planes you have to demonstrate each of your claims, and it has to stand up in debate. So far, you've presented those claims and then called anyone who brings them into question either "trolls" or any number of ad hominem slurs.
You have to do better. _________________
Peace and Truth |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gruts Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007 Posts: 1050
|
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
^^^ what he said.
the onus is on people who believe in no planes hit the towers to provide some plausible reason for others to believe it.
you can jump to conclusions based on subjective interpretation of low quality, nth generation compressed clips with multiple compression artefacts and piss poor resolution until the cows come home - but it will never be credible proof of anything.
especially if you also haven't got a clue how to explain any of the major implausibilities of the scenario you are presenting - like how the impact damage was created in the absence of a plane - and if all the claims you do make have more plausible explanations.
bitching about lack of better quality video doesn't change the fact that you can't credibly jump to the conclusions to which you have jumped with the available material.
it's like you're standing up in court and saying "well m'lud, my evidence doesn't actually have any credibility, but it's all I've been able to get - so couldn't we just pretend that it's credible?"
sorry, but no. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|