When debating, there are certain techniques that are often not allowed by debate moderators because they bypass the chain of logical argument in the creation of a credible case. In the absence of a monitor, we can "call" each other when one side uses one of these "propaganda techniques". Here are some important logical issues to be aware of on both sides of the argument:
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: --Carl Sagan. Richard Gage's extraordinary claim is that the WTC buildings were brought down on 9/11 by secret controlled demolition. A high bar of a reasoned counter claim consisting of sound logical argument based on objective evidence is required to back an extraordinary claim. This is the standard I am holding Gage to, and I do not believe he has succeeded.
Innuendo Pointing to Falsehood: Also argument from suspicion. The attempt to foment suspicion and claim that the "unanswered" questions they have point to willful acts of coverup, commission of treason, etc. A clear charge might be considered libelous; in the absence of proof there is a resort to innuendo. This obfuscates the truth instead of serving it. A good example is the claim that the Bush family had a stake in the Ace Elevator Company, which was doing elevator maintenance work on the towers prior to 9/11. To my knowledge, no one has ever directly accused George W. using the "elevator repair ruse" to plant explosives. The innuendo is left there for people to come to their own conclusion but no furthere evidence of direct White House collusion with this elevator company is ever offerred.
Reversal of Burden of Proof; Requiring Proving a Negative: When 9/11 CD advocates use innuendo as proof of controlled demoliton, the next step is to try to place the burden of proof on their opponent: "you prove that I'm wrong!" A classic example of this was in my debate with Richard Gage, where he said, "My opponent must explain [several phenomena such as iron-rich spheres, molten steel etc.] or the debate is over." In my debate and in the YouTube videos, I set out to do just that, voluntarily accepting the burden of proof, but Richard Gage offerred innuendo as proof when the burden of proof belonged to him, since he has made the extraordinary claim of controlled demoltion. Another related tactic is to demand that I prove a negative: "prove that there isn't thermite in the dust! Prove that the buildings weren't brought down by controlled demolition!" Proving a negative is impossible. If you say I am a government spy, how can I prove I am not?
"Never Before" Canard: NIST, Richard Gage and I agree that the 9/11 catastrophe is without precedent, but the fact that something has never happened before is not evidence that it couldn't have happened. No large ocean liner exactly like The Titanic has ever sunk either. And as I point out in one of my videos, there are several conspiracy theories and even a hefty book claiming that the Titanic never did sink, that is was a massive insurance fraud, that the ship continued to secretly ply the waters of the world for decades! (If you don't believe me, google "conspiracy theories Titanic")
Strawman Argument: If NIST or I or any other natural collapse advocate makes an argument in our favor, it's important that the response to that argument meet it head-on and not present a different version of the opponent's argument (we all must be held to this standard). A strawman is a "watered down" parody of the original claim - weakend to make it easier to rebut. The reader must be sure that each opposing argument is being fairly summarized and not "watered down" before considering the merits of the rebuttal.
Ad hominem attack: My opponent is not an MIT professor so nothing he says has any merit. My opponent has ties to the CIA (or the government) so of course he's lying. My opponent is not a physicist and he made a mistake so nothing he says can be taken seriously, and we should not cast our pearls before swine (the "Pearls Before Swine" YouTube attack video against me by David Chandler is classic ad hominem). Similarly, ad hominem attacks against "twoofers" are a form of entertainment on the JREF 9/11 threads (but the 9/11 Truth assertions are also thoroughly rebutted).. Ad hominem is an attack against an individual, an attempt to demolish their credibility by ascribing dark motives, ties to evil institutions, insanity, stupidity or general incompetence to them so their arguments need no reply.
Irrelevant: Sometimes a true statement can be made which is not relevant to the issue. It is often presented in a manner that implies that it adds to the counter argument. An example: In reason 9 in chrismohr911.com, I refer to some relatively minor structural damage below the crash site (doors that couldn't open any more, etc.). When I was "called" on this, I agreed that minor structural damage below the crash site was irrelevant to the cause and process of the WTC Towers' collapses. With zero structural damage below the crash site, the result would have been about the same.
