It is claimed on here that the 911 Truth movement is a homogenous collection of arguments represented by the theory that a space-beam weapon was used to disintegrate the WTC and Holograms were used instead of planes and real planes were used and explosives were used to bring down the WTC.
This is a classic disinformation technique, sometimes termed 'poisoning the well' through the construction of 'straw man' arguments.
Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term was first used with this sense [1] by John Henry Newman in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua [2].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[1] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy,[2] scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You will see the frantic and persistent use of this tactic here on this forum, by posters claiming to be honest skeptics who will repeatedly frame the argument in terms of space beams and holograms from outer space, often including in the same post, the names of people like Prof Steve Jones or David Ray Griffin - who claim no such thing, but implying that they do.
This can be no accidental mistake for somebody familiar with their work, as all who post on here claim to be.
To illustrate the point further, imagine that a crime has been committed, say a person has been murdered in an alleyway - they have what appears to be a gunshot wound to the head.
You are a Detective charged with investigating the case, with the hope of bringing a successful prosecution of the crime.
An immediate line of inquiry quickly emerges, as a witness comes forward who saw a hooded stranger fire a gun at the victim and run away, suggesting that the person has been shot. You live in a small town, and only one person is known to have a gun, someone with a well known history of violence - suggesting an immediate suspect. However the person who owns the gun, is a wealthy and well connected figure in town and word quickly gets out of the emerging scandal.
Nevertheless, you proceed with your investigation, but before you can bring this suspect in for questioning, another witness suddenly emerges - a witness claiming to have also been in the alleyway that night, but saw no such person fire a gun. Instead, what they saw, was a mysterious beam of light that came down from outer space, and struck the victim to the ground.
Friends of the suspect, immediately point to this new witness as proof that your initial line of inquiry is foolish, as it is a well known fact that the primary suspect owns no such space beam weapon technology.
Which line of inquiry would you pursue?
Do you shrug and drop the case?
Or do you raise a skeptical eyebrow, stroke your chin, and say ... "Hmmm"?
I mean - what would Columbo do?
So in summary, there's a lot of bull**** bandied around on here - back to the question in the thread title - who, if anyone, thinks that there is any merit to the theory that a top secret space-beam weapon destroyed the world trade center, and that holograms were used instead of real planes?
Anyone?
I think I've seen one.
And if anyone does, do they have any suggestions as to how we might verify the existence of this unknown technology?
Because you see, in stark contrast to the work of Prof Steve Jones and David Ray Griffin - the space-beam weapon theory presents a problem. No such device is known to exist, and until its existence can be proven, no further progress can be made along this line of inquiry.
This is a classic disinformation technique, sometimes termed 'poisoning the well' through the construction of 'straw man' arguments.
Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term was first used with this sense [1] by John Henry Newman in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua [2].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[1] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy,[2] scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You will see the frantic and persistent use of this tactic here on this forum, by posters claiming to be honest skeptics who will repeatedly frame the argument in terms of space beams and holograms from outer space, often including in the same post, the names of people like Prof Steve Jones or David Ray Griffin - who claim no such thing, but implying that they do.
This can be no accidental mistake for somebody familiar with their work, as all who post on here claim to be.
To illustrate the point further, imagine that a crime has been committed, say a person has been murdered in an alleyway - they have what appears to be a gunshot wound to the head.
You are a Detective charged with investigating the case, with the hope of bringing a successful prosecution of the crime.
An immediate line of inquiry quickly emerges, as a witness comes forward who saw a hooded stranger fire a gun at the victim and run away, suggesting that the person has been shot. You live in a small town, and only one person is known to have a gun, someone with a well known history of violence - suggesting an immediate suspect. However the person who owns the gun, is a wealthy and well connected figure in town and word quickly gets out of the emerging scandal.
Nevertheless, you proceed with your investigation, but before you can bring this suspect in for questioning, another witness suddenly emerges - a witness claiming to have also been in the alleyway that night, but saw no such person fire a gun. Instead, what they saw, was a mysterious beam of light that came down from outer space, and struck the victim to the ground.
Friends of the suspect, immediately point to this new witness as proof that your initial line of inquiry is foolish, as it is a well known fact that the primary suspect owns no such space beam weapon technology.
Which line of inquiry would you pursue?
Do you shrug and drop the case?
Or do you raise a skeptical eyebrow, stroke your chin, and say ... "Hmmm"?
I mean - what would Columbo do?
So in summary, there's a lot of bull**** bandied around on here - back to the question in the thread title - who, if anyone, thinks that there is any merit to the theory that a top secret space-beam weapon destroyed the world trade center, and that holograms were used instead of real planes?
Anyone?
I think I've seen one.
And if anyone does, do they have any suggestions as to how we might verify the existence of this unknown technology?
Because you see, in stark contrast to the work of Prof Steve Jones and David Ray Griffin - the space-beam weapon theory presents a problem. No such device is known to exist, and until its existence can be proven, no further progress can be made along this line of inquiry.
