Docker's OKC Bombing Conspiracy Thread

[Docker]

Surely that would be quicker rather than us having to answer all your questions, no?

I haven't asked any questions with regard to the NIST report. It seems you are a professional strawman builder.

 

[qarnos]

I haven't asked any questions with regard to the NIST report. It seems you are a professional strawman builder.

Sigh... Have you not asked questions about 9/11?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I haven't asked any questions with regard to the NIST report. It seems you are a professional strawman builder.

Mmmm, can it be that you really don't get it?

No, I believe not.

Hans

 

[Docker]

Sigh... Have you not asked questions about 9/11?

I asked one question about burnt cars, which has nothing to do with NIST. Stop building strawmen

 

[qarnos]

Mmmm, can it be that you really don't get it?

No, I believe not.

Hans

No, I think he really doesn't get it.

 

[qarnos]

I asked one question about burnt cars, which has nothing to do with NIST. Stop building strawmen

Oh yeah, you were just JAQing. Sorry, I forgot.

You have an intertesting definition of strawman. Care to share it with us?

Judging from your phrasing I am getting the impression that you have no qualms with the NIST report. Is this correct?

 

[qarnos]

Docker, I am going to bed now. I will continue this discussion tomorrow, if you desire.

I just thought I'd inform you so you don't get any raging clues when I stop responding, as you did with Gravy.

 

[Gravy]

This describes your stance.

When did I claim to be a bomb expert? You admit your not an engineer, yet you constantly cite a body of experts when you defend the collapse of wtc.

Please present your expertise and/or evidence that refutes this body of experts. If you cannot then I will respectfully leave the evidence here for someone else to have a crack at.

As I've already explained, I'm dealing with specifics. I started with the very first part of the first source you gave. We're still on that. My sources are the reports from the experts who actually investigated the bombing, not retirees who did not investigate the bombing.

Cpt. Columbo gave you the link to an OKC bombing thread on this very forum. Have you even bothered to look at it? You will learn a lot if you do. The CT who started the thread was a lot like you.

My questions were phrased in a particular way for a reason: because you won't find the answers on CT websites. Docker, you absolutely will not get accurate information from them.

It's disturbing to see how easily you'll claim that someone is an expert. As your first piece of "evidence" that the OKC bombing was not done by a sole truck bomb, you linked to an article about the Eglin ETS tests. You neglected to provide this information:

1) Any information about the author, beyond his name
2) Any information about the publication that the article is from
3) Any link or reference to the actual Eglin test report
4) Any indication that anyone named in the article was involved with the OKC investigation in any way.
5) Any indication that anyone quoted in the article, beyond Partin, has any experience with explosives or their effects on buildings. Expertise comes from experience.

Therefore, why do you assume that the article has any validity at all? I don't make that assumption, and therefore I choose to examine each claim, one by one. That's how I do things. I'm sorry that you didn't want to work through these problems. The methods are applicable to finding the truth behind all the claims you've made in your two days here.

You've made a serious claim: that the official version of the Oklahoma City bombing is false. Have you bothered to read the official reports on that incident?

If there were a way to verify it, I'd bet my last dollar that you haven't.

 

[Gravy]

Quote of the week.
​

You admit your not an engineer, yet you constantly cite a body of experts when you defend the collapse of wtc.

By the way, it's "you're" when you mean "you are."

 

[kookbreaker]

Skibum I have presented evidence in this thread and guess what? Thats right, gravy has gone AWOL.

Its interesting that you made this claim all of 30-40 mintues after Gravy's last post. Do you want to apoligize for these idiotic comments? Especially in light of the fact that he has returned and that this thread was very late at night EST.

 

[kookbreaker]

No hurry, it's just that he started a feeble attempt at debunking then abandoned it.

This was all of a hour later. Geez, and people accuse Americans of having short attention spans.

Do you wish to apologize for these comments?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Since a bit clarification of terminology appears to be needed:

Straw man

This fallacy takes its name from the image of someone stuffing some clothes with straw and then beating seven bells out of the resultant opponent, supposing thereby that they have somehow won a fight. The fallacy occurs when an argument is countered by taking a weaker form of it and showing where it fails, assuming that this means the original argument has also been defeated.

Take an example:

You say we should invest more in public health services, but taking everyone's money off them and deciding what they should spend it on for them is nothing less than totalitarianism.
We could render this as a syllogism as follows:

P1: Investing more in public services is equivalent to taking everyone's money and deciding how it should be spent for them;
P2: This is equivalent to totalitarianism;
P3: Totalitarianism has been refuted previously;
C: Therefore, the idea of investing more in public services is refuted.
Even if we accept P2 and P3, which we needn't, the important point is that P1 is false and does not accurately describe what was originally claimed. By making two different ideas equivalent the argument becomes easier to address but, since the refutation deals with one idea and the argument with another, nothing is actually accomplished. The argument is mischaracterized or misrepresented in order to make it easier to tackle, but by doing so it isn't tackled at all.

Another example could be this:

You advocate the death penalty but I doubt that anyone will accept televised hanging of people on meat hooks.
Here the idea of what the death penalty involves is mischaracterized (we would hope) by supposing that anyone advocating it is actually asking that people be publicly hung on meat hooks. Since (again, we would hope) this measure would not be accepted, the argument is considered defeated. A simplistic and deliberately repugnant version of the death penalty is used to discredit the idea when the person suggesting it probably said nothing of the sort; as a result, the refutation is unsuccessful.

This fallacy is unfortunately very common and some politicians tend to be adept at its use. It can be used in humour but perhaps the most important lesson to learn from it is not to unwittingly or otherwise make straw men of other people's ideas ourselves.

source

Straw Man


You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn't endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position believing you have undermined the opponent's actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
Example (a debate before the city council):

Opponent: Because of the killing and suffering of Indians that followed Columbus's discovery of America, the City of Berkeley should declare that Columbus Day will no longer be observed in our city.
Speaker: This is ridiculous, fellow members of the city council. It's not true that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians. I say we should continue to observe Columbus Day, and vote down this resolution that will make the City of Berkeley the laughing stock of the nation.

The speaker has twisted what his opponent said; the opponent never said, nor even indirectly suggested, that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians.

source

Straw man
The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

"To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven't, your position is indefensible."
The above straw man argument appears at about once a week on the net. If you can't see what's wrong with it, read the "Introduction to Atheism" document

source

THE STRAWMAN ATTACK: The strawman is, perhaps, the most heavily-employed tactic used by Creationists. The strawman attack's name comes from the idea of setting up a strawman and knocking it down. The strawman is a false man, metaphorically representing a false argument. The strawman attack is a very dishonest one. Creationists ruthlessly use this tactic to win public support. In essence, the strawman attack is putting words in your opponent's mouth and then attacking the resulting position, while simultaenously evading the real argument.

EXAMPLE

"Evolution is a ridiculous theory! Macro-evolution says that a fish can just evolve into a bird! Clearly this is preposterous!"
This is an example of a strawman attack. Macro-evolution does not say that one species can "evolve" into another one. Macro-evolution is one species splitting into two species due to evolutionary changes. Clearly, this argument is a gross misrepresentation, at best, and a malicious lie, at worst.

HOW TO SPOT

Spotting a strawman attack isn't that hard. Just make sure that the opposition actually makes the claim that the attacker says he or she does. In evolution's case, just think to yourself: Would our foremost men and women of biology actually propose such a ridiculous concept? While you should always check to verify the attacker's statements about what the opposition is saying, you definitely do so when the attacker's statement begs such questions as, "How stupid can the opposition possibly be?" and arouses any kind of suspicion. For example, I read many web sites devoted to the Evolution vs. Creationism debate that displayed common Creationist arguments. I found it hard to believe that people were actually making the arguments I saw, because they were so easily shot down. So, I looked on Creationist websites and, lo and behold, they had, indeed, made such moronic claims as, "Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics!"

HOW TO COUNTER

Strawman attacks, once exposed for what they are, are not all that difficult to counter. SImply ask the attacker for a documented occasion in which his opposition made such a claim. If he cannot produce one, happily point out that the attacker is putting words in his opponent's mouth and attacking that position. Pointing out that this attack is a cowardly evasion might well help, depending on how high (or low)a regard you hold the attacker in.

source

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

source

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 misleading, 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] or a scarecrow argument.

[edit] Setup of a straw man
One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Quote an opponent's words "out of context" -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy)
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Some logic textbooks define the straw man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.

However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion.

Examples
An example of such an argument could be:

Person A: I don't think children should run into the busy streets.
Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock up children all day with no fresh air.
By insinuating that Person A's argument is far more draconian than it is, Person B has side-stepped the issue.


[edit] Alternative gender usage
In recent years, some writers have used the term straw person as a gender-neutral replacement for straw man. Straw woman has also been used when the subject of easy refutation is a woman. [3]

source

 

[StoneWT]

He has a very clever technique that man. But these people always meet their match

What did they say about my evidence?

I am not an explosives expert and the have alreadt got these results so how am I qualified for original research.

For one, you should stop using the deaths of 168 people as an opportunity for an ego stroke.

You don't have to do original research in the sense of building a large bomb and detonating it in front of a building. You can read both sides of the issue. There are official reports concerning the bombing. There is also a report from the OKBIC (Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee). The 'Final Report' is a compilation of the available evidence for a larger conspiracy beyond McVeigh and Nichols as of 2001.

You can also write to the explosive/demolitions experts cited in the New American articles. This is assuming they are still alive as many were older gentleman. Upon what did they base their original statement? Do they stand by their original statements? If all you're doing is blindly citing conspiracy sources, you're still a 'sheople'. Being right and not knowing why isn't much better than being wrong and not knowing why.

Stop looking at debunkers as the enemy or people to 'whup' in an argument. If what you believe is false, they are helping you to sort matters out. If what you believe is true, they are helping you to change portions that are false or word your argument in a better manner.

 

[Gravy]

For one, you should stop using the deaths of 168 people as an opportunity for an ego stroke.

You don't have to do original research in the sense of building a large bomb and detonating it in front of a building. You can read both sides of the issue. There are official reports concerning the bombing. There is also a report from the OKBIC (Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee). The 'Final Report' is a compilation of the available evidence for a larger conspiracy beyond McVeigh and Nichols as of 2001.

You can also write to the explosive/demolitions experts cited in the New American articles. This is assuming they are still alive as many were older gentleman. Upon what did they base their original statement? Do they stand by their original statements? If all you're doing is blindly citing conspiracy sources, you're still a 'sheople'. Being right and not knowing why isn't much better than being wrong and not knowing why.

Stop looking at debunkers as the enemy or people to 'whup' in an argument. If what you believe is false, they are helping you to sort matters out. If what you believe is true, they are helping you to change portions that are false or word your argument in a better manner.

That's a good way of putting it, StoneWT. Unfortunately I don't think Docker is willing to do any work to find the truth about his claims. He's repeatedly said in these forums that he doesn't trust me. I've never asked him to. I don't want to talk at him, nor would that have any effect. I want to help him figure out what sources are most valid and why. The only way he is going to learn is by getting involved in answering his own questions.

 

[Horatius]

I want to help him figure out what sources are most valid and why. The only way he is going to learn is by getting involved in answering his own questions.

And this is the biggest problem with the Socratic method you've tried here. It only works if the student wants to learn, and clearly Ducker doesn't.

I don't know how we can work out our frustrations with dealing with these guys, though. Perhaps R.Mackey's declaration of victory is the only way.

 

[CptColumbo]

No double standard. I have presented the evidence compiled by experts, how is he going to refute this unless he becomes an expert?

What you are saying basically is that you don't have the knowledge to research the validity of the paper yourself, so until someone does the work for you it must be true? That's just lazy and sad.

 

[mortimer]

http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9803575

Authors:

Paul F. Mlakar, Sr., Fellow, ASCE, (Div. Chief, U.S. Army Engr. Wtrwys. Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS), W. Gene Corley, Fellow, ASCE, (Vice Pres., Constr. Tech. Lab., Inc., Skokie, IL 60077-1030), Mete A. Sozen, Fellow, ASCE, (Kettlehut Distinguished Prof., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN), and Charles H. Thornton, Fellow, ASCE, (Prin., Thornton-Tomasette Engrs., New York, NY)

Abstract:

The truck bombing of the Murrah Building caused significant damage to this structure. From the characteristics of the bomb crater, it was determined that the explosion yielded energy comparable to that from the detonation of 1,814 kg (4,000 lbs.) of trinitrotoluene (TNT). The blast directly removed a principal exterior column, and the associated airblast caused the failure of two others. The airblast also destroyed some of the floor slabs in the immediate vicinity. This paper describes the blast loading and its effects on the building.

 

[Gravy]

Well, I guess it can't hurt to kick in some more links. Sigh.

Blast Loading and Response of Murrah Building http://www.mipt.org/pdf/forensicengineering2.pdf

Using Forensic Engineering Techniques to Obtain Data From the Oklahoma City Bombing http://www.mipt.org/pdf/forensicengineering1.pdf

Oklahoma City Bombing After Action Report http://www.mipt.org/pdf/Oklahoma-City-Bombing-After-Action-Report-ODCEM.pdfFill

 

[Darth Rotor]

I haven't asked any questions with regard to the NIST report. It seems you are a professional strawman builder.

You provide a link to an authority, and an analysis on a modeling exercise of a structure subjected to varying explosive forces.

Mortimer has provided a link from professional engineers analysing the actual blast on the Murrah building. Compare the two, and please point out where the differences in analysis are, and why you find one more reasonable than the other.

Note: interrogations of McVeigh and Nichols, and the investigation into that matter, uncovered the nature and size of the explosive charge actually used on the Murrah building.

Why do you consider a mock up a more accurate analysis?

DR

 

[beachnut]

Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. I have presented my evidence. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb.

This seems to be a radical idea, how did you come up with this outstanding idea?

Where is your proof?

Who are your sources?

Did you know there is a reward for this knowledge?

Is this another "alex jones" secret source?

(answers for you since you are unable to reply to all the junk you start; I was making it up; I have non; not any; yes; )





but then an extra bomb was not needed Tim had a lot of fertilizer and fuel, like you on the fertilizer, and he almost parked the darn truck in the building, look at the street.

Single bomb is the fact, due to the fact no other bombs or evidence was found of bombs. Simple facts, one big bomb. I do not even need sources since it is common knowledge except for those on the fringe of society, like Tim was. key word was!

Do CT guys always pick the most heinous acts to make up lies about and show total disrespect for the dead. AS IN no proof, no facts, no evidence, no brains?

Tell me why you, if you are a CT nut (Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb - which make you a CT nut), make up lies about things as if they are facts ( as in "Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb")?

(Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb) Is this a provable fact?

Is it just ranting cause you miss David?

Or are you just a disrespectful CT person who makes up stuff to feel good about himself as others still think about their dead brother torn apart by a home grown terrorist, what is your purpose taking up space in the world, to tell lies?