IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags thermite

Reply
Old 29th June 2011, 05:27 AM   #81
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
I made a ballpark assumption that he meant the features witnesses described, but the claims I've heard are a lot broader in scope than simply what witnesses used as analogies in their testimony. If he's not referring to that, then I'd like to know as well what exactly those features are for the sake of clarity at least. And in fact whether or not he disagrees with the conclusions that this thread parodies. It would probably clear up a lot.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 29th June 2011 at 05:29 AM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 06:40 AM   #82
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
They are so easy to shoot down between breakfast and starting the dish washer.
A European with a dishwasher? Wonders never cease!

j/k, but a lot of European immigrants I show my rental apt. to obviously have never seen a dishwasher before. Sometimes they even point at it and say "what's that?"

But to be fair, they're mostly from the Balkans region and not Germany.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 06:51 AM   #83
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
A European with a dishwasher? Wonders never cease!

j/k, but a lot of European immigrants I show my rental apt. to obviously have never seen a dishwasher before. Sometimes they even point at it and say "what's that?"

But to be fair, they're mostly from the Balkans region and not Germany.
I'm in Flanders and we all have dishwashers. Steam powered,but we have them.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 07:02 AM   #84
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
You guys are really starting to bore me. And I'm convinced, it's you, and not the Twoofies, who live in their mothers' basements, have no jobs, no girlfriends to speak of.

It's been less than 24 hrs. Get a grip.

PS. This thread still has nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing.
What a particularly obnoxious response.

WHAR THE
BLACK SMOKE
RED
WHAR?
\ /
o
|
/ \
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 07:28 AM   #85
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
He's likely referring to the people who likened it to a controlled demolition, which runs into the same problem as the first; people make similar comparisons all the time. There's no reason to dispute whether they said something to the effect, but like reports of explosions witnesses likening it to other things happens just as often.

Like I said earlier that's what the OP was about; if you follow that line of logic you're missing to obvious points that go against the CD argument unless you can explain how one set of features over another is more likely. This deals with witness testimony, something that is far from imperial unless you can discern the differences between simile, metaphor, and how people interpret what they see or hear.
I don't disagree with your post. Eyewitness descriptions are certainly not conclusive or definitive. They are merely one aspect in a body of evidence. Still, there are two mistakes you're making: 1) That any description of the building's collapse being like a CD is strictly figurative. It doesn't have to be, especially in this situation, when eyewitnesses don't know the source of what they are seeing and hearing. They don't really have much of a choice. Secondly, it's empirical, not imperial. And whether you think you can discern the implications of figurative language, it's still not empirical. What it is is up for debate.

As far at the OP, there is no line of reasoning. The only chance Tri has at making his point is if any Twoofer were to compare the hotel fire to the WTC. And as far as I can tell no one has. And even if they did, they can still be wrong without having to conflate it with all other questioning of the buildings' collapses, which is what he's attempting to do.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 07:44 AM   #86
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Red, how about you pull your head out of your ass and READ what has been posted.

You're building strawman arguments. I never claimed that any truther compared this fire to the WTC fires. My POINT was, and I have EXPLAINED this to you more than once, is that truthers claim that black smoke is indictive of an oxygen starved fire. This fire proves that absolutely false.

Truthers claim that explosions=explosives. This fire proves that even in normal fires, explosions are heard without there being bombs/explosives in the building.

Some Truthers claim that steel isn't effected by fire. This fire proves that wrong.

Some truthers claim that thermite is the only cause of melted metal. This fire proves that wrong.

Now, stop with the strawman arguments and pull you head out of your ass.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 08:04 AM   #87
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Red, how about you pull your head out of your ass and READ what has been posted.

You're building strawman arguments. I never claimed that any truther compared this fire to the WTC fires. My POINT was, and I have EXPLAINED this to you more than once, is that truthers claim that black smoke is indictive of an oxygen starved fire. This fire proves that absolutely false.

Truthers claim that explosions=explosives. This fire proves that even in normal fires, explosions are heard without there being bombs/explosives in the building.

Some Truthers claim that steel isn't effected by fire. This fire proves that wrong.

Some truthers claim that thermite is the only cause of melted metal. This fire proves that wrong.

