Thanks for the compliment. I am merely describing the logical fallacies you are employing. If you don't want to have them pointed out to you, don't employ them. If you want to make a claim and have it stand up, use sound logic, not fallacious logic. If you just want to spout words to hear yourself talk, well keep doing what you are doing. You are convincing no one and making no sense. So congratulations on that.
Absent a willingness to assess your own posts for the fallacies you, yourself, engage in, you are not engaging in logic. You are, instead, seeking to benefit from a claimed use of it. Put another way, you are seeking to use logic as a personal possession, as if you own it.
Everyone here is capable of spotting fallacies to some extent or another.
My suggestion, use as few fallacies as you can in your own posting.
Others are capable of spotting fallacies: Yours included.
As explained, your expectation of an immediate explosion is in error. Stop insisting on this erroneous expectation. If you believe otherwise, prove it. Restating it is getting nowhere. We have explained to you over and over why this is. Address that or admit you are wrong about this.
No. You misapprehend the concept of proof. Firstly, proof must agree with observation; or, if proof does not do so, then proof must indicate why the variation from observation has occurred.
If we do not start with what is observed, then, in that event, we set up "wild goose chases" and/or stupid pedantic exercises.
Let me give you an example. A bumble bee looks too large and un-aerodynamic to be able to fly. Plus, its wings are too small in comparison with its body. Yet it flies and does so rather well. The observation overrules the the appearance.
So it is with the 9/11 crashes. What is observed, namely an insertion of a jetliner into a steel structure without an immediate explosion or crash dynamic involving disentegration. Thus, it is appropriate to say that no jetliner crashed because it did not result in that which is observed in every other crash of a lightweight hollow instrument with solid structural steel. And, when an explosion was seen, it occurred in the wrong place.
In 9/11 common storyline world, the fallacy consists in the process of seeking to provide an explanation for that which cannot occur.
do you mean break apart? Of course it did. It did that inside the building. This is not visible on film because it is behind the walls of the building. It did not break apart behind the impact point. That would be absurd.
Your reply "of course it did" is not observed. Your statement is, then, irrational.
You simply cannot say, have no right to say, have no basis to say what followed; namely:
" It did that inside the building."
The reason you cannot say that is that it was not observed. Moreover, Stanley Praimnath's explanation and survival further falsify that claim. After all, Stanley Praimnath says he saw a wing.
The only thing you can do is ASSUME it (meaning shadow thingy) exploded and degraded inside the building. However, that assumption puts you in the territory of absurdity because a hollow aluminum aircraft should have exploded upon impact with a solid steel structure. It did not do that. Let me repeat:
The shadow thingy did not explode upon impact; as was seen.
Your next statement is equally untenable. You state:
"This is not visible on film because it is behind the walls of the building. It did not break apart behind the impact point. That would be absurd."
Come on. I thought you were allergic to fallacies? Do you not recognize that you have not only engaged in fallacious argument, you have, in addition, uttered an incongruent statement. Permit me to suggest you rethink the quoted comment.
Oh, I'm quite sure it slowed down. I don't think the amount it slowed down would be perceptible to the eye, and certainly not perceptible on any video footage wrought with artifacts. But, and this is key, there is no reason to expect it to slow down very much. Once again, it is your expectations which are in error. Not the reality.
What are you talking about and how do you substantiate that comment?
Observation of crashes results in significant slowing, degrading, chaotic tearing apart and explosion at the point of impact.
That did not happen on 9/11 at the WTC.
There's a reason for that. No one disputes it. Again, it is your expectations that are wrong.
Once again, your fallacies are showing, aren't they?
Argument from incredulty. And if you don't want to be called out about saying "the airplane melted" then don't say it. It pays to be clear. Especially when one is making ridiculous claim after ridiculous claim backed up by nothing but your own incredulty. How would one (me) distinguish between which fantasies you actually believe and which ones you just blurt out for no reason like this one?
Wait. I stand by the statement that the video shows the shadow thingy going through the South Tower as though it were a hot knife and as though the building were butter. Or, if you like, I also think Evan Fairbanks had it right in saying the "plane" disappeared into the building; and, he was there.
What makes you think I didn't assess my post? Of course I did. If you think I made a logical fallacy, point it out. Unlike you, I am not going to throw a fit when criticized. I desire to get at the truth. If that means having someone show me where I'm wrong, fine. You, however, are not doing that. You are just vaguely accusing me of committing some fallacy without, once again, any supporting evidence or information. Shocked, I am.
I am not going to name fallacies for you. That, to me, is too pedantic. All I will say is that if you are interested in pedantry, then do on your own posts as well as others.
Great. No idea what on earth this bit about student and teacher is about, but I'm glad we cleared that up. If you post in this forum with a claim, expect it to be examined critically. If you don't want that, keep it to yourself or post it in some forum where gullible lap this clap-trap up happily.
