9/11?!

[chriscool9]

So basically what do you guys think?!  Were the government in on it or was it an act of 'Terrorism'?! Maybe some of you guys have seen the Loose Change video? What do you guys think on that?!
Any feelings or beleifs you have on it?

Chris

[Calum]

Very provocative topic you've chosen there.
Let's hope feelings don't run too high.
Anyway, my personal feelings on the matter are that it was an act of terrorism against the US.
I don't think the government were in on it, and if they were then the world has sunk far lower than I thought.
Never heard of the Loose Change video, can you direct me to it?

[2k_dummy]

Conspiracy theories abound. Its like math. Figures don't lie, but liars figure. No government involvement.

[chriscool9]

Very provocative topic you've chosen there.
Let's hope feelings don't run too high.
Anyway, my personal feelings on the matter are that it was an act of terrorism against the US.
I don't think the government were in on it, and if they were then the world has sunk far lower than I thought.
Never heard of the Loose Change video, can you direct me to it?

Yea i did think that it was a bit of a touchy subject, that's why I sent a PM to the Admin. Anyway:
http://www.loosechange911.com/lc2e.htm

Chris

[Calum]

Wow, that's one long video.
I'll take time to watch it (or at least some of it), just not now.
As 2k says, there are conspiracy theories about everything.
Heard the one about the flight number, type it in Wingdings font and you get two towers, a plane and an explosion?
Something like that anyway.
That's a complete fake, the flight number isn't the one used there.
Just another prank by people thinking it's cool to mislead people, you know?

[chriscool9]

True, but Ive never seen any 'Conspiracies' be more backed up or believed then this one. It has been a massive hit and will soon be in a Cinemas in America. Personally ive never seen that before.

Chris

[2k_dummy]

Compare it global warming. Which set of "experts" and "scientists" do you choose to be persuaded by. Keep in mind that theory is what someone thinks is/will/did happen, its not proven fact.

[fffreak]

I don't really know what to think. I some what think the government had a part in it. About the Wingdings thing you mean >this<. The people that flew the planes into the towers were actually trained by the U.S.

I don't really think that this is just some mere coincidence. But, that's is just my beliefs
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml

8-)fffreak

[Neil]

Compare it global warming. Which set of "experts" and "scientists" do you choose to be persuaded by. Keep in mind that theory is what someone thinks is/will/did happen, its not proven fact.

In reverse I argue that it's a theory that there was no government involvement and it has not been proven.

You made a logically fallacy.

Is P true or false? P might be false. Therefore P is false. Nope.
Is P true or false? P might be true. Therefore P is true. The reverse.

[chriscool9]

I personally think there are WAY to many 'coincidences' that happened on that day for the Government not to be involved.
Anyone else got any views on it?!

Chris

[fffreak]

Thanks for that link Chris, I am downloading it right now, it is 920MB . The dollar bills on that link were out way before 9/11, so the government had to have known something.

8-)fffreak

[chriscool9]

Ya its big. Ive got the first one they did, and to be honest i wasn't aware there was another one out until i started this topic. Ill try and have a look at it.
Also yea, bit of a coincidence about the money.

Chris

[Rob Pomeroy]

In reverse I argue that it's a theory that there was no government involvement and it has not been proven.

You made a logically fallacy.

Is P true or false? P might be false. Therefore P is false. Nope.
Is P true or false? P might be true. Therefore P is true. The reverse.

Well.

If we're going to have battles of logic...

It is easier to defend an positive assertion than a negative assertion.  Therefore it is expedient to allow the burden of proof to fall on the person asserting the positive.  i.e. the person suggesting that there was government involvement must adduce evidence of this.  There is no onus on anyone to adduce evidence of non-involvement (that's the logical fallacy) - they merely must rebut the evidence of involvement, if it has any shred of credibility.

[M1CH431]

It is easier to defend an positive assertion than a negative assertion.  Therefore it is expedient to allow the burden of proof to fall on the person asserting the positive.  i.e. the person suggesting that there was government involvement must adduce evidence of this.  There is no onus on anyone to adduce evidence of non-involvement (that's the logical fallacy) - they merely must rebut the evidence of involvement, if it has any shred of credibility.

That just totally killed my thinker.

[fffreak]

LOL michael, Rob did make a good point though.

8-)fffreak