ozeco41
Philosopher
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)
- Thread starter dannyb
- Start date
A W Smith
Philosopher
burden of proof shift which is a logical fallacy
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
You don’t know he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows
you only think you know he doesn’t know You don’t know
he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t
know You
don’t know he knows you would say he doesn’t know
but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know You don’t know
he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know
You don’t
know he knows
you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think
you know he doesn’t know You don’t know he knows you would say
he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know
you only think you know he doesn’t know You don’t know
he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t
know You
don’t know he knows you would say he doesn’t know
but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know You don’t know
he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know
You don’t
know he knows
you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think
you know he doesn’t know You don’t know he knows you would say
he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know
Last edited:
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
No, it was more like a couple thousand fire fighters and iron workers clambering all over the pile looking for stuff or unpiling the pile and the hundreds of people who sorted through stuff at Fresh Kills and identifying stuff as large as a brief case or as small as a fingernail without ever finding a detonator casing or an oddly-melted column that didn't look like it had been in an acid bath.
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
False. Because the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're the who claims to know exactly what happened.
Try again.
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
In other words, no, there was no credible, independent investigation at the WTC site.
That's what I figured.
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
You keep saying this, which only makes it more obvious that you just don't get it. We have a theory, we have backed it up with evidence. You are challenging our theory, that means that YOU have to prove to US how we're wrong and back YOUR theory up with evidence.
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
No you haven't. You've only backed up your theory with assumptions and speculation.
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
You're still challenging our theory and you still have to prove that it's backed up with "assumptions and speculation", as you put it. Simply saying that doesn't make it so.
SpringHallConvert
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,272
Simply saying you have evidence doesn't make it so either.
It's not my responsibility to disprove your unproven conspiracy theories. It's your responsibility to prove them, and you government truthers are failing miserably at that.
slowsmile
Critical Thinker
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
Why are the fire fighters, iron workers, policemen, & other investigators not credible?
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
Because they disagree with him, that's why. Except for the ones that don't, those are obviously credible. Even though they weren't actually there, that's obviously a minor technicality.
You remind me of Calvin (Hobbes' buddy), except Calvin has some self-awareness and only says such things to avoid having his bath.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
You figured wrong, reasoning, as you do, from a position of absolute ignorance of procedures.
I don't know whether I can dumb this down enough that you can, with your limited understanding of fire investigations, grasp the basic principles of forensics that come into play in this sort of situation.
Investigators ask questions aimed at figuring out Who did What, When, Where, How and Why. Usually, there are not several million eyewitnesses to any given crime. In this case, there were.
We know the time of the strikes of the two towers and on the Puzzle Palace and the crash at Shanksville. We know that it involved flying stolen airplanes into the targets that were hit and into the ground in the middle of Pennsylvania.
We know the times that the airliners were hijacked. We know the airports from which the planes were hijacked.
Right out of the box, we had the When, What and Where.
How they got control of the aircraft could not be determined from anything that they could find at the target sites. That would have to be determined from communications with people elsewhere, surveilance tapes at the airports. The black boxes were only important to coroborate those findings. The chances that they would find the black boxes in a recognizeable condition the GZ were slim at best. Nothing in the world is utterly indestructible. Black boxes are tough, but not so tough that they would survive the collpases of the towers.
Who did it would not be found in anything at GZ. Why they did it would have to be figured out from what evidence they could find at the airports.
So, investigators knew that the buildings collapsed because a group of criminals drove airplanes into them and set them on fire and the fires weakened the steel until it did what steel generally does when kept hot enough long enough.
It bends and drops its load.
No fire fighter with an IQ north of 100 doubts that. There was no sign that anything else had happened.
NIST and FEMA were only interested in how the buildings fell because it was their responsibility to figure out whether anything could be done to make it less likely that this sort of thing would happen again if somebody went kamikaze with an airliner or there was a major fire that could not be fought.
They did not have to look at the steel where it was to figure that out, and the rubble couldl not be left where it was for them to inspect because there was a fire under it that had to be put out as soon as possible. The investigators from NISTand FEMA were of no use on the pile. The cops, fire fighters and iron workers all had some training to tell them whether something looked wrong as they pulled it from the pile. They could tell the nerds at Fresh Kills that they needed to look at such unusual things.
So, yes, a proper investigation, to the extent that it could be done there, was done at GZ. If dirtbags like Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, Chris Bollyn or Eric Huffschmid tell you it wasn't, screw them. They lie a lot. Especially that piece of crap Bollyn. He's a Nazi. Lying is what he does for a living.
I don't think SHC is typical, even for Truthers.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Agreed. But then it is a bit of a strain of the sentence to read "Typical" as qualifying "truther"....
...when it qualifies "truther arse about logic" in which phrase the noun/object is "logic".
[/legalpedantryOFF]
...and I would be among the last to credit the troll as being a truther.
Agreed. But then it is a bit of a strain of the sentence to read "Typical" as qualifying "truther"....
...when it qualifies "truther arse about logic" in which phrase the noun/object is "logic".
[/legalpedantryOFF]
...and I would be among the last to credit the troll as being a truther.
I'm still betting on performance art. We've just seen it in the General Skepticism section on another topic. People here are predictable and rise to the bait. If SHC really believes what he espouses, then he's a solipsist. Which is interesting in a dope-smoking dorm room kind of way, but not in real life.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Yes. He is our second most effective troll if "responses to baiting" are the measure.
...and a specialist in "zero content".
why we feed them is another issue.......
Yes. He is our second most effective troll if "responses to baiting" are the measure.
...and a specialist in "zero content".
why we feed them is another issue.......
I really don't understand it. In ergo's very first thread here, I spotted the trolling and since I have no longer responded. With SHC, I did the same. This guy adds zero value to the forum.
I guess that, as many will readily admit, these guys serve as the virtual equivalent of cat toys. I have been guilty of responding to posters like this in the past, so will reserve judgement, other than noting that it adds no educational value to respond.