Now, stop with the strawman arguments and pull you head out of your ass.
Take a deep breath, put your drink down, stop worrying about the suddenly pedestrian Red Sox and read the last paragraph of my last post again.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 08:18 AM   #88
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Take a deep breath, put your drink down, stop worrying about the suddenly pedestrian Red Sox and read the last paragraph of my last post again.
Only if you start reading other members posts.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 09:24 AM   #89
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
And even if they did, they can still be wrong without having to conflate it with all other questioning of the buildings' collapses, which is what he's attempting to do.
All right, give us some examples of more reasonable questioning. Surely such examples exists?
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 10:32 AM   #90
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,757
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I don't disagree with your post. Eyewitness descriptions are certainly not conclusive or definitive. They are merely one aspect in a body of evidence. Still, there are two mistakes you're making: 1) That any description of the building's collapse being like a CD is strictly figurative. It doesn't have to be, especially in this situation, when eyewitnesses don't know the source of what they are seeing and hearing. They don't really have much of a choice. Secondly, it's empirical, not imperial. And whether you think you can discern the implications of figurative language, it's still not empirical. What it is is up for debate.

As far at the OP, there is no line of reasoning. The only chance Tri has at making his point is if any Twoofer were to compare the hotel fire to the WTC. And as far as I can tell no one has. And even if they did, they can still be wrong without having to conflate it with all other questioning of the buildings' collapses, which is what he's attempting to do.
The irony in this post is astounding.

I find it hiliarious that you're using skeptical reasoning to discount thermite/CD for this hotel fire. But you have a conniption fit every time someone uses that same reasoning toward your ignorance of WTC?

Hypocrisy at it's finest.
__________________
--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Sabretooth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 02:03 PM   #91
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I don't disagree with your post. Eyewitness descriptions are certainly not conclusive or definitive. They are merely one aspect in a body of evidence. Still, there are two mistakes you're making: 1) That any description of the building's collapse being like a CD is strictly figurative. It doesn't have to be, especially in this situation, when eyewitnesses don't know the source of what they are seeing and hearing. They don't really have much of a choice.
My point is that them not knowing the sources isn't enough of a red flag because there are a ton of sources just from the terrorist attack alone that haven't been eliminated in the last several years this has been a topic in the whole "conspiracy movement" that followed suit. The reports, and the way people described the collapses isn't out of the ordinary for any event like that.

Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Secondly, it's empirical, not imperial. And whether you think you can discern the implications of figurative language, it's still not empirical. What it is is up for debate.
With this event you're looking at multiple things in juxtaposition with what people say; you have the fire fighter reports, you have the civilian reports, you have video footage, sound bites, and and extensive precedents of how witnesses have responded in similar fire situations. There were people inside the north tower when it collapsed in a position that was closest to where many of the claimed explosives would have been located and fatal. THere were people at close enough proximity to have been dealt hearing damage from the kinds of explosions that result from planted charges. When witnesses describe something you cannot blindly take their testimony literally, especially when clear physical indicators that would corroborate the statements is distinctly missing.

Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
As far at the OP, there is no line of reasoning. The only chance Tri has at making his point is if any Twoofer were to compare the hotel fire to the WTC.And as far as I can tell no one has. And even if they did, they can still be wrong without having to conflate it with all other questioning of the buildings' collapses, which is what he's attempting to do.
Two points:

Firstly I told you before. When you entered this thread you attacked a subject that was not part of the OP. Tri was attacking a line of logic that is used by members of the WTC MIHOP movement where witness testimony is asserted literally, and not by corroboration with multiple facets of evidence.

Secondly... the fallacy to which you refer has been made a thousand times over, some of the most brazen of which in the form of trying to equivocate the performance of concrete framed construction to steel. Any first time in history argument invokes this fallacy, because building performance does not replicate in a cookie cutter fashion.

Cross check case study examples like the Mandarin Oriental (china) and the Madrid towers (Spain) with the comparisons that AE911truth makes. If you read into those like you tried to here, however off topic it was, you'll see how ridiculous those comparisons are. You're not stupid.
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 02:33 PM   #92
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Sure, go right ahead. But when you do make sure the claim is that black smoke is only from an oxygen starved fire.
Good to know that RedI is stating that black smoke can and does exist from fires that are not 'oxygen starved'.

Quote:
Make sure that the clam is that molten/melted metal can only occur if thermite is present.
Good also to know that RedI would require some indication that an observer had some way to know that the melted metal observed was steel rather than some other metal since many other metals will melt and run at temperatures well below that generated by thermite.
Quote:
Make sure that the claim is that all explosions mean explosives.
Good to know that RedI agrees that explosions are not unusual in large fires and not , by themselves indications that actual explosives were present in the burning structure.
Quote:
If not, you are building strawmen. That is, creating a non-existent argument purely for the purpose of a circle "auto-stimulation".
Good also to note that RedI knows that anyone having made the claims that black smoke must mean an oxygen straved fire, that melted metal in a fire is steel without having any evidence that it is in fact steel, or that the hearing of explosions in a fire indicates explosive use, are producing strawman arguements that are easily dismissed. Good to know that he considers such contentions to be to intelligent discussion, what 'autostimulation' is to love making.

all of which, if I don't miss my guess, is the gist of what the OP was getting at.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 29th June 2011 at 02:39 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 02:35 PM   #93
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
PS. This thread still has nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing.
Still lying like a twoofer, Red?
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 02:47 PM   #94
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
As far at the OP, there is no line of reasoning. The only chance Tri has at making his point is if any Twoofer were to compare the hotel fire to the WTC. And as far as I can tell no one has. And even if they did, they can still be wrong without having to conflate it with all other questioning of the buildings' collapses, which is what he's attempting to do.
Are you denying that a common theme in many, if not perhaps your, 911 conspiracy arguemnts, is that the explosions heard in the WTC structure ARE indications of the use of explosives or that melted metal described offhand by observers as 'steel' must be steel and therefore indications of the use of thermite, or that some make no bones about the black smoke emanating from the towers an indication that the fire was oxygen starved and therefore not particularily hot?

Because all of these indicators are shown to have existed in this motel fire and are thus clear proof that the above contentions about their meaning are untrue.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 05:37 PM   #95
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Truthers are only good at doublethink.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 07:10 AM   #96
Fly Poster
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 162
Red Cross officials were present, the same Red Cross tasked with the countdown to Building 7 being blown up, coincidence? I think not!
__________________
"Everyone who comes from the UK is a perp.
"I've been searching for truth since 2006... and in all of that time I've traded notes with people from around the world...

... What's interesting is that EVERY person from the UK has turned out to be a perp. Amazing. And when you visit TheFlyposter's YouTube profile page, s/he's from the UK"
Fly Poster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 07:36 AM   #97
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Good to know that RedI is stating that black smoke can and does exist from fires that are not 'oxygen starved'.



Good also to know that RedI would require some indication that an observer had some way to know that the melted metal observed was steel rather than some other metal since many other metals will melt and run at temperatures well below that generated by thermite.


Good to know that RedI agrees that explosions are not unusual in large fires and not , by themselves indications that actual explosives were present in the burning structure.


Good also to note that RedI knows that anyone having made the claims that black smoke must mean an oxygen straved fire, that melted metal in a fire is steel without having any evidence that it is in fact steel, or that the hearing of explosions in a fire indicates explosive use, are producing strawman arguements that are easily dismissed. Good to know that he considers such contentions to be to intelligent discussion, what 'autostimulation' is to love making.

all of which, if I don't miss my guess, is the gist of what the OP was getting at.
To sum up, truthers have used the following logic:

Premise 1: Black smoke MUST indicate an oxygen-starved fire.
Premise 2: Black smoke was present at the WTC fires.
Conclusion: The fires at WTC were oxygen starved.

Premise 1: Eyewitness testimony of melted steel MUST be linked to the use of thermite.
Premise 2: There was eyewitness testimony of melted steel at WTC.
Conclusion: There was thermite used at WTC.

Premise 1: Explosions heard in a building fire MUST be the result of explosives.
Premise 2: There were explosions heard at WTC.
Conclusion: Explosives were used at WTC.

But it turns out, and Red seems to acknowledge this, that the first premise from each argument must be corrected:

Black smoke MAY indicate an oxygen-starved fire.
Eyewitness testimony of melted steel MAY be linked to the use of thermite.
Explosions heard in a building fire MAY be the result of explosives.

Accordingly, the conclusions must change as well:

The fires at WTC MAY have been oxygen starved.
Thermite MAY have been used at WTC.
Explosives MAY have been used at WTC.

Does this make logical sense, Red? After these corrections, do you think the truther position is just as strong as before?
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 08:06 AM   #98
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
To sum up, truthers have used the following logic:

Premise 1: Black smoke MUST indicate an oxygen-starved fire.
Premise 2: Black smoke was present at the WTC fires.
Conclusion: The fires at WTC were oxygen starved.

Premise 1: Eyewitness testimony of melted steel MUST be linked to the use of thermite.
Premise 2: There was eyewitness testimony of melted steel at WTC.
Conclusion: There was thermite used at WTC.

Premise 1: Explosions heard in a building fire MUST be the result of explosives.
Premise 2: There were explosions heard at WTC.
Conclusion: Explosives were used at WTC.

But it turns out, and Red seems to acknowledge this, that the first premise from each argument must be corrected:

Black smoke MAY indicate an oxygen-starved fire.
Eyewitness testimony of melted steel MAY be linked to the use of thermite.
Explosions heard in a building fire MAY be the result of explosives.

Accordingly, the conclusions must change as well:

The fires at WTC MAY have been oxygen starved.
Thermite MAY have been used at WTC.
Explosives MAY have been used at WTC.

Does this make logical sense, Red? After these corrections, do you think the truther position is just as strong as before?
Yes it does make sense because qualifying your statements makes sense and absolutes do not.

What the hell is the "truther position"? I don't know how many ways the English language will permit me to explain that there is no such thing as truther logic, truther position, etc.

Just because some knucklehead on the internet makes a claim does not mean all skepticism toward the official explanations of 9/11 are irrelevant.

At this point because so much "debunking" is premised on burning the twoofer strawman I can only conclude that this tactic is borne of desperation, not reality.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 08:17 AM   #99
Disbelief
Illuminator
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,306
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Yes it does make sense because qualifying your statements makes sense and absolutes do not.

What the hell is the "truther position"? I don't know how many ways the English language will permit me to explain that there is no such thing as truther logic, truther position, etc.

Just because some knucklehead on the internet makes a claim does not mean all skepticism toward the official explanations of 9/11 are irrelevant.
Glad to see you are calling Gage and AETruth a bunch of knuckleheads then. Just look at their list if features.

Quote:
At this point because so much "debunking" is premised on burning the twoofer strawman I can only conclude that this tactic is borne of desperation, not reality.
Yes, there is a sense of desperation because of all the great evidence the truthers have put forth.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 08:18 AM   #100
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I don't know how many ways the English language will permit me to explain that there is no such thing as truther logic
Finally, we agree on something!

And Stundied.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 08:19 AM   #101
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Yes it does make sense because qualifying your statements makes sense and absolutes do not.

What the hell is the "truther position"? I don't know how many ways the English language will permit me to explain that there is no such thing as truther logic, truther position, etc.

Just because some knucklehead on the internet makes a claim does not mean all skepticism toward the official explanations of 9/11 are irrelevant.

At this point because so much "debunking" is premised on burning the twoofer strawman I can only conclude that this tactic is borne of desperation, not reality.
The truther position is simply: "9/11 was an inside job."

There are many memes that are used to support this position; they aren't difficult to find if you look at a few truther websites or forums discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories. If these memes are irrational or contradict each other, that's not my fault, and it doesn't mean that pointing out their flaws becomes "strawman burning".
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 08:36 AM   #102
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
The truther position is simply: "9/11 was an inside job."

There are many memes that are used to support this position; they aren't difficult to find if you look at a few truther websites or forums discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories. If these memes are irrational or contradict each other, that's not my fault, and it doesn't mean that pointing out their flaws becomes "strawman burning".
It's not my fault either. No one person is responsible for the views and assertions of someone else. But you'd have to be honest and say (as you can see in this and in virtually every other thread on this forum) that there is an attempt to lump everything under the banner of Twooferism.

Do you not see how that is not rational discourse?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 08:38 AM   #103
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
rational discourse?
How's this for (accurate) lumping of truthers:

There are NO TRUTHERS interested in rational discourse.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 08:43 AM   #104
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I don't know how many ways the English language will permit me to explain that there is no such thing as truther logic
Well, ain't that the damn truth. Truthers wouldn't know logic if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.

Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Just because some knucklehead on the internet makes a claim does not mean all skepticism toward the official explanations of 9/11 are irrelevant.
Strawman. We never claimed that.

Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
At this point because so much "debunking" is premised on burning the twoofer strawman I can only conclude that this tactic is borne of desperation, not reality.
It's not a strawman if the points I attacked, are actually positions that many truthers actually take.

Reading for comprehension bites you in the rear again.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 09:58 AM   #105
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
For the records... since there still seems to be issues getting the point about this thread; This contains a ton of quote mined material that is used to suggest that bombs were present. The physical, audio, and visual evidence all contradict the literal interpretation of "truthies" in all of their variations, and as precedents such as the one in the OP suggest... descriptions like these are plenty common.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 30th June 2011 at 10:00 AM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 10:37 AM   #106
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
At this point because so much "debunking" is premised on burning the twoofer strawman I can only conclude that this tactic is borne of desperation, not reality.
Remember folks, rebutting actual arguments made by actual truthers is "burning truther strawmen."

Hey Red, you think that there is a truther out there who considers our pointing out that you have failed to support your bandit and windfall claims burning the twoofer strawman ?

What a farce.

Of course this is the type of logic we have come to expect from a guy whose two accomplishements so far are winning the hundred meters backwards dash from evidence and getting put on ignore by Gravy, who used to post around here.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 11:07 AM   #107
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
It's not my fault either. No one person is responsible for the views and assertions of someone else. But you'd have to be honest and say (as you can see in this and in virtually every other thread on this forum) that there is an attempt to lump everything under the banner of Twooferism.

Do you not see how that is not rational discourse?
I hate this "logic" , " we spew so much garbage, and it is so contradictory that you cannot possibly debate us. that means we win. "

Yes, your twoofy friends to spew a mountain of different garbage, but these specific pieces, the oxygen starved fires, molten metal, etc. Are some of the bigger pieces, championed by all the "faces" of your group, and many, many laymen within the group.

You have been shown such, with both large scale examples, and simple net forums, yet you continue to try the " Unclimable mountain of ****" method of argumentation. "
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 11:20 AM   #108
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
It's not my fault either. No one person is responsible for the views and assertions of someone else. But you'd have to be honest and say (as you can see in this and in virtually every other thread on this forum) that there is an attempt to lump everything under the banner of Twooferism.

Do you not see how that is not rational discourse?
Believing in a CD is not rational discourse.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 12:34 PM   #109
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
It's not my fault either. No one person is responsible for the views and assertions of someone else. But you'd have to be honest and say (as you can see in this and in virtually every other thread on this forum) that there is an attempt to lump everything under the banner of Twooferism.

Do you not see how that is not rational discourse?
No, because when the leaders of the truth "movement" not only do not correct the fringe assertions made by a few wackos, but even defend them, then you can safely say that they are part of the truther position.

Once again: No matter how outrageous the claim made by a truther, you would be hard pressed to find any of his compatriots willing to correct him. Their silence indicates assent, and the claim just becomes another part of the Big Ball of Muck that is the nebulous truther "theory" about 9/11, with no regard to whether it fits or explains anything.

On the other hand, I can think of several times that I have said something that was corrected by another "debunker" who had greater knowledge on the subject. I'm sure most people here can. Unlike trutherism, skepticism doesn't fall apart when questioned.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 12:57 PM   #110
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Truthers claim Black smoke=oxygen starved fire. This article proves them wrong.
Truthers claim that molten/melted metal can only occur if thermite is present. This article proves them wrong.
Truthers claim that explosions mean explosives, and this article (So far) proves them wrong.
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Yes it does make sense because qualifying your statements makes sense and absolutes do not.

