Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

[SteveAustin]

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

Hmmmm, let's see what someone else had to say about these tactics...

Sounds like a way to keep your opponent honest to me

and again...

Again, this is just a way to keep your opponent honest

and further...

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

You really do not like it when I shine a light on your tactics do you. Note I have only been showing the lurkers the tactics you and others use here, and since the conclusions are valid then this is a valid form of debate.

I was not the one trying to subvert the discussion I just pointed out when others did...but of course in OCT world that is a "faux pas"

 

[Gamolon]

Let's see. James R. Gourley is an attorney for Carstens & Cahoon, LLP. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering.

So now your 8 scientists is down to 7.

 

[Gamolon]

Hmmm. Gregg Roberts is a freelance technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.

Now your 8 scientists is down to 6.

 

[SteveAustin]

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

Dave

You can keep trying to claim I am using those tactics all you want but that wont change reality, I simply showed where you OCTopie used them.

As for this particular claim of yours...here is what lapman said that made me say he is claiming to be psychic...

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.

So you were being dishonest twice when trying to claim I am using these tactics, first by claiming I am using these tactics (I am simply showing how others use these tactics...how else am I going to do that but say it!!) and secondly by trying to imply that what I said was wrong, when you can see what he wrote "The lurkers are just going to say, "So what?" " ..he can't know what anyone else is going to think, unless he thinks he's psychic.

 

[SteveAustin]

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

Dave

Now this one is just way out in left field, see my reply above

 

[Dave Rogers]

So you were being dishonest twice when trying to claim I am using these tactics, first by claiming I am using these tactics (I am simply showing how others use these tactics...how else am I going to do that but say it!!) and secondly by trying to imply that what I said was wrong, when you can see what he wrote "The lurkers are just going to say, "So what?" " ..he can't know what anyone else is going to think, unless he thinks he's psychic.

3. Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.
Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it.
Attack something different than what was asserted.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hmmmm, let's see what someone else had to say about these tactics...

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

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now this one is just way out in left field, see my reply above

28. When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who is not an expert on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.

Dave

 

[lapman]

Why do we care about this?

 

[twinstead]

Why do we care about this?

A question for the ages...

 

[Dog Town]

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

No one can even prove he existed, much less worked in the towers, either!
I just think, millions would remember seeing a half lit tower.
Hmmmm...

 

[tsig]

A question for the ages...

You mean "Now it belongs to the Ages"? I agree.

 

[SteveAustin]

Do you lurkers see what Dave is doing?

He no longer wants me to shine a light on his tactics, so he is trying to imply that my showing his tactics is me using those same tactics.

What are you so afraid of Dave? You really cannot let this go can you? You simply cannot go about doing what you always do here without trying to "discredit" me can you?

It's very simple, there was a "discussion" going on here, many people were using subversive tactics in this "discussion" so I pointed those tactics out. You Dave do not want to be outed doing this so you must try and have me dismissed.

Dave, my pointing out your and others uses of these tactics is not use of these same tactics, no matter how badly you would like people to think so.

 

[Toke]

No one can even prove he existed, much less worked in the towers, either!
I just think, millions would remember seeing a half lit tower.
Hmmmm...

In mission impossible they use a co2 extinguiser in a narow ventilation channel without choking.
What is wrong with spraypainting steel with supernanothermite through the fire insulation?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Power down? Again??? Jesus Christ... this has been dealt with... and as an aside: Have I been saying that a lot lately, or what?

Anyway, Mike's page:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

I don't know when he put it up, but man, I've been referring to it for a long time now. Also:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3089122

Note that the thread is from 2007.

Look, whomever pushed the "power down" thing: If you're going to drag something long refuted back from the grave, please put some sort of new spin on it. Or give us some reason to reconsider its validity other than repetition. New information, or something. Don't just dredge up some old argument because you think it fits whatever you happen to be arguing at the moment. The fact of the matter is, the power-down was answered a long time ago, and is no more relevant to the Towers collapses than the weather was.

 

[tsig]

Do you lurkers see what Dave is doing?

He no longer wants me to shine a light on his tactics, so he is trying to imply that my showing his tactics is me using those same tactics.

What are you so afraid of Dave? You really cannot let this go can you? You simply cannot go about doing what you always do here without trying to "discredit" me can you?

It's very simple, there was a "discussion" going on here, many people were using subversive tactics in this "discussion" so I pointed those tactics out. You Dave do not want to be outed doing this so you must try and have me dismissed.

Dave, my pointing out your and others uses of these tactics is not use of these same tactics, no matter how badly you would like people to think so.

1. Personal attack: Always a useful tactic. You may make the object of the attack angry and therefore vulnerable.

 

[lapman]

Power down? Again??? Jesus Christ... this has been dealt with... and as an aside: Have I been saying that a lot lately, or what?

Anyway, Mike's page:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

I don't know when he put it up, but man, I've been referring to it for a long time now. Also:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3089122

Note that the thread is from 2007.

Look, whomever pushed the "power down" thing: If you're going to drag something long refuted back from the grave, please put some sort of new spin on it. Or give us some reason to reconsider its validity other than repetition. New information, or something. Don't just dredge up some old argument because you think it fits whatever you happen to be arguing at the moment. The fact of the matter is, the power-down was answered a long time ago, and is no more relevant to the Towers collapses than the weather was.

We all know that, but Galileo is running out of straws to grasp onto. So the supposed power down of some floors in one tower while both remained open to the public allowed the NWO to spray paint fire retardant coated columns with the mythical nano-thermite infused paint without anyone noticing the demolition of the walls to expose the full columns and the smell.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you lurkers see what Dave is doing?

He no longer wants me to shine a light on his tactics, so he is trying to imply that my showing his tactics is me using those same tactics.

What are you so afraid of Dave? You really cannot let this go can you? You simply cannot go about doing what you always do here without trying to "discredit" me can you?

It's very simple, there was a "discussion" going on here, many people were using subversive tactics in this "discussion" so I pointed those tactics out. You Dave do not want to be outed doing this so you must try and have me dismissed.

Dave, my pointing out your and others uses of these tactics is not use of these same tactics, no matter how badly you would like people to think so.

35 Instead of working on an opponent’s intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh, by the way:

It's very simple, there was a "discussion" going on here, many people were using subversive tactics in this "discussion" so I pointed those tactics out.

30. Make an appeal to authority rather than reason.

You've chosen "38 ways to win an argument" as an authority on subversive tactics, and then characterised arguments as subversive tactics because they can be represented as forms of argument appearing in that list. As I've pointed out, reason indicates that many of the list items aren't in any way subversive; indeed, you haven't advanced any evidence that the list was ever intended by its originator to present subversive, rather than simply successful, debating techniques.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

steveaustin you brought this on yourself. Instead of actually addressing the arguments of a lot of posters not using your beloved "debate tactics" (or using them successfully but not in the way you think), you've spent much of your time singling out a couple who you could claim were using them dishonestly.

And yea. The lurkers can see that.