• 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.

Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

RedIbis said:
I'm quite curious how the leading debunkers explain away the vast holes in the official story.
Click to expand...

I'm quite curious how any truther has been unable to provide evidence of any vast holes in the official narrative that prove an inside job
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
I'm quite curious how the leading debunkers explain away the vast holes in the official story.
Click to expand...

Here's a direct and non-rhetorical question.
Could you give a couple of examples of these "vast holes"? Genuinely curious.
 
Brannagyn said:
@Totovader: Thanks for pointing that out. I frequently get my fallacies mixed up.

At the same time (And honestly I'm not being disingenuous, I want to clear up any misunderstanding):

The question of argument from ignorance arose by my questioning Gravy's repeated requests for evidence. The claim being made here was implicitly his. To paraphrase, "Where's your evidence, put up or shut up."



So, there is no evidence against (the official version). Therefore (the official version is true).



So claiming that lack of evidence (of political conspiracy) is evidence (that there is no conspiracy) is, in your opinion not a fallacy?

I'm not sure how this fails to qualify (in one form or another) but I am, again in all honesty, curious as to the opinions of others on the logic or illogic of such claims.

As evidence of my sincerity I will freely admit to be confused by the alternate structure of the fallacy:

There is no evidence for p. Therefore, not-p.

If we take (There is no evidence against p. Therefore, p.) we can say:

There is no evidence against there being a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is a mouse on the moon. (Fallacy)

In the second form:

There is no evidence for a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is not no mouse on the moon.

which can be read: There is no evidence of a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is a mouse on the moon.

While this is clearly a fallacy the form "There is no evidence of a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is no mouse on the moon." seems much more in keeping with the format of the first version. (There is no evidence for p. Therefore not p.)

There are times when I can stare at something like this for ages and then someone will point out the obvious and I have to kick myself. Feel free to promote my self-flagellation.
Click to expand...

Again, Gravy (or I) is/am not claiming that a lack of evidence for your position proves the widely held scientific version of the events. That theory stands up on its own. It is simply being pointed out that your claims are invalid- they lack evidence.

You keep inserting the "therefore" in order to avoid the fact that you're just plain wrong, and Gravy is just plain right.
 
NOTE: managed to clear up my own confusion. I was reading not-p as not negative ("-") p. Which didn't seem to make sense. It now seems clear that not-p simply means "not p". Why the need for a hyphen I don't really get. Ah well.

Totovader said:
It is simply being pointed out that your claims are invalid- they lack evidence.
Click to expand...

I had asked previously if Gravy was merely stating the obivious, i.e. what I myself had already explicitly expressed, that there is no hard evidence of political conspiracy. I clearly stated that it was either this (stating the obvious) or an argument of ignorance. I didn't actually think that he would simply be repeatedly stating the obvious. My apologies for mistaking his intent.

Totovader said:
proves the widely held scientific version of the events.
Click to expand...

I would very much like to see your proof that there was no political conspiracy involved (perhaps here you may think "Oh! He's talking about the possibility of political conspiracy, not falling towers, cell phones, etc." If so its something you could have clarified by reading my comments carefully).

Leaving that aside for the moment, as far as the structure of logical fallacies go, you're saying that you consider that lack of evidence invalidates a point of view?
("your claims are invalid- they lack evidence.")

You yourself stated the Argument from Ignorance as "There is no evidence for p. Therefore, not-p." Now that we've cleared up my confusion over "not hypen p" :blush: while Gravy may have simply been stating the obvious (no hard evidence) you do seem by, claiming invalidity of the argument, to be employing this fallacy.

Using another example, lets go back to the useful case of Watergate. Despite hard evidence Woodward & Bernstein advance claims to their editor that the scandal may reach all the way to the White House. Were such claims:

a) invalid
b) justified by circumstantial evidence
c) always valid as the possibility exists as long as an alternate contention did not prove them wrong
d) something else

Thankfully the editor did accept them as valid claims and permitted the further enquiries that led to hard evidence being discovered.

Totovader said:
You keep inserting the "therefore" in order to avoid the fact that you're just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

The "therefore" is part of the format of the structures you provided as examples. I simply presented some alternate examples to try to explain my confusion over the interpretation of this fallacy.

The "just plain wrong part" I already addressed, if Gravy was simply being repetitive and stating the obvious yes I was wrong, otherwise he and you (in you last post) were making Arguments of Ignorance.

The problem here I think was that without having a clear idea what my argument was you assumed you had proof of its invalidity. The possibility still exists of course, that you do have such proof and I will be appreciative if you can direct me to it.
 
Yeah thats a 20 story hole right there. Oh hold on, there wasnt a 20 storey hole after all.
 
mchapman said:
Yeah thats a 20 story hole right there. Oh hold on, there wasnt a 20 storey hole after all.
Click to expand...

yes, there was. It was the 10 stoery hole that was not where first reported by some of the first responders that you are thinking of.

The 20 storey hole is there and is mentioned in the report.

keep up
 
mchapman said:
Yeah thats a 20 story hole right there. Oh hold on, there wasnt a 20 storey hole after all.
Click to expand...


wtc7damagecomposite.jpg
 
RedIbis said:
NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks. Nice to get an answer.
Though I think that the collapse theory is generally considered plausible. I have seen "argument of incredulity" types of comments about the theory, but nothing serious with e.g. math or something like that.
Where could I read about the problems in the report in more detail?
 
KTB said:
Ok, thanks. Nice to get an answer.
Though I think that the collapse theory is generally considered plausible. I have seen "argument of incredulity" types of comments about the theory, but nothing serious with e.g. math or something like that.
Where could I read about the problems in the report in more detail?
Click to expand...

here for example
 
Hokulele said:
Why do you consider the people posting here to be the leading debunkers?

(This isn't a "gotcha" or anything, I am genuinely curious as to whether or not you believe this to be true and why.)
Click to expand...

On some level, I do believe it's true. The jref is an enormous resource on an array of topics, but Gravy is well known among people who research 9/11. I joined this forum because I was genuinely interested in how debunkers address the questions raised by skeptics of the official story.

I'm with some of the posters here who think the topic is a bit beaten to death. If the contentiousness and bluster were removed and this was simply a research sub forum on 9/11, we'd all be better for it.
 
This isn't a research sub. It's a conspiracy theory debate sub. It's all about contentiousness and bluster ;)

Also, I can't believe you wouldn't expect there to be SOME holes in just about any theory of an event as complicated as 911. Nobody here that I know of would even suggest the 'official story' is totally without inconsistencies and questions. It's just that most of us believe there is NO other explanation that comes to a conclusion other than 19 terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings that has fewer holes.
 
Totovader said:
Again, Gravy (or I) is/am not claiming that a lack of evidence for your position proves the widely held scientific version of the events. That theory stands up on its own. It is simply being pointed out that your claims are invalid- they lack evidence.

You keep inserting the "therefore" in order to avoid the fact that you're just plain wrong, and Gravy is just plain right.
Click to expand...
The problem is, his claims about us are false and his claims about 9/11 are...wait, he has no claims about 9/11. I assumed that since he's here promoting the work of conspiracist authors and criticizing us for not being open-minded, he has something to say about 9/11. But he won't say it. It's like the truther version of "The Secret."

Rationalist: "9/11? Whatcha got?"
Truther: "I can't tell you. I'm just not asking questions and demanding answers."

That's a strange way of getting the message out.

Complaints that my questions are unfair or irrelevant are whiney nonsense. If people listened to the podcast they know that I directly challenge truthers to put their cards on the table about what's most important: evidence that the "official (evidence-based) version" of 9/11 is wrong. Posting in a thread about that podcast and complaining that I'm doing what I say I do, is irrational.

Endless words, and nothing behind them. As I said, it's all about keeping the conspiracy theory going. What an unholy waste of time, and how sad for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom