Ed George Soros and others targetted by Terrorist

[The Big Dog]

Ok, cite any other expert that you think we are overlooking.

Just point us to the so called experts.

Excited to see some more experts!!

tick tock

The Trump supporters have embraced the "False FLag" theory 1000%.
The descent into the irrational is truly scary.

Oh dear, I am beginning to get concerned that you are not going to cite to the "experts" you referred to earlier.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And another thread get's Bobbed.

And this time it was a team effort.

 

[AnonyMoose]

You still committed a logical fallacy.

No I didn't.

 

[lomiller]

1. Proper pipe bombs don't have wires connected to both ends.

WTF is a “proper pipe bomb”? They are crude, non-standardized weapons to begin with.

That's dumb.

No one said the bomber was smart.

2. You can find timers / remote control receivers WAY smaller than whatever that white box is

So?

A proper timer would best be stored inside the pipe, making it fully encapsulated.

Again, no one has said the bomber was a pipe bomb expert, if such a thing even exists.

That thing is just silly looking.

So?

Bottom Line: Whoever made that wanted it to be painfully obvious to anyone and everyone that it's a "bomb."

Unfounded supposition. Maybe they just had the notion that was what a bomb is supposed to look like and built it accordingly.

This is nearly the same as a bundle of road flares wrapped together with an old-timey alarm clock ticking away

It has been confirmed by investigators that the propellant was in sealed PVC pipe. It’s credible that it could have exploded, so it’s not the equivalent of road flares.

Tom Sauer (Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal Veteran) Oct 24, 2018

It’s twitter. People can invent whatever background they want. It doesn’t mean they are actually experts.

 

[Belz...]

You don't actually know that any of them had bad detonators.

Ah, but did any of them had bad motivators?

 

[lomiller]

I see the Trumpers are pretty much following the 9/11 Truthers playbook: find a "expert" who is contracticted by just about every other expert and proclaim him as the only source of truth; all the other experts are in on it.

It's consistent with track record of the the Birther in Chief.

 

[Belz...]

There would have been a time on this forum when people from all over the partisan spectrum would have been tripping over themselves to point out how spectacularly fallacious that was, indeed it is a testbook example of an ad hominem fallacy.

I think you should brush up on that testbook.

 

[theprestige]

Yup, harmless prop.

A guy walks into the White House, pulls a gun on Donald Trump and points it at his head. But the gun isn't real, it's just a toy gun.

No harm, no foul. Right?

Therefore, no charges will be laid because it was just a harmless prop and nobody was hurt. Right?



^^^^ this.

This is the type of demented twisted fantastical line of reasoning that rattles around in the skulls of Trump's loyal cult worshippers.

The only person using this line of "reasoning" seems to be you.

 

[Belz...]

there was no chance whatsoever of you posting anything remotely resembling a substantive reply or naming any of the alleged experts that in fact have never once been identified in this thread.

Fantastic.

I see you got confused with all the people posting in the thread, but perhaps now's a good time to point out that I'm not the one who made the claim of experts. Not only have you not shown that this guy is an actual expert, but you're talking to the wrong poster.

I just pointed out that you were preemptively calling any hypothetical contradicting expert fake.

Stupendous.

 

[Dr. Keith]

And another thread get's Bobbed.

And this time it was a team effort.

It takes a team to move the sled.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No I didn't.

Why else would they be arguing along that line if not to prove this whole situation isn't really all that serious and therefore it should be poo-poo'd away?

"An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. "

By asking why else, you are assuming your evidence lacking conclusion is true because you lack evidence to the contrary. But you didn't actually present evidence of anyone saying it was serious.

 

[Belz...]

WTF is a “proper pipe bomb”? They are crude, non-standardized weapons to begin with.


No one said the bomber was smart.


So?



Again, no one has said the bomber was a pipe bomb expert, if such a thing even exists.


So?


Unfounded supposition. Maybe they just had the notion that was what a bomb is supposed to look like and built it accordingly.


It has been confirmed by investigators that the propellant was in sealed PVC pipe. It’s credible that it could have exploded, so it’s not the equivalent of road flares.


It’s twitter. People can invent whatever background they want. It doesn’t mean they are actually experts.

I love how an actual bomb with explosives is called a hoax, while a dumb clock made by a kid is mistaken for a bomb.

 

[Checkmite]

Multiple police agencies have called the items "functional" bombs. Insinuations about how they must be fake based on how they could've been "made better" or "nicer looking" are just bizarre. A failed bombing is still a bombing, and if the targets were selected for political reasons the person who did it is still a terrorist.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Multiple police agencies have called the items "functional" bombs. Insinuations about how they must be fake based on how they could've been "made better" or "nicer looking" are just bizarre. A failed bombing is still a bombing, and if the targets were selected for political reasons the person who did it is still a terrorist.

Police agencies constantly lie to over emphasize their importance. Look at reported values of drug busts

 

[theprestige]

Seeing as theprestige apparently has Slings and Arrows (rightfully) on ignore, I'll break this down for the benefit of the readers of the thread.



Doubtful, see below.



It not being 'proper' or 'optimal' has absolutely no bearing at all on if it would be operable. This says nothing. Connecting at both ends would work just fine because how they connect inside is what counts. It being PVC pipe, well, just about anywhere on them works just fine.

(An explosives expert should know that.)



That you can find those devices tells us absolutely nothing about if this would work or not. Again, not optimal in no way means no operable. This is not a valid argument.



Or they just didn't think of other ways to assemble it. A bomb disposal expert would not call something 'not a bomb' because it 'looks too much what people think bombs look like'.



Absolutely not. The actual explosives inside give that away.



True but irrelevant. This is the same as saying that men are far more likely to be over six foot tall than women, therefore Jill isn't six foot two inches.



Here theprestige is where someone, someone who is very representative of the GOP right now, claiming what you said was a straw man.

One thing to make perfectly clear to anyone who doesn't know; just putting the kind of explosive described inside the PVC pipe could detonate it. Handling such an object could detonate it. This is pyrotechnic safety 101.

Intended or not, these could have exploded. They are not props and are not harmless.

Ironically, that's not the straw man I'm referring to.

SnA is arguing that the evidence supports the conclusion that the packages were intended to frighten, but not to actually explode. That's a sensible argument, but in my opinion not a very strong given the evidence so far.

The straw man I'm referring to is the argument that AnonyMoose, JoeMorgue, and Darat keep referring to, the argument that AnonyMoose describes as:

Trumpettes are trying to say that unless it's attempted murder, it doesn't count and therefore should be hand-waved as "no harm, no foul".

This argument is a strawman. Nobody in this thread is trying to say what AnonyMoose claims. Nobody in this thread is doing what Darat asserts. Nobody in this thread is doing what JoeMorgue is complaining about.

The closest anyone has come to supporting their spurious claim is you, citing SnA making an entirely different argument.

 

[Segnosaur]

He sent all these bombs out within a relatively short period of time. If he was using a bad design at the start (or alternatively set the timer too late so that it would be discovered before going off) he would not have had time to correct his mistake between bombings/bomb deliveries.

'If I quickly tried to make 8 chairs with no woodworking experience, and none of them could be used as chairs, I wouldn't talk about the chairs I made. It would be the time I failed to make a chair.

You may not talk about the chairs you made, but I would. I may say "You made 8 crappy, useless chairs", but I would still call them chairs.

And, frankly, we don't know why the bombs did not go off. They may have been badly built, they may even have deliberately designed not to go off. Or, they may have been perfectly serviceable bombs, but were set to go off too far in the future and were discovered before they exploded (in which case the problem was not the technology but the tactics).

 

[Belz...]

You may not talk about the chairs you made, but I would. I may say "You made 8 crappy, useless chairs", but I would still call them chairs.

And, frankly, we don't know why the bombs did not go off. They may have been badly built, they may even have deliberately designed not to go off. Or, they may have been perfectly serviceable bombs, but were set to go off too far in the future and were discovered before they exploded (in which case the problem was not the technology but the tactics).

Don't feed.

 

[uke2se]

I think I'll bookmark this thread for future reference. That all the Trumpettes posting here are promoting conspiracy theories to avoid facing the very strong possibility that this was an attempt at mass murder against political opponents and that it was one of their very angry and very stupid fellow Trump sycophants perpetrating it... it's kind of beautiful.

I mean, it's horrid, but it has a certain beauty if you ever need to explain to someone what Trumpists are like. This thread is a perfect example.

And maybe, Dog willing, at some point in the future it could be used as a form of shock therapy in an intervention to get a Trumpist to snap back to reality. "Look what you did! What you became!"

 

[AnonyMoose]

"An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. "

By asking why else, you are assuming your evidence lacking conclusion is true because you lack evidence to the contrary. But you didn't actually present evidence of anyone saying it was serious.

It's not my fault you fail to comprehend the process of deductive reasoning.

But by all means, do continue trying to pat yourself on the back by way of pulling out the ol' logical fallacy card. I'm sure somewhere somebody thinks it actually applies in this case, giving you comfort in thinking you look all smart n' stuff.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You may not talk about the chairs you made, but I would. I may say "You made 8 crappy, useless chairs", but I would still call them chairs.

And, frankly, we don't know why the bombs did not go off. They may have been badly built, they may even have deliberately designed not to go off. Or, they may have been perfectly serviceable bombs, but were set to go off too far in the future and were discovered before they exploded (in which case the problem was not the technology but the tactics).

Free Faisal Shahzad, because he couldn't build a functional bomb in his attack on time square therefore it was not an attempted bombing!