I want my posts to be examined critically and refuted. Denial is not refutation. 20 Questions is not refutation. "Gotcha games" are not refutation and "wild goose chases" are not refutation. Refutation is the posting up of information that contradicts the claims that are being made.
That's fantastic, because I'd really rather not have your support, seeing as how you are wrong at a nearly 100% clip.
Claims like the above are not refutation. They are, instead, statements of disagreement and claims that "ou are right and I am wrong." That process is, in my view, childish.
See, you appear to understand that logic has a place. Why then do you shy away from having fallacies (incorrect logic) in your posts pointed out to you?
When you say you have argued fallaciously, you should want to fix that. There is no shame in that. Clinging to fallacious arguments as if they are not fallacious is quite shameful, in my opinion. That is what you have done, over and over.
Absent a demonstration by way of example and/or by way of a specific refutation of a specific claim, you do not refute. You make a claim that something or another is a fallacy and you give the fallacy a name. So what? You are not the arbiter of what is or is not fallacious. And that for obvious reasons: You do not name your own fallacies.
We are not in high school here. If you want to address a fallacy, do so by way of refutation. If something truly is fallacious, then it should be relatively easy to refute it. Naming it as a fallacy is a presumption, but it is not a refutation.
I am not immune to fallacies. However, merely saying something is a fallacy does not prove the assertion.
Some people here have a strong vested interest, apparently, in thinking of themselves as being "right" or "correct" but they do not refute.
Again, if you feel I have committed any logical fallacies, I am happy for you to point out. I will gladly correct them and revise my conclusions.
Address your own fallacies is my only request. I am not going to do that for you. The most I will do is "double check" to make sure I have understood something you have said. My assumption here is that no poster here would knowingly use a fallacy. If something appears to me to be fallacious, I will usually point out, in detail, rather than using some sort of label, and ask for clarification.
Be prepared to support your claim, though.
I am prepared to support my claims. Always. I support my claims when they are challenged with refutation. I do not engage in 20 question BS games or in "gotcha games."
You do understand the difference, do you not?
I'd be thrilled. Get started.
I have.
Done. Disagree with my assessment? Show me where.
I have.
No, once again it is your expectations of what they should show that is in error. You have consistently failed to show why you think they should show what you think they should show. Get started on doing that now if you want to make progress.
Your claim is false. I have shown, time and time again, that my claims are based on observable data and upon interpretation of it. This is a thread that centers on the ALL43 videos of what is referred to as the 'second explosion' or the 'second hit' at the WTC. That is what we are focused on. Page in and page out, I have focused on what can be seen and heard and I have described what is seen and what is heard. I acknowledge that people may see things differently and may hear things differently. However, posters here rarely discuss the data in terms of what the data show.
...
Utter and complete nonsense.
Your assertion does not refute.
Your problem is that for some weird reason, you claim to see any question or demand for supporting evidence as a gotcha or rhetorical claim. They are not. They are demands for supporting evidence.
Demands for more proof are a form of gotcha. In order to have a discussion, I will post claims. The proper response is to post counter-claims or proof of refutation. That is how I respond.
The most recent poster to engage in discussion based on the process of refutation is rsalinger. Take a look at that posters posts and at my responses to that poster.
Quit dodging them. No one, and I do mean no one, with a head on their shoulders will take you seriously until you stop this.
No one with a head on their shoulders would engage in "gotcha games" in my opinion. Instead, they would engage in refutation.
If there is a question about your claim, answer it.
Generally, I will not do that. There are some questions that I answer. If, for example, someone says they do not understand and want clarification of something in particular, I would probably answer.
If your answer is correct, there can be no "gotcha."
I am generally not seeking to prove anything in the first place. Thus, your premise really doesn't work here. I am offering up data and interpretation. You can agree, disagree or respond as you see fit.
If it is wrong, then you might have a "gotcha" but how is that bad?
Wrong is the converse of right. I am equally not interested in what you consider to be wrong. Who are you that I would be interested in what you consider to be wrong; pray tell?
If you are wrong, you want to discard that belief. Not hold onto it.
In my view, each of us is responsible for making our own determinations as to what we consider to be right; and saying what that is and why. And vice versa.
You are just afraid of being proven wrong.
I have not got the least interest in what you consider to be right or wrong. I am interested in what you can claim and in what you can refute.
It is the only explanation for your refusal to answer those questions.
Your statement does not follow from anything said prior to it, in my view. Permit me to suggest you reconsider that claim. Is it possible it involves a fallacy?
Would you agree with me that your statement does not refute anything at all?
This has been contradicted multiple times in this very thread, and dozens of times in other places in this forum. If you still believe this nonsense, it is merely a sign of mental illness.
Post one example, including my response, if any.