False Comparison: Comparing the WTC Towers to high-rises that did NOT fail in fires, or for that matter my comparison of the global collapse of the WTC Buildings with the partial collapse at Delft, must be done carefully to avoid false comparisons. Both sides will bring in comparable examples to make their point, and both sides will accuse the other of false comparison. Whenever either side is bringing forth a comparison, the differences between 9/11 and the event comparison should also be admitted to so that a fair judgment can be made as to what the comparison can actually demonstrate.
Unsupported Conjecture: Also appeal to magic. A statement like "The CIA and the military have huge budgets and state of the art technology so their seccret weapons can have properties that no one else's has" is impossible to respond to. I can only respond to what we know about the properties of thermitic materials, for example. No one has EVER produced a quiet explosive that can hurl multi-ton hunks of steel 600 feet away. To conjecture that the US military has somehow done something that would be otherwise impossible is a belief, not a scientific argument.
Argument from Incredulity: I can't believe it, or it doesn't look to be so, therefore it can't be so. Incredulity is a "common-sense" impulse and both sides of the argument have it. For example, my initial response to the CD theory was nah, they couldn't pull off a secret demolition of all three of those buildings. I could just reject such a claim outright based on my own incredulity, or I could actually look at the arguments in favor of it being possible. When I looked at the 9/11 CD arguments, however, I got a mishmash of wildly contradictory hypotheses. Three or four people could have done it. Thousands of people were in on it. They painted the beams with thermite. The planted shaped charges. They cowed everyone into silence. Each hypothesis was easily refuted. On the 9/11 Truth side, the argument from incredulity can be stated as, "How could three buildings fall down so fast in a single day? Where's the resistance to the collapse?" These arguments by themselves prove nothing; they have to look very carefully at the NIST Report and other scientific papers, talk to scientists personally, etc. before concluding that their incredulity is valid. It is the reasoned arguments based on objective data, not the initial incredulity, that carries weight in this debate.
False Application of Common Sense: We develop common sense from experience in day-to-day matters. Common sense does not apply to the collapse of skyscrapers, which is not something we experience in our day to day lives; we must rely on scientific research to determine what happened. Common sense tells me that if I see a dog with its fangs bared, barking menacingly and raising its hackles, I am in danger of being bitten and should back away slowly. This is based on experience, direct or indirect, and is a part of the normal life experience of people living in neighborhoods where dogs share our common space. Common sense tells me nothing about the behavior of light particles in a gravitational field; that requires that I study Einstein's theories. Similarly, I have no database of commonly held experiences to draw from when I witness the collapse of three skyscrapers in a single day.
False Global Claim: the NIST report says that perimeter collapse started the initiation stage for the Twin towers. NIST is wrong - it was core first. Therefore all NIST material is totally wrong. A related example: claiming that any detail applies everywhere without regard for either relevance or significance. For example the above conflict between "core led" and "perimeter led' does not change the NIST claim that "initiation" had a stage where the "top block" started to fall. The core vs perimeter conflict does not change the next higher level - whether core led or perimeter the top block still fell. So it is irrelevant (until someone shows it is relevant). The "default " is "irrelevant until shown relevant".
Socio-political claims: People who believe in shadow governments are more likely to embrace the 9/11 controlled demolition theory; patriotic Americans are more likely to reject them. I have chosen to separate socio-political arguments into a different category and focus almost exclusively on the technical aspects of the 9/11 CD theory. Even if a secret government were proven, this is not proof of the technical CD claims of Richard Gage (and Gage agrees with me on this point). Nevertheless, I have reluctantly ventured into this realm a little bit to at least offer some challenging questions to 9/11 Truth advocates.
Argument from Authority: The fact that someone is not a specialist in the field they are discussing does not negate what they say. A 26 year old patent clerk named Albert Einstein came up with the relativity theory, after all. Nevertheless, expert testimony carries more weight than that of nonexperts. See my "hierarchay of credibility" for information I receive re 9/11 controlled demolistion vs natural collapse.
