• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NIST Petition Demands Corrections

ERichardson said:
Most claims in LC are true. The viewer is left to ponder the significance of them and is encouraged to do further research.
Click to expand...


Factually incorrect. I have been unable to discover a controversial claim advanced in Loose Change that can stand scrutiny.

Show us a single example of a "true" claim made in that spectacularly dishonest film.



How many documentaries supporting the official story encourage viewers to look into things?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Explain to us the merit in encouraging people who lack backgrounds in science and engineering to argue with experts in such technical fields.

You swallow uncritically all sorts of irrational nonsense to satisfy an emotional need. That is a personal matter. What enables you to dismiss a a paper written by a demolition expert such as Brent Blanchard, for instance? What is the source of the knowledge that you possess, knowledge that isn't shared by people who work in the relevant fields and know vastly more about them than you?
 
Pomeroo, yet more appeals to authority, the type Dr Greening, the 911 agnostic, disliked on this forum.

May I suggest you have Jowenko on your show?
 
ERichardson said:
Pomeroo, yet more appeals to authority, the type Dr Greening, the 911 agnostic, disliked on this forum.

May I suggest you have Jowenko on your show?
Click to expand...

That's a great suggestion, actually. While I wouldn't chip-in to help pay for Fetzer's airfare(sorry Ron:) ) - I would chip-in for a Jowenko vs Blanchard Hardfire. Oh yeah.

BTW, before pointing out a fallacy, please ensure you know the correct definition of it.
 
ERichardson said:
Pomeroo, yet more appeals to authority, the type Dr Greening, the 911 agnostic, disliked on this forum.

May I suggest you have Jowenko on your show?
Click to expand...
When will you be presenting you list of LC true claims? Or work on Gravy's list?

I can answer the questions, or take a hack at them. You have no list of true claims in LC, and you will never be able to counter the list provided by Gravy with one single fact.

How was that? It is just like this NIST petition. The so called experts making the request should be able to show the corrections and what they mean without making up the petition. Dr Thermite Jones should be able to do his own work. But he is a politically biased liar who is very personable but just trying to discrete others. He is a sad failing man who lost his job because he wants to make up lies about 9/11. This petition's shallow content is indicative of Dr Jones' inability to use facts to solve problems instead he is uses lies.
 
Last edited:
ERichardson said:
Pomeroo, yet more appeals to authority. . .
Click to expand...
Umm... Do you understand what an "appeal to authority" fallacy is?

Also, regarding the collapse times of the towers:
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine)
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Umm... Do you understand what an "appeal to authority" fallacy is?

Also, regarding the collapse times of the towers:

(Emphasis mine)
Click to expand...

Yes, I do, and more specifically it is an appeal to authority fallacy because of this

If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.
Click to expand...


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Not to mention, Mr Blanchard works for CDI and thus will possibly be biased toward the goverment, whereas Jowenko has no reason to be biased.

If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ERichardson said:
Pomeroo, yet more appeals to authority, the type Dr Greening, the 911 agnostic, disliked on this forum.

May I suggest you have Jowenko on your show?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Your clumsy trickery will avail you little.

Dr. Greening, a friend of mine, is an "agnostic" to the extent that he has unresolved questions concerning the NIST Report. He is contemptuous of the bogus science produced by the conspiracy liars and has done the rationalist community an enormous service by refuting the falsehoods of such charlatans as Jim Hoffman, Gordon Ross (Hey, how did you like R.Mackey's controlled demolition of Ross's "simply wonderful paper? Oh, I forgot--you're ignoring that question. Sorry.), and Steven Jones.

Your reflexive disingenuousness about my "appeals to authority" indicates a greater-than-usual level of confusion. I wrote that I have been unable to discover any controversial claims advanced by Loose Change that can stand scrutiny. To whom were you addressing your response? What "authorities" am I appealing to? Am I missing something here?

Let's try again: Show us a single "true" claim made by Avery & Co.

Danny Jowenko lives in Holland. Perhaps you'd like to buy him a plane ticket?

Here's a suggestion that I know will please you. I actually talked with Jowenko over the phone for a half-hour (see the thread "Is Danny Jowenko Echt Woo-Woo?"). It saddens me that such a polite and patient man swallows the snake oil regarding the use of explosives in WTC 7. He does, however, emphatically reject one of the central myths of the 9/11 fantasy movement, saying that the collapses of the twin towers do not at all resemble demolitions.

Please speak that last sentence aloud several times.

Here is your opportunity to strike a blow for irrationality by reconciling Jowenko's divergent views. Tell us why a fantasist icon--the world's ONLY demolition specialist who takes seriously EVEN A TINY PART of the tinfoil-hat brigade's tapestry of lies--dismisses the cornerstone of the whole house of cards.

You may, if you wish, appeal to an authority, if you can find one.
 
Where is that long list of true stuff from LC? ER, the list please, you said there was true claims in LC, I say you are wrong and as you can see from the list Gravy put out, you have a lot of work to do.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying he's right on 7, but wrong on the Towers?

Two can play this little game ER.....please think hitting the reply button.

ETA: Baba was faster on the draw....
 
ERichardson said:
I agree with him on both. WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, WTC 1 and 2 were uncontrolled demolitions.
Click to expand...

So if they could 'uncontrol' demo the towers, why not WTC 7?

PS: Please give us your definition of an 'uncontrolled' demolition?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom