Has Ryan Mackey debunked Jim Hoffman

[aggle-rithm]

Well, this is exactly the point I was making. Saying a theory is idiotic is not a debunking.

I personally don't believe Killtown's theory because such an act by the perps would be unnecessary and not necessary for the 911 plot.

What I would consider a proper debunking would be a video expert analysing the video and showing that it couldn't have been tampered with.

Who is it that says that we are "supposed" to debunk things, and that our goal in life is to achieve "debunkage"?

I participate in this forum because it allows me to sharpen my communications and critical thinking skills. I also enjoy observing the mental gymnastics that truthers perform as they try to protect their fragile and treasured beliefs.

There is no need to debunk truther claims, especially one as outrageous as this one. They are ridiculous and have close to zero impact on the real world.

 

[vinniem]

Who is it that says that we are "supposed" to debunk things, and that our goal in life is to achieve "debunkage"?

I participate in this forum because it allows me to sharpen my communications and critical thinking skills. I also enjoy observing the mental gymnastics that truthers perform as they try to protect their fragile and treasured beliefs.

There is no need to debunk truther claims, especially one as outrageous as this one. They are ridiculous and have close to zero impact on the real world.

If the goal is not debunkage, why are the sites linked from here call things like debunking911.com and debunk911myths.com?

 

[Garb]

Well, this is exactly the point I was making. Saying a theory is idiotic is not a debunking.

I personally don't believe Killtown's theory because such an act by the perps would be unnecessary and not necessary for the 911 plot.

What I would consider a proper debunking would be a video expert analysing the video and showing that it couldn't have been tampered with.

You mean prove a negative, right?

Also:

de·bunk (d-bngk)
tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:

 

[twinstead]

vinniem, I kind of see what you are trying to get at, but your example of killtown's delightfully idiotic faces in the smoke is a silly example.

Maybe you can present a less irrational bit of evidence that we say has been 'debunked' but you disagree. Then you can tell us what you would accept as properly debunked.

 

[Edx]

+ No Hijackers on the Flight Manifests... correct or not correct?
+ The towers fell in 10 seconds.... correct or not correct?
+ Odigo employees were warned to get out of the towers before the planes hit... correct or not correct?
+ They changed the law less than a year before so that Cheney was in charge of Norad... correct or not correct?
+ Steven Jones' firefighters around the glowing hole picture is evidence of molten steel... correct or not?
+ The Cut Column cut by thermite... correct or not?

That's enough for now.

And thats not even talking about CGI no planers and Beam Weapons, I guess you don't think those count or maybe you think those are still "undebunked"

BUMP for Vimmiem again...

You ready to defend those arguments above since you claim they haven't been debunked?

 

[vinniem]

vinniem, I kind of see what you are trying to get at, but your example of killtown's delightfully idiotic faces in the smoke is a silly example.

Maybe you can present a less irrational bit of evidence that we say has been 'debunked' but you disagree. Then you can tell us what you would accept as properly debunked.

The killtown thing wasn't my example, why pretend it was?

 

[sadhatter]

Well, this is exactly the point I was making. Saying a theory is idiotic is not a debunking.

I personally don't believe Killtown's theory because such an act by the perps would be unnecessary and not necessary for the 911 plot.

What I would consider a proper debunking would be a video expert analysing the video and showing that it couldn't have been tampered with.

the problem is that we all have limited time and resources. And debunking something as silly as that would take time away from things, that while almost as silly actually have some logical arguments.

Why is it your arguments always consist of being confrontational in the extreme, or asking people to provide you links for something you could easily find yourself? This dosn't really seem like the type of thing that is going to save the world brother, it seems more like the type of thing that would waste some time between classes.

 

[twinstead]

The killtown thing wasn't my example, why pretend it was?

Indeed, it wasn't your example. My bad. We can safely ignore that little bit of idiocy. Can we talk about a REAL piece of evidence that you don't think has been debunked to your satisfaction then?

 

[aggle-rithm]

If the goal is not debunkage, why are the sites linked from here call things like debunking911.com and debunk911myths.com?

Well, when you are reincarnated with your latest sock-puppet, you can read this response:

You are a waste of skin. There, I've said it.

 

[carlitos]

never mind

 

[Edx]

+ No Hijackers on the Flight Manifests... correct or not correct?
+ The towers fell in 10 seconds.... correct or not correct?
+ Odigo employees were warned to get out of the towers before the planes hit... correct or not correct?
+ They changed the law less than a year before so that Cheney was in charge of Norad... correct or not correct?
+ Steven Jones' firefighters around the glowing hole picture is evidence of molten steel... correct or not?
+ The Cut Column cut by thermite... correct or not?

That's enough for now.

And thats not even talking about CGI no planers and Beam Weapons, I guess you don't think those count or maybe you think those are still "undebunked"

Come on Vinniem, have some accountability for once.

 

[DavidJames]

Come on Vinniem, have some accountability for once.

Banned last week, or maybe you knew that and were bumping for another one of his socks

 

[twinstead]

Well, when you are reincarnated with your latest sock-puppet, you can read this response:

You are a waste of skin. There, I've said it.

Somebody had to

 

[Wolrab]

Dammit! I was one post away from being convinced by him and he gets banned.

 

[Edx]

Banned last week, or maybe you knew that and were bumping for another one of his socks

Ooooh, no I didn't know that.

What reason?

 

[Furcifer]

Ooooh, no I didn't know that.

What reason?

You never wear them with sandals, unless you're Italian

 

[angrysoba]

Muddying the truth movement's waters is like farting in a toxic waste dump.

LOL! I like that. Did you make it?

Also, while we're on the topic of debunkings, does any have a specific refutation of this?

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/legge/PancakeTheoryFalseByNIST15.pdf

As far as I understand it, it only refutes a theory which has already been discarded.

It appears on Hoffman's website.

 

[angrysoba]

Well, this is exactly the point I was making. Saying a theory is idiotic is not a debunking.

I personally don't believe Killtown's theory because such an act by the perps would be unnecessary and not necessary for the 911 plot.

Is it bad form to respond to someone who's banned?

Oh, well... I like the way vinnie tries to think up a different reason for not believing in something that is palpably nonsense other than because it's palpably nonsense.

Unfortunately, it puts him in a bit of a fix. By apparently asserting that everything happens for a reason he now has to explain what the necessity was for demolishing the twin towers and building seven. Presumably because two planes flying into the towers just wasn't enough.

Surely a monstrous face looming out of the smoke was just as necessary.

And what about burning a hole in a field in Pennsylvania with an invisible plane? What was that about?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dammit! I was one post away from being convinced by him and he gets banned.

It's so sad. One more snarky post on an obscure Internet forum that ridiculed a strawman while failing to make any kind of positive claim, and the US Government might finally have caved in and granted a truly independent investigation into 9/11. What might have been...

Dave

 

[MikeW]

Banned? Oh, well - he still managed a perfect illustration of truther thinking.

So, for instance - " "Which is more likely" is not debunking."

Juries make life-changing decisions every day based on evaluating the probabilities of different scenarios, however that's not good enough for truther theories. Which I suppose means there's no concept of "reasonable doubt" here: the theory must be proven 100% false otherwise truthers will continue to say "it's never been debunked".

Then the "faces in the smoke" example showed that this is to be applied everywhere, to every theory truthers ever make.

And finally, the example of how these theories can be debunked:

"What I would consider a proper debunking would be a video expert analysing the video and showing that it couldn't have been tampered with"

That would be okay, except as twinstead pointed out, it wouldn't be considered "a proper debunking" at all. Truthers would simply denounce this expert as they do with others.

So, summing up: truthers get to say what they want, and any claim they make, regardless of its inherent absurdity or lack of supporting evidence, is worthy of consideration.

To begin to refute that theory, though, then requires major effort and considerable expert-level evidence: we must prove it to be 100% false.

And best of all, when a "debunking" expert is presented then the truther need only make another claim - "his company is connected to the government so he's lying", say - and, by these rules, the debunking is derailed until we've disproved that claim, too. So round we go again...