How could CIA/NSA/FBI miss the 9/11 attack?

Jay:
high school debate tactics
Click to expand...

I think you discredit high school debate here. Actual formal team debating is brutally reliant on research able facts and valid logic. Fallacious arguments get the crap ripped out of them.

What I think you mean is schoolyard debate.

(Nit picking does not count toward a t-shirt)
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Jay:


I think you discredit high school debate here. Actual formal team debating is brutally reliant on research able facts and valid logic. Fallacious arguments get the crap ripped out of them.

What I think you mean is schoolyard debate.

(Nit picking does not count toward a t-shirt)
Click to expand...

Not quite. Child No.2 was on school debating team and they won state championships. Part of his rebuttal technique was to cite imaginary and obscure counterpoint references. I asked him why he did that, and he said that it would take too much time to research all possible rebuttal references prior to the debate, which means that there'd be bugger-all chance for the opposition to realise that his references were bogus *during* the debate.... To the audience, however, the rebuttal sounded absolutely plausible.
 
Oystein said:
That's a loaded question similar to "Why are you still beating your wife?"

If the government came to this forum and made claims, we'd hold it to the same standards.

Also: I don't frequent the Politics-subforum, but am reasonably sure folks there do pick apart the US government on many issues.


Pity, ain't it ;)
Click to expand...

The government makes claims all day long, does it matter if they're made online before their claims will be held to the same standard as yours or mine? Why can't their unsourced claims be called into question with the same legitimacy as you or I? Why is this a one-sided show?
 
Jango said:
Why is this a one-sided show?
Click to expand...

Because this forum here and now is the show you chose. It exists here and now, not globally. And you are here and now making claims in it. You chose it, and you are governed by the practicality of it. Therefore here and now you are on the hook to carry your burden of proof.

Every conspiracy claimant sooner or later tries to shift the burden of proof away from himself. You are no different. I guarantee every one of your critics here can see right through what you're trying to do.
 
JayUtah said:
Because this forum here and now is the show you chose. It exists here and now, not globally. And you are here and now making claims in it. You chose it, and you are governed by the practicality of it. Therefore here and now you are on the hook to carry your burden of proof.

Every conspiracy claimant sooner or later tries to shift the burden of proof away from himself. You are no different. I guarantee every one of your critics here can see right through what you're trying to do.
Click to expand...

No. You're failing to observe the obvious distinction I've presented -- I understand that when I make a claim, that I need to substantiate it, I completely get that and I am not alleviating myself of that burden.

What I'm pointing out is simple: the government makes claims all of the time. Often enough, the claims made are made without us, the people financing their exploits, seeing any evidence whatsoever, the only calculus that supposedly matters is so-and-so's word that evidence does indeed exist which validates the undertaking we're being led to accomplish. That's simple.

And it is on display in so many different regards with 9/11 -- they tell us a bunch of jazzy ******** but won't show us the math they used to come to their conclusions 'cause it's Top Secret National Security Stuff.

That reality is not widely admitted here, and it is odd, and it is why I will keep pointing it out 'cause it completely removes the burden of proof for the government.

We on the same wave length now, mon ami?
 
Jango said:
No. You're failing to observe the obvious distinction I've presented...
Click to expand...

No, I simply disagree that it matters in your situation.

No, we aren't on the same wavelength. You have a burden of proof, and you don't want to carry it. Until you are willing to carry it, you won't be on my wavelength.

Got it?
 
JayUtah said:
No, I simply disagree that it matters in your situation.

No, we aren't on the same wavelength. You have a burden of proof, and you don't want to carry it. Until you are willing to carry it, you won't be on my wavelength.

Got it?
Click to expand...

How doesn't it matter in terms of 9/11? Or any investigation for that matter. Why must we take their word for it? Why can't they meet the same burden as us?

It's 2014, man. Those questions should have been thoroughly looked upon decades-and-decades ago. The fact they are still present and more troublesome than seemingly ever before is not a good thing, eh? So why are you not championing transparency? Answer that question at least.
 
Jango said:
How doesn't it matter in terms of 9/11? Or any investigation for that matter. Why must we take their word for it? Why can't they meet the same burden as us?

It's 2014, man. Those questions should have been thoroughly looked upon decades-and-decades ago. The fact they are still present and more troublesome than seemingly ever before is not a good thing, eh? So why are you not championing transparency? Answer that question at least.
Click to expand...

Your evasion continues. Your question has been answered at least twice. As to the more pertinent question, you agree you have a burden of proof. Your continued evasion displays an unwillingness to meet it.
 
Jango said:
How doesn't it matter in terms of 9/11? Or any investigation for that matter. Why must we take their word for it? Why can't they meet the same burden as us?

It's 2014, man. Those questions should have been thoroughly looked upon decades-and-decades ago. The fact they are still present and more troublesome than seemingly ever before is not a good thing, eh? So why are you not championing transparency? Answer that question at least.
Click to expand...

Am I on the same wavelength ?
 
JayUtah said:
Your evasion continues. Your question has been answered at least twice. As to the more pertinent question, you agree you have a burden of proof. Your continued evasion displays an unwillingness to meet it.
Click to expand...

Quid pro quo, man. I answer ye, but ye doesn't answer me. Are you my wife? ;)
 
Jango said:
Quid pro quo, man. I answer ye, but ye doesn't answer me. Are you my wife? ;)
Click to expand...

You have asserted that an FBI mole in Al Qaeda had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. You have agreed that you have the burden of proof for that assertion. Will you carry that burden or not? Yes or no.
 
JayUtah said:
You have asserted that an FBI mole in Al Qaeda had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. You have agreed that you have the burden of proof for that assertion. Will you carry that burden or not? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

Please quote me, as I do not recall saying that. I do, however, recall saying that the F.B.I. had had a mole in al Qaeda prior to 9/11 whereas they had said that they had never infiltrated the organization -- which is true. So, can you quote me the post where I asserted that an F.B.I. mole in al Qaeda had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks?
 
Jango said:
Please quote me, as I do not recall saying that. I do, however, recall saying that the F.B.I. had had a mole in al Qaeda prior to 9/11 whereas they had said that they had never infiltrated the organization -- which is true. So, can you quote me the post where I asserted that an F.B.I. mole in al Qaeda had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks?
Click to expand...

Where did they say they never infiltrated al Qaeda? Did you make that up?
 
Jango said:
No, I did not make it up. I've already posted the link on here.
Click to expand...
No, your post did not support your claim.

F.B.I. had had a mole in al Qaeda prior to 9/11 whereas they had said that they had never infiltrated the organization
Click to expand...

No evidence to support this.

The FBI never said they had not infiltrated. You made that up, the FBI never said it.
 
Last edited:
Jango said:
Please quote me, as I do not recall saying that.
Click to expand...

Good, then we can dispense with the notion that any such mole had foreknowledge of 9/11. I accept your concession.

So in the context of this thread, which is the allegations that the American intelligence community had sufficient foreknowledge of 9/11 to prevent it, of what possible value is the mole claim?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom