9/11 Challenge, Split from: Fetzer wants debate

[Totovader]

In particular this is meant for Aqua323, who sought a personal debate here after I asked if any conspiracists would be willing to pick up where bofors left off and actually provide a critique of the NIST report due to the fact that bofors did not.

I suggested that Aqua323 address my 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge, here- to which he replied with the following:

Just watched your challenge video on youtube. Its a very easy question to answer. A video of the plane hitting the pentagon and one of the plane in shanksville would get me to admit i was wrong. Challenge answered.

That claim has already been addressed in an older video, here- as well as a blog post I made, here- which is linked in the original video. Several problems with this criteria were also addressed by individuals in the same thread.

Aqua323 had refused to start a thread on this, and instead derailed his own thread. I believe he's been given enough time to start one and still has not, so I've created one for him in order to get a response.

Any other conspiracists who feel that they can address the Challenge: feel free to do so.

 

[e^n]

Such evidence (a video of Flight 93) does not exist, therefore claiming this evidence would change his position is akin to saying his position is unfalsifiable.

We'll see if he clarifies this I guess.

 

[Totovader]

I sent Aqua323 a private message informing him that his thread was waiting. I have not yet received a response.

 

[Drudgewire]

Such evidence (a video of Flight 93) does not exist, therefore claiming this evidence would change his position is akin to saying his position is unfalsifiable.

Well since the entire twoofer movement is built on them, maybe a faked video of it on youtube would suffice.

 

[Aqua323]

Such evidence (a video of Flight 93) does not exist, therefore claiming this evidence would change his position is akin to saying his position is unfalsifiable.

We'll see if he clarifies this I guess.

Please prove it doesnt exist.

 

[Aqua323]

Also, can I just say, that falsifiability refers to scientific theories. 911 is not a science study, its a crime. Crimes are resolved by a preponderance of the evidence. You dont see the concept of falsifiability being thrown at a prosecutor in court.

 

[Bell]

Please prove it doesnt exist.

Or prove it DOES exist, for that matter.

 

[Totovader]

Also, can I just say, that falsifiability refers to scientific theories. 911 is not a science study, its a crime. Crimes are resolved by a preponderance of the evidence. You dont see the concept of falsifiability being thrown at a prosecutor in court.

This is circular reasoning.

We are trying to determine if your position is CORRECT- therefore we employ science. If you are admitting that your position is not falsifiable, then we're pretty much done.

 

[Aqua323]

Or prove it DOES exist, for that matter.

I dont have to. It could exist, therefore it is a piece of evidence that would convince me if it surfaced.

But Totovaders challenge is fatally flawed. Falsifiability does not a apply in this situation.

 

[Totovader]

Please prove it doesnt exist.

Burden of proof fallacy.

And argument from ignorance- you're claiming that since the video is not known it must therefore exist, and it since it exist and is not known, it must therefore show what you want it to show.

The amount of fallacies you have to pile on top of each other just to make it through a post- that doesn't bother you at all?

 

[Aqua323]

This is circular reasoning.

We are trying to determine if your position is CORRECT- therefore we employ science. If you are admitting that your position is not falsifiable, then we're pretty much done.

911 was a crime, right? How are crimes resolved in courts? Either "beyond a reasonable doubt", or "balance of probabilities". Please find me a jury that has ever had to rule on the falsifiability of the prosecutors position.

 

[Totovader]

I dont have to. It could exist, therefore it is a piece of evidence that would convince me if it surfaced.

But Totovaders challenge is fatally flawed. Falsifiability does not a apply in this situation.

Falsifiability applies in every situation- but that's not everything the Challenge seeks to expose as far as the flaws in your argument.

Please address the rebuttals I already provided in regards to your criteria.

 

[Totovader]

911 was a crime, right? How are crimes resolved in courts? Either "beyond a reasonable doubt", or "balance of probabilities". Please find me a jury that has ever had to rule on the falsifiability of the prosecutors position.

If I were asking for your uneducated legal opinion, then your lower-standards of evidence would be relevant- and still be defeated.

Since I am not, they are not.

 

[Drudgewire]

Please find me a jury that has ever had to rule on the falsifiability of the prosecutors position.

Do you follow lacrosse at all?

 

[Aqua323]

Falsifiability applies in every situation- but that's not everything the Challenge seeks to expose as far as the flaws in your argument.

Please address the rebuttals I already provided in regards to your criteria.

The rebuttals mean nothing. As a juror in the CRIME of 911 I would be swayed by those pieces of evidence, and others.

 

[Bell]

I dont have to. It could exist, therefore it is a piece of evidence that would convince me if it surfaced.

But Totovaders challenge is fatally flawed. Falsifiability does not a apply in this situation.

I would like to see the video of the people preparing the demolition charges inside the towers.

 

[Aqua323]

If I were asking for your uneducated legal opinion, then your lower-standards of evidence would be relevant- and still be defeated.

Since I am not, they are not.

It isn't uneducated. Please tell me what I have wrong.

911 is a crime, and the ultimate goal of the truth movement would be a trial of the government involved. It is NOT a science. You lose.

 

[Totovader]

The rebuttals mean nothing. As a juror in the CRIME of 911 I would be swayed by those pieces of evidence, and others.

You're inventing your own scenario which is completely non-sequitur to the Challenge.

If you're not going to respond to the rebuttals I have provided in regards to your criteria, I will just ask that the thread be closed.

 

[Totovader]

It isn't uneducated. Please tell me what I have wrong.

911 is a crime, and the ultimate goal of the truth movement would be a trial of the government involved. It is NOT a science. You lose.

If you are claiming that your position is NOT scientific- then how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

[Aqua323]

Anyway, unfalsifiable statements are not necessarily false.

e.g "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, but it is certainly true.

So even if falsifiability applied here it would prove nothing.