Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[SteveAustin]

It is an indisputable fact that "truthers" have NEVER produced a single piece of evidence that supports their lunatic claims. Our side can never hope to pin these liars down on specific points because we have ALL the evidence. There is nothing to argue. The frauds ALWAYS run away when confronted with their indefensible statements. They can never acknowledge error, as their house of cards would simply collapse. We should lower our sights and count it as a victory whenever we reduce the fraud to turning tail and fleeing.

And if you keep repeating that often enough you may actually convince some people

 

[Horatius]

Bill smith's presentation of this quote in a forum dedicated to the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments

ROFL Dave,

And Dave tries to lie his way out of a lie. You claimed the quote "is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments".

Because if the quote is not a strawman argument then Bill's use of the quote cannot be a strawman argument.

Trying to dissemble and now claim it is Bill's use of the quote that is the strawman simply does not work.

Talk about not seeing what's right in front of you....you even quoted it!

Bill smith's presentation of this quote in a forum dedicated to the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments

Feel free to continue arguing about how this can or cannot be a strawman argument, but can it with this "lying" business. The quote is right there for everyone to see.

Except for those who don't want to see it.

 

[FineWine]

Sorry I am only a simple SuperTruther. You will hhave to go to a higher echelon in the TM command structure for answers to these difficult questions.

All "truthers" are simple. You are just a bit simpler than most. Yes, your tactic of dismissing my devastating questions by pretending to be the mindless fraud you really are is working well.

For you and your ilk, my questions are more than merely difficult; they are impossible.

 

[SteveAustin]

Missed the mark completely?

The entire quote rests on the assertion "Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary..." which is trivially easy to show is false..

TAM would you like to take a shot at explaining why his assertion that that first part of the quote is false is itself false?

I have tried explaining how you can't boil it down a simply as he and some others here have done. Many people hold 2 opposing and contradicting points of view as both being true. This sort of thing happens all the time.

I've explained it already, and TAM can explain it furher if he wishes.

 

[FineWine]

And if you keep repeating that often enough you may actually convince some people

And if you keep resorting to infantile verbal tricks, you will certainly convince people with critical thinking skills that you are a fraud who has been exposed.

The claim is that "truthers" are fact-free liars who have never produced a shred of evidence that can stand scrutiny. To refute it, you have only to show a single piece of credible evidence for the insane myths you cling to.

C'mon, give it a try.

 

[TK0001]

2 things you forget to mention.

1 - it is not a crime to make some money but to smear them by implying this is the only reason they are doing what they are doing is one of those tactics I have often quoted here.

2 - How many of those government officials, military personel etc... made money off of 9/11 in some way shape or form? Something no debunker seems to want to mention

I didn't forget to mention those at all.

But thanks for the help, I guess.

 

[tfk]

You are trying to imply that psychology is a simple "THIS" or "THAT" state, when it is not. As I mentioned already but will repeat here...

But it can be even more complex than that tom, and often is.

Your simple attempt to throw out my whole argument by trying to strip down a very complex situation into a one "issue" problem fails because that is not the way the human mind works usually.

.
Steve,

Let me see if I've got this straight:

YOU are the one who stated (incorrectly) that psychology has proved something as a "fact".

YOU are now stating (incorrectly) that I have assessed some aspect of it as "this or that". [Psssst, a FACT is, by definition, "this or that". YOU are the one stating that something is a fact, i.e., "this or that". I am the one that YOU are too simplistic.]

YOU are now stating (incorrectly) that you understand my concept of the field - from that ONE post - to such an extent that you can assert that I am underestimating its complexity.

YOU are the one that is now stating (incorrectly) that I attempted to reduce your points to "one issue".

Most amusingly of all, you have now repeatedly stated that you can assert "how the human mind works".

Let me guess: You took a freshman Psych class in college...

tom

PS. Please do NOT make the mistake of thinking that, because I say it is an art, not a science, and cannot yet state "facts" that you think you understand my respect (or disrespect) for the field. You will be wrong.

 

[Horatius]

Now, go ahead and tell me how it's "more complicated" than that. That will be ever so much more convincing than you actually defending your beliefs with evidence.

TAM would you like to take a shot at explaining why his assertion that that first part of the quote is false is itself false?

I have tried explaining how you can't boil it down a simply as he and some others here have done. Many people hold 2 opposing and contradicting points of view as both being true. This sort of thing happens all the time.

I've explained it already, and TAM can explain it furher if he wishes.

Called It!

Not that it was that hard.


Now, how about you apply the "Many people hold 2 opposing and contradicting points of view as both being true." to yourself, and your fellow truthers?

 

[FineWine]

And if you keep repeating that often enough you may actually convince some people

You see how easy it was to make you run away? And all you needed was ONE piece of evidence for your side.

 

[beachnut]

...

Tell us how the Israelis knew in advance about terrorist attacks that didn't actually happen.

Logic errors are standard for truthers. 911Lies cult membership requires mandatory no skills in logic. In first and second grade cause and effect are introduced. Guess 911Lies forgot the lesson.

 

[FineWine]

Logic errors are standard for truthers. 911Lies cult membership requires mandatory no skills in logic. In first and second grade cause and effect are introduced. Guess 911Lies forgot the lesson.

But although a nut like Ultima1 wouldn't be able to grasp the crushing self-contradiction he's wedded to, Bill, like RedIbis, runs away when confronted with it. Food for thought, no?

 

[Slayhamlet]

There's the smear right off the start

Demonstrable facts are not smears.

Actually Dave yes it was, and you are lying now saying it wasn't. Here's the proof for those of you who would not want to scroll up.

Here's Dave's full quote. This time, please read for comprehension. I've italicized the parts that you have thus far expertly ignored and obfuscated in your attempt to misrepresent him:

Bill smith's presentation of this quote in a forum dedicated to the discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories is a textbook example of one of the standard 9/11 truther strawman arguments. It rests on the assumption that there is no difference between rejecting the specific allegation that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by elements within the US Government, and rejecting the general assertion that some governments at some times are corrupt. The aim is to portray as naive and self-deluded those who question the truther account of events with the same level of skepticism that they question the vastly more widely understood account of events, and find that the former is contradicted by, where the latter is supported by, any and all the available evidence.

In other words, it is not the quote itself that is a straw man but the imputation of it's premise onto debunkers. You will in fact be hard pressed to find any debunkers who "believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary", much less any who use that as an argument against CTists. We do not disbelieve in your fantastical conspiracy theories because we're so convinced that no one in power might try to pull them off if they were as easily accomplished in real life as they are in the alternate reality of Truthers' minds, we disbelieve them because they're physically impossible, logically absurd, and self-contradictory, among other things. None of this depends on whether the quote is true or not (it isn't), since its presentation here is nothing more than an attempt at poisoning the well, something you're obviously very familiar with.

Now you need to admit you lied and give me an apology for saying I was lying about what you said.

Wrong.

Yes, my opinion on your motivation. Yet we have just cleared the air as to who was lying and it is clear I was not lying and you were Dave, but here you know how much trouble you are in so you sink to the lowest level possible and throw out the "LIAR" mantra and hope that no one notices.

Yes, you were lying, or else you're dumb enough to actually believe your own misrepresentations. I can't be absolutely sure which.

So now we have a repeated use of;

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.

and

25 If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.

While at the same time again claiming that we are making some kind of claim to authority.

Er, you are making an appeal to authority by claiming that "it is not disputed" and that "it has been known in psychology for a very very [sic] long time". Both claims are false, and you have steadfastly refused to substantiate them. You are appealing to the science of psychology as a whole to defend your claim, but have failed to demonstrated that it actually backs you up.

The psychology of the quote is not very complex, nor is it controversial

Correct, it's demonstrably false and no competent psychologist would make such a statement.

This is intended to be some kind of witty counter to the quote and to my arguments here, yet it fails on every level because it purposely ignores that the quote itself says "MANY" and not everybody so showing any examples to the contrary...if it does anything, supports the quote.

It says "most", genius.

Now this is classic smoke and mirrors, but coming from someone who I have shown lied (top of this very post) it is not surprising.

You have no idea what "smoke and mirrors" means, apparently. Just keep spewing buzz words, champ.

You really hate those don't you? They are accurate when used appropriately. Those lists... "38 ways..." and "How to Debunk..." are simply lists that can be referred to to help cut through all the BS in most peoples "arguments", and it is very revealing how very many JREF'ers really hate when I bring them up.

Yes, using stock arguments to help you easily misrepresent others' positions by pigeon-holing them before actually engaging your mind is an oh-so-very honest debating tactic that should endear you to everybody, I'm sure. Let's not forget that it's also extremely hypocritical on its face, since they could just as easily be applied to your own arguments.

1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.

Again there you go with your tactics. The quote explains how and why so many people can fall for the official conspiracy theory and how 9/11 might be carried out as a psyop. It explains how...If "truthers" are correct...how the government could get away with it so easily with so much information and evidence out there.

If you want to carry that to it's extreme and say that I am saying that quote is some sort of proof of US government involvement then you are allowed to use any tactic you want.

I've bolded the part where you yet again admit that the quote is being used "to argue in favour of US Government involvement in 9/11." Dave is right, you are wrong. Again. I should also point out that it is a handy little trick for "Truthers" to use to discount all criticism of conspiracy theories to their own (but no one else's) satisfaction, no matter how absurd those theories may be.

9/11 was a psyops, it was intended to "shock and awe" the people into a childlike state into which the government could implant their "Official Conspiracy Theory". Do a little research on this "shock and awe" effect of psychology, it is quite common, heck even used car salesmen use the tecnic if on a far far smaller scale.

Even if you want to believe it was 19 Arab terrorist, it was sitll a psyop because an act of terrorism is intended to instill fear in people.

It is all psychological which ever way you look at it.

Useless prevarication without an actual point.

You'd be surprised how much research i've done into psychology, 9/11 and the psychology of 9/11.

We're not in the least bit surprised that your "research" consisted entirely of googling "Truth" sites and reading spurious pseudo-psychology made up by conspiracy theorists for their own convenience, much like the rest of your "9/11 research". Back in reality, it's apparent to everybody that you know as much about psychology as you do about structural engineering.

 

[Juniversal]

Sorry to barge into the middle of this discusion but I have a quick question if somebody could clear it up for me. I had a truther bombard me with questions I could easily dispute except one that I believe I've heard before.

"Who were the 19 middle eastern looking men Marvin bush gave access to 91st floor for a Mt before 9/11?"

^...Don't know the origin of this but I imagine its unsubstantiated fairytale or distortion of an actual event. And I guess "Mt" is supposed to be short for month. *shrugs*

This is likely a truther fairytale or a distortion of an actual event.

em! no it was not there were 100s of witnesses, and its on record later that day when they were arrested,

If somebody could help me clear this up i'd appreciate it.

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM would you like to take a shot at explaining why his assertion that that first part of the quote is false is itself false?

I have tried explaining how you can't boil it down a simply as he and some others here have done. Many people hold 2 opposing and contradicting points of view as both being true. This sort of thing happens all the time.

I've explained it already, and TAM can explain it furher if he wishes.

Sorry guys, late to the party (was playing playstation 3 with my 9 and 6 year old). To be honest, I am not really interested in debating debating tactics...

I believe that murder is wrong, but I also believe in late term abortions when the woman's life is at risk.

Do you believe that if someone kills your wife, that the killer should be executed...some people do.

TAM

TAM

 

[Slayhamlet]

I do apologise for that unseemly fracas. No offence was intended. My hand was forced into disclosing more than I had intended by TAM's threats to my continued good name. I guess he will pass by later to offer you his own apologies .

It's funny how one of the biggest laughingstocks of this entire sub-forum somehow now feels it necessary to protect his "good name". Don't you think it's a little late for that, champ? Anyone, in just a few clicks, can readily view your entire posting history and be witness to the nasty lies and utter stupidities you have promulgated on these forums. Since you are apparently shameless, I am left no other option but to conclude that you have a personality disorder.

 

[T.A.M.]

I do apologise for that unseemly fracas. No offence was intended. My hand was forced into disclosing more than I had intended by TAM's threats to my continued good name. I guess he will pass by later to offer you his own apologies .

yes beachnut, I do indeed apologize that more had to be said about the issue than needed to be.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Sorry to barge into the middle of this discusion but I have a quick question if somebody could clear it up for me. I had a truther bombard me with questions I could easily dispute except one that I believe I've heard before.

"Who were the 19 middle eastern looking men Marvin bush gave access to 91st floor for a Mt before 9/11?"

^...Don't know the origin of this but I imagine its unsubstantiated fairytale or distortion of an actual event. And I guess "Mt" is supposed to be short for month. *shrugs*

If somebody could help me clear this up i'd appreciate it.

Never heard that one before...get a reference, or tell him it is bunk. I bet it turns out to be bunk anyway...I would wager good money on it.

TAM

 

[tfk]

Sorry to barge into the middle of this discusion but I have a quick question if somebody could clear it up for me. I had a truther bombard me with questions I could easily dispute except one that I believe I've heard before.

"Who were the 19 middle eastern looking men Marvin bush gave access to 91st floor for a Mt before 9/11?"

^...Don't know the origin of this but I imagine its unsubstantiated fairytale or distortion of an actual event. And I guess "Mt" is supposed to be short for month. *shrugs*

If somebody could help me clear this up i'd appreciate it.

.
How does one "clear up" the punchline to a very bad joke...?

"One good horse laugh is worth 1000 syllogisms." - HL Mencken

tk

PS. Tell him to bring his proof. The issue will go away. Don't accept PrisonPlanet, Rense, etc., or ANY blog or forum statement as proof of anything.

This should always be your response when people pull stuff like this out of thin air. Part of their game is simply wasting your time on wild goose chases. Make 'em waste their own time.

 

[DavidJames]

Sorry to barge into the middle of this discusion but I have a quick question if somebody could clear it up for me. I had a truther bombard me with questions I could easily dispute except one that I believe I've heard before.

"Who were the 19 middle eastern looking men Marvin bush gave access to 91st floor for a Mt before 9/11?"

^...Don't know the origin of this but I imagine its unsubstantiated fairytale or distortion of an actual event. And I guess "Mt" is supposed to be short for month. *shrugs*

If somebody could help me clear this up i'd appreciate it.

Simple answer, ask for the evidence, over and over again until you get it.

 

[T.A.M.]

.

Ps. Tell him to bring his proof. The issue will go away. Don't accept prisonplanet, rense, etc., or any blog or forum statement as proof of anything.

This should always be your response when people pull stuff like this out of thin air. Part of their game is simply wasting your time on wild goose chases. Make 'em waste their own time.

I think this deserves....QFT!

TAM