What the hell is the "truther position"? I don't know how many ways the English language will permit me to explain that there is no such thing as truther logic, truther position, etc.

Just because some knucklehead on the internet makes a claim does not mean all skepticism toward the official explanations of 9/11 are irrelevant.

At this point because so much "debunking" is premised on burning the twoofer strawman I can only conclude that this tactic is borne of desperation, not reality.
If Triforcharity had preceeded "Truthers claim" in the three instances above, with "Many" or even "Some", or made mention that these are common memes among those we regard as 'truthers' would that have satisfied you?

To that point I asked you;

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Are you denying that a common theme in many, if not perhaps your, 911 conspiracy arguemnts, is that the explosions heard in the WTC structure ARE indications of the use of explosives or that melted metal described offhand by observers as 'steel' must be steel and therefore indications of the use of thermite, or that some make no bones about the black smoke emanating from the towers an indication that the fire was oxygen starved and therefore not particularily hot?

Because all of these indicators are shown to have existed in this motel fire and are thus clear proof that the above contentions about their meaning are untrue.

You skipped addressing this and instead replied to aglle-rithm's summary of all three contentions by simply restating your complaint.
Are you denying that these are common themes in many, if not perhaps your, 911 conspiracy arguemnts?

To my mind it seems quite obvious that they are and in that regard the theme of the thread is quite proper in illustrating that these contentions are debunked and that anyone expressing these contentions does so in the face of obvious contradictory examples.

Would you not agree?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 30th June 2011 at 01:02 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 01:05 PM   #111
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
It strikes me that RedI may be stating that these three memes are easily debunked 'strawman' arguements and that we 'debunkers' are thus taking the easy route out by attacking these strawmen.

I find this particularily odd given my recollection of the number of times each of these has indeed been brought up in these threads by 'truthers' out to illustrate evidence of CD.

ETA:In fact I decieded to look around for at least one example of a 'truther' argueing that the sounds of explosions in Manhattan is an indication of the use of explosives and I found one
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-1...d-wtc-collapse

Ground level explosion causes tower to collapse within itself.

Now I can see why NIST was so reluctant to release this footage.
The 911 blogger piece begins with
Quote:
Yet another 9/11 video that NIST tried to block from being released has emerged discussing bombs in the World Trade Center that led to the collapse of the twin towers, indicating once more that the organization attempted to preside over a cover-up to hide evidence of secondary explosives.
this poster goes on later to say
Quote:
It's a news report, as speculative and uncomfirmed as any other. I know this flood of reports of explosions from the WTC site is burning your hide, but you'll have to get used to it because this is just scratching the surface of thousands of hours of this stuff. I wonder why as researchers search through this stuff the reports continue to be corroborated.
Quote:
What makes you think the reporters and their sources on the scene couldn't distinguish between a ground level explosion they claim brings down WTC 1 and the popping and snapping of much smaller sources of explosions?
Quote:
We have a news report of a ground level explosion bringing down WTC 1 and you think we should just hand wave it away?

What you also don't know is who provided the info to the reporter. Obviously, CBS news had a good enough reason to report it. Does that mean it's conclusive? No. But it sure adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that some very serious explosions went off in the bldgs.

I could just as easily say that I find your complete dismissal of these reports as nothing but blind faith and wishful thinking, and I find it just as surprising that you don't express the slightest skepticism but are willing to accept only those explanations which preserve your tightly held belief.
,,, and the person that posted this link does make some effort to qualify his support but clearly believes that the reports of explosions ARE evidence that explosives were present.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 30th June 2011 at 01:21 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 01:32 PM   #112
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Let's see there's also MaGZ who's very moniker stands for "Missiles at Ground Zero"
There's Jones, and IIRC Gage,who ferevently believe that the melted metal reports are of melted steel and that this is evidence of the use of thermite.
There's Clayton who believes that the melted metal is steel and that the underground fires had to be caused by active materials other than those found in an office structure.
There are the many who believe that the towers were built with explosives preinstalled explosives.
Did not the idea that the black smoke as an indicator of a cooler fire due to oxygen starvation come from Jones?

Are Jones and Gage then the sources of strawmen arguements? 911 blogger?

Perhaps RedIbis can direct us to sources of hard evidence based arguements of gov't or shadow gov't conspiracy in the destruction of 9/11/01.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2011, 03:19 PM   #113
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Quote:
jaydeehess It strikes me that RedI may be stating that these three memes are easily debunked 'strawman' arguements and that we 'debunkers' are thus taking the easy route out by attacking these strawmen.

I find this particularily odd given my recollection of the number of times each of these has indeed been brought up in these threads by 'truthers' out to illustrate evidence of CD.

ETA:In fact I decieded to look around for at least one example of a 'truther' argueing that the sounds of explosions in Manhattan is an indication of the use of explosives and I found one

Originally Posted by RedIbis
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-1...d-wtc-collapse

Ground level explosion causes tower to collapse within itself.

Now I can see why NIST was so reluctant to release this footage.


,,, and the person that posted this link does make some effort to qualify his support but clearly believes that the reports of explosions ARE evidence that explosives were present.
Ha! Good thread. Thanks for posting it.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2011, 08:11 AM   #114
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
stop worrying about the suddenly pedestrian Red Sox.

LOL.

This has got to be the cruelest cut I've ever seen.

Applause...
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2011, 08:19 AM   #115
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
stop worrying about the suddenly pedestrian Red Sox.
Now the gloves are comin' off!

(Dat's OK. We still got 7 championships in the last 10 years)
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2011, 03:58 PM   #116
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
As an asside, the county fined the hotl owners $23,000 for not having working fire extinguishers, and also for their sprinkler system issues.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2011, 03:42 AM   #117
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Let's see there's also MaGZ who's very moniker stands for "Missiles at Ground Zero"
There's Jones, and IIRC Gage,who ferevently believe that the melted metal reports are of melted steel and that this is evidence of the use of thermite.
There's Clayton who believes that the melted metal is steel and that the underground fires had to be caused by active materials other than those found in an office structure.
There are the many who believe that the towers were built with explosives preinstalled explosives.
Did not the idea that the black smoke as an indicator of a cooler fire due to oxygen starvation come from Jones?

Are Jones and Gage then the sources of strawmen arguements? 911 blogger?

Perhaps RedIbis can direct us to sources of hard evidence based arguements of gov't or shadow gov't conspiracy in the destruction of 9/11/01.
Which truther theory do you subscribe to,Red?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2011, 01:06 PM   #118
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Getting back to this,,,,,,,,,,
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Ha! Good thread. Thanks for posting it.
I had posted
Quote:
It strikes me that RedI may be stating that these three memes are easily debunked 'strawman' arguements and that we 'debunkers' are thus taking the easy route out by attacking these strawmen.

I find this particularily odd given my recollection of the number of times each of these has indeed been brought up in these threads by 'truthers' out to illustrate evidence of CD.

ETA:In fact I decieded to look around for at least one example of a 'truther' argueing that the sounds of explosions in Manhattan is an indication of the use of explosives and I found one
So why are you complaining that 'sounds of explosions' being an indication of the use of explosives is a strawman arguement being picked on by big bad debunkers?

You just indicated that this meme is a "good" one.

Is it a common theme in 9/11 conspiracy, and do you not support it as a "good" point, and if the answer to both is 'yes' then how is it a strawman?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2011, 01:18 PM   #119
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Getting back to this,,,,,,,,,,


I had posted


So why are you complaining that 'sounds of explosions' being an indication of the use of explosives is a strawman arguement being picked on by big bad debunkers?

You just indicated that this meme is a "good" one.

Is it a common theme in 9/11 conspiracy, and do you not support it as a "good" point, and if the answer to both is 'yes' then how is it a strawman?
Actually Red is just being a smart ass, as your link does not appear to go anyplace.

Interesting that he didn't deny writing that, of course, he was just being typically unhelpful.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2011, 02:43 PM   #120
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Actually Red is just being a smart ass, as your link does not appear to go anyplace.

Interesting that he didn't deny writing that, of course, he was just being typically unhelpful.
I did not link to my post, simply requoted what I said(its only a few posts up)

Unhelpful,,, yesssssss. Getting an answer from Red is sometimes like trying to nail ,,, ummmm,,,, mud to a wall.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.