• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any published papers criticizing NIST?

Edx said:
And they ARE subtle, extremely subtle, extraordinarily subtle WHEN COMPARED WITH TRUTHERS .

What about that do you not understand?
Click to expand...

Who cares about Truthers? We might begin to call this the Taibbi fallacy, a form of ad hominem in which, legitimate arguments are dismissed and time and energy are spent in attacking proponents, rather than pursuing valid lines of inquiry.
 
RedIbis said:
Who cares about Truthers? We might begin to call this the Taibbi fallacy, a form of ad hominem in which, legitimate arguments are dismissed and time and energy are spent in attacking proponents, rather than pursuing valid lines of inquiry.
Click to expand...
At least 911 truth has failed to pursue valid lines of inquiry, they make up a fantasy world of nukes, silent explosives, RC aircraft, steel that never fails in fire, and more nonsense. No need to attack 911 truth members, their claims say it all.
 
RedIbis said:
Who cares about Truthers? We might begin to call this the Taibbi fallacy, a form of ad hominem in which, legitimate arguments are dismissed and time and energy are spent in attacking proponents, rather than pursuing valid lines of inquiry.
Click to expand...

I think you're projecting again, Red.
 
Just ignore him, gang. He has nothing to contribute.

Regarding Dr. Quintiere, let me remind everyone -- again -- that he carried out the one thing Truthers used to clamor for: A scale model of the WTC fires. Not a computer simulation, an actual fire.

His simulation demonstrated that the fire would in fact cause a collapse. It even predicts the time between impact and collapse with rather impressive accuracy.

All of this appears in a peer reviewed journal, yet another thing Truthers avoid.

In summary, anyone saying Dr. Quintiere's work supports the Truthers is either lying or delusional. This was all settled almost four years ago.
 
RedIbis said:
Who cares about Truthers? We might begin to call this the Taibbi fallacy, a form of ad hominem in which, legitimate arguments are dismissed and time and energy are spent in attacking proponents, rather than pursuing valid lines of inquiry.
Click to expand...

This is the strategy of last resort, and actually seems to be picking up steam, rather than fizzling out. You see it in the substance-less rantings of Michael Shermer, Jonathan Kay, and certain other psyientist wannabes. I predict, in place of acknowledging the facts, the smear tactics will be exercised with more force, depending on what kind of co-operation is received from the mainstream media. (So far even the high-profile bedunkers have been, nevertheless, marginalized in this respect. I would argue even that Kay's new book will meet with boredom or indifference.)

But the psychology of these folks I think is an interesting topic to explore with more vigor.
 
ergo said:
This is the strategy of last resort, and actually seems to be picking up steam, rather than fizzling out. You see it in the substance-less rantings of Michael Shermer, Jonathan Kay, and certain other psyientist wannabes. I predict, in place of acknowledging the facts, the smear tactics will be exercised with more force, depending on what kind of co-operation is received from the mainstream media. (So far even the high-profile bedunkers have been, nevertheless, marginalized in this respect. I would argue even that Kay's new book will meet with boredom or indifference.)

But the psychology of these folks I think is an interesting topic to explore with more vigor.
Click to expand...

LOL. Ergo. It's been almost 10 years and the "truth" movement is still a teeny, tiny cult arguing in internet message boards.

There is a reason for that, and it's not what you think it is.
 
ergo said:
This is the strategy of last resort, and actually seems to be picking up steam, rather than fizzling out. You see it in the substance-less rantings of Michael Shermer, Jonathan Kay, and certain other psyientist wannabes. I predict, in place of acknowledging the facts, the smear tactics will be exercised with more force, depending on what kind of co-operation is received from the mainstream media. (So far even the high-profile bedunkers have been, nevertheless, marginalized in this respect. I would argue even that Kay's new book will meet with boredom or indifference.)

But the psychology of these folks I think is an interesting topic to explore with more vigor.
Click to expand...

And there's the Mackey Defense, in which one ignores arguments then claims their non-existence.
 
RedIbis said:
Who cares about Truthers? We might begin to call this the Taibbi fallacy, a form of ad hominem in which, legitimate arguments are dismissed and time and energy are spent in attacking proponents, rather than pursuing valid lines of inquiry.
Click to expand...

No one is dismissing legitimate criticism of NIST (like Quintiere's), what Mackey said was that his criticism is (extremely) subtle when compared with truthers criticisms of NIST.

In the same way Steven J Gould's criticism of evolution theory was (extremely) subtle when compared with Creationists.

Its really hard to know when truthers are just being stubborn or stupid. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The only thing being "dismissed" is the possibility that 9-11 was an inside job, because it's an idiotic proposition. Who here is dismissing legitimate criticism of NIST?
 
Hokulele said:
Does this mean that you will finally put forth an argument?
Click to expand...

I've put forth many arguments. As in this thread, I argued that disagreeing with a conclusion is not a subtle point.

If you disagree with a point in coming to a conclusion, but still agree with the conclusion, that is subtle.
 
Hokulele said:
NIST had many conclusions in their reports. Which one was Quintiere referring to?
Click to expand...

Since you seem to have missed his quote the first time it was posted, here it is again:

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere.
 
RedIbis said:
Since you seem to have missed his quote the first time it was posted, here it is again:

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere.
Click to expand...

Since you seem to have missed Mackey's quote the first time it was posted, here it is again:

"The differences between scientists on the issue are subtle, apparently too subtle for the Truth Movement to understand."

If Dr. Quintiere thought NIST's conclusion was not, at the very least, questionable, then there would be no difference, however subtle.

Dave
 
Hokulele said:
Please articulate what you believe the "official conclusion" entails.
Click to expand...

You don't care what I believe. Why don't you ask Dr. Q? I believe you are falling for the Taibbi fallacy, in which it's more important to argue with proponents of a theory you disagree with than pursue valid lines of inquiry.
 
RedIbis said:
You don't care what I believe. Why don't you ask Dr. Q? I believe you are falling for the Taibbi fallacy, in which it's more important to argue with proponents of a theory you disagree with than pursue valid lines of inquiry.
Click to expand...

And I believe you are focusing on the word "questionable" rather than caring what Dr. Quintiere actually meant by that.

What more important? That word, or what he meant?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom