All people make errors, including debunkers. But we aren't talking about correcting errors, we are talking about debunking things. I don't think I have ever seen a claim truly debunked. Saying "you don't have enough evidence" or "Occams Razor" or "Which is more likely" is not debunking.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Has Ryan Mackey debunked Jim Hoffman
- Thread starter Luntoc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jim hoffman
All people make errors, including debunkers. But we aren't talking about correcting errors, we are talking about debunking things. I don't think I have ever seen a claim truly debunked. Saying "you don't have enough evidence" or "Occams Razor" or "Which is more likely" is not debunking.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
This cannot be overemphasized. In the grand scheme of things, in the reality of Earth beyond the internet, what 'truthers' think doesn't matter in the least. Frankly, I could give a crap.
They're wrong. They always have been and always will be if they think that those buildings were brought down by the US government in some kind of 'inside job'. There is legitimate debate about how we let our guard down, about how some people covered their posteriors after the event, about how our foreign policy did or didn't contribute to the attack, but IMO anybody who believes 9-11 was an inside job carried out by some rogue element in the US government to justify war against Islam is an idiot.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Then like MikeW said, you apply a ridiculous double standard of 'debunking' to this debate.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
If you don't understand a language, all you hear is "Blah, blah, blah, blah."
If you don't understand critical thinking, all you hear is "you don't have enough evidence" or "Occams Razor" or "Which is more likely".
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
Of course you have. You may not accept it, or have understood what you were reading. Fortunately, your agreement is not required, as your opinion on this matter is of no consequence.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
You made an easily falsifiable claim, that no one at the JREF forums has ever debunked a single thing.
By showing that one truther claim was debunked*...and it doesn't matter if it was killtown or anyone else...I proved your claim to be false.
*Although, like many truther claims, it hardly needed debunking, being patently ridiculous.
Please try to pay attention.
Of course you think that. Your religion is 9/11 twoof, after all.
Not true, though there is certainly plenty of the latter.
Could you provide a link to the debunking of the faces in the smoke?
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
And this from a supposed skeptic who doesn't have a religious belief...
Yes... we need to provide a link which debunks "satans" face in the smoke.
PMSLMAO
Though with logic like that I guess the "face on mars" is also real and a sign too right?
ETA: Twin... you beat me to it...
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
As long as you see only what you choose to see, you'll never shift from this position. There are some classic examples of debunking based on truthers deliberately misquoting sources, taking pieces of information out of context, or deliberately lying about things that are easily checked, and there are simple calculations that show truther theories to be physically impossible. Unfortunately, you won't be able to perceive them as such, because doing so requires an ability to evaluate evidence honestly and without bias. If you had that, you wouldn't be a truther.
Dave
Killtown's theory about the faces in the smoke was that the perps had added them with CGI. Nothing to do with religion etc.
I personally think killtown is wrong of course, but where is the debunking that these faces were added by CGI?
Apparently you don't know how to read.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Well, let's start by you telling me what would you consider a 'real' debunking of such an obviously idiotic theory? Also, what makes YOU think killtown is wrong?
Well, this is exactly the point I was making. Saying a theory is idiotic is not a debunking.
I personally don't believe Killtown's theory because such an act by the perps would be unnecessary and not necessary for the 911 plot.
What I would consider a proper debunking would be a video expert analysing the video and showing that it couldn't have been tampered with.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
+ No Hijackers on the Flight Manifests... correct or not correct?
+ The towers fell in 10 seconds.... correct or not correct?
+ Odigo employees were warned to get out of the towers before the planes hit... correct or not correct?
+ They changed the law less than a year before so that Cheney was in charge of Norad... correct or not correct?
+ Steven Jones' firefighters around the glowing hole picture is evidence of molten steel... correct or not?
+ The Cut Column cut by thermite... correct or not?
That's enough for now.
And thats not even talking about CGI no planers and Beam Weapons, I guess you don't think those count or maybe you think those are still "undebunked"
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
So what you are saying is that it's okay if YOU don't believe it, all you need to say is that such an act would be unnecessary (which is true), but if WE don't believe it, we need to provide expert analyzing the video showing it couldn't be tampered with, right?
The funny thing is that even IF that analysis was provided, and I can't even be sure it hasn't, killtown would STILL believe in his theory. He'd just say the analyst was 'in on it' or other such nonsense. That's how he operates. Calling this particular theory idiotic isn't debunking, it's an observation. A rational observation.
Now you tell me how hard you think it must be to debunk theories like killtown?
Last edited: