Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

[defaultdotxbe]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16112http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1092349efc38f5efc5.jpg

Bull Hockey!
Speaking of suspicious, do you find this odd, in NY city? A city of 8+ million people. Where you can spit, and be guaranteed to hit a "photographer".
Yet NO ONE took a picture of this!
PLEASE...
Power down, my buttocks!

not only did no one take a picture, no one remembers it

their ONLY source for power downs is one guy (in a building where 250,000 people worked and visited every day) only ONE person remembers a power down, and even he says it was only one half of one tower, not the entire complex

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I've been reading the pages since I posted that and noticed nothing but those tactics being used against Galileo, and he is allowing you all to get away with it.

It could also be an indication that there is something horrifically wrong about the logic behind what people like yourself and Galileo post. Not that I expect either of you to see them...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh and thanks for reminding the lurkers to keep watching for all these tactics. I've been reading the pages since I posted that and noticed nothing but those tactics being used against Galileo, and he is allowing you all to get away with it.

Let's take a look at a few of these tactics, and see just how underhand and unfair they actually are.

4 Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end.
Mingle your premises here and there in your talk.
Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order.
By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.

Sounds like a way to keep your opponent honest to me. If your opponent agrees to your premises when he isn't aware of your conclusion, but suddenly decides to disagree with them when he is, doesn't that mean that he's reasoning backwards from a conclusion? Which means that his position is untenable without rejecting premises he would agree with normalls.

7 State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions.

By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted.
Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the proponent’s admissions.

Again, this is just a way to keep your opponent honest. If your opponent is happy to admit things that undermine his argument to you when he doesn't follow your reasoning, why didn't he admit them to himself when formulating his argument?

9 Use your opponent’s answers to your question to reach different or even opposite conclusions.

If the conclusions are valid, then this is a valid form of debate.

26 A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent’s arguments against himself.

Example: Your opponent declares: “so and so is a child, you must make an allowance for him.”
You retort, “Just because he is a child, I must correct him; otherwise he will persist in his bad habits.”

Again, a perfectly valid form of debate. In fact, it's a little difficult to see what's the issue with the example given; both are valid points of view.

34 When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without intending to do so.

You have, as it were, reduced your opponent to silence.
You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.

And once again, this is a perfectly valid way to win an argument. If you identify that your opponent's argument has a weakness, that he himself is aware of this weakness, and that he's trying to distract attention away from this weakness, then that's a sign that he's losing the argument because he has an untenable position. If your aim is to demonstrate that his argument is flawed, are you supposed to avoid pointing out its flaws in doing so?

What you've done, SteveAustin, is assume that all the tactics on the list are for some reason underhand and invalid. From the examples above, this is clearly not true. You're therefore trying to call your opponents out, not for winning arguments in an underhand way, but for winning arguments at all.

Dave

 

[lapman]

Mackey has shown nothing. Anyone can post on JREF. You don't even have to get it peer reviewed or pay a measly $600.

As usual, you're wrong. Since there are many qualified individuals on JREF, everything is subject to a public peer review.

Mackey's assertions have no merit. This has been demonstrated. This explains why no one will publish his findings in a real per reviewed scientific journal; his assertions are worthless.

Let us know when Jones gets his thermite garbage published in a REAL peer reviewed scientific journal. By your own standard, Jones et al. assertions are worthless.

 

[lapman]

... " 20"x20"x3/4" ceiling tile with embedded thin-film explosive and 2-channel wireless micro-detonator 1,000,000
12"x12"x3/4" ceiling tile with embedded thin-film explosive and 2-channel wireless micro-detonator 800,000 ...."

This one I just don't get. The tiles are a part of the drop down ceiling so they would not be in contact with any part of the floor above. Add to that the fact that the support system for the tiles is quite weak. Also, the tiles themselves would have to be lighter and more flimsy to counteract the weight of the explosives and detonator. Therefore, when the explosive goes off, the tiles do nothing more than shoot straight down too the floor below and do no damage.

 

[WildCat]

So Galileo's claim is that a paint-layer thin coating of thermite/thermate/nano-thermite whatever on ceiling tiles or core columns caused the WTC towers to collapse?

 

[Dave Rogers]

So Galileo's claim is that a paint-layer thin coating of thermite/thermate/nano-thermite whatever on ceiling tiles or core columns caused the WTC towers to collapse?

Actually, that seems to be Steven Jones's claim. No, really.

Dave

 

[SteveAustin]

Let's take a look at a few of these tactics, and see just how underhand and unfair they actually are.

...

What you've done, SteveAustin, is assume that all the tactics on the list are for some reason underhand and invalid. From the examples above, this is clearly not true. You're therefore trying to call your opponents out, not for winning arguments in an underhand way, but for winning arguments at all.

Dave

No Dave, you shouldn't be assuming what I assume. What I have done by listing these tactics is given people a baseline to which they must use their own critical thinking and judgement to see what applies where.

Lurkers, can you figure out which of the tactics Dave used in his reply?

 

[lapman]

No Dave, you shouldn't be assuming what I assume. What I have done by listing these tactics is given people a baseline to which they must use their own critical thinking and judgement to see what applies where.

Lurkers, can you figure out which of the tactics Dave used in his reply?

The thing is that nobody but you cares. The lurkers are just going to say, "So what?" All you're doing is showing everyone that you have nothing of value to contribute to this thread.

 

[johnny karate]

Truthers have been blathering about this "discovery" for a while now. And yet as of this morning, I see no mention of it in the MSM, nor do I see any mention of any formal proceedings taking place to re-investigate 9/11, populist or otherwise.

Galileo, when do you anticipate this verifiable discovery of explosives will have any sort of real-world impact?

This morning's headlines include:

"At Least 75 People Are Killed in Two Attacks in Iraq"

"Congree Debates Probe of Interrogation Tactics"

"Obama to prod credit card firms on fee practices"

Strange there's still been no mention of the evidence of explosives found at the WTC site. One would think such a discovery as verified by a team of reputable scientists would be sending shockwaves through the news media as people take to the streets demanding an investigation into what was obviously an inside job.

Afterall, people have been turning out in droves to protest in various forms the state of the economy. Why isn't anyone protesting over the U.S. government's insidious plot to murder 3,000 people as proven by the explosive residue found at WTC?

Perhaps one of the champions of the paper by Jones et al can help me with this curious dilemma.

 

[SteveAustin]

The lurkers are just going to say, "So what?" All you're doing is showing everyone that you have nothing of value to contribute to this thread.

Now you are psychic?

 

[johnny karate]

No Dave, you shouldn't be assuming what I assume. What I have done by listing these tactics is given people a baseline to which they must use their own critical thinking and judgement to see what applies where.

Lurkers, can you figure out which of the tactics Dave used in his reply?

Which number debate tactic does one use to demonstrate 9/11 to be an inside job? Because it would be refreshing to see you attempt to use it.

 

[johnny karate]

Now you are psychic?

Debate Tactic# 42: Sarcastically accusing your opponent of paranormal powers.

What an obvious and transparent ploy. I hope the lurkers are following this.

 

[lapman]

Now you are psychic?

I understand people. You obviously don't.

 

[SteveAustin]

I understand people. You obviously don't.

So you are claiming to know what other people are thinking. Interesting, that must be why you are so convinced the government is not lying to you and never has lied to you.

Hmmmmmm

 

[lapman]

So you are claiming to know what other people are thinking.

No, I know how people think and react to the obvious distraction you are trying to perform.

Interesting, that must be why you are so convinced the government is not lying to you and never has lied to you.

Hmmmmmm

Now you're making assumptions without evidence. Typical twoofer. The government does lie. Often and without remorse. However the evidence does not. No twoofer as presented anything close to credible evidence to support their fantasy. Until that happens, I will stick to the irrefutable evidence that supports the "official story."

 

[Gamolon]

He shared it with 8 other scientists and 4 more who peer reviewed it.

You sure about that? Have you checked the credentials of all 8 people. I think you should.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No Dave, you shouldn't be assuming what I assume. What I have done by listing these tactics is given people a baseline to which they must use their own critical thinking and judgement to see what applies where.

Lurkers, can you figure out which of the tactics Dave used in his reply?

No, what you've done is to you've use 32: A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category. You're characterising everything your opponent says as "tactics", and hence suggesting that your opponent is arguing on style rather than substance.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

So you are claiming to know what other people are thinking. Interesting, that must be why you are so convinced the government is not lying to you and never has lied to you.

1. Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now you are psychic?

6. Confuse the issue by changing your opponent’s words or what he or she seeks to prove.

Dave