Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

[Totovader]

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.

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.

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).

You made another fallacious argument, here.

The burden of proof is on you.

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 can hold any point of view you want- but in order for your argument to be considered valid, it requires evidence.

While it technically doesn't mean you're wrong if you don't have evidence- it's pretty difficult to maintain an argument that you are correct by admitting that you have no evidence to substantiate your claim- any chance of being right would be purely coincidental. That's not logic- that's gambling.

And, as a point of fact, it's not merely that you lack evidence- you lack a rebuttal to the evidence. There's a mountain of information that conspiracists simply must avoid in order to peddle their fantasies. By refusing to address the facts, conspiracists have to wrap themselves into various contortions to try and get around this- and end up crapping out fallacies left and right just to get out a sentence.

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" 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.

And you seem to be completely ignoring the point. If you're offended by the fact that you lack evidence, then I suggest you rectify the situation by basing your conclusions on the evidence, not trying to find evidence to justify your conclusions.

I have not committed an argument from ignorance fallacy. Your attempts to dodge the issues by claiming that I seem to have done so is quite desperate.

You're wrong and you don't have any evidence to support your position. You also have no rebuttal to the evidence that does exist. Your argument is invalid and easily dismissed.

That has nothing to do with the widely held scientific version of the events; that version is not right because you're wrong. It's right because it has corroboration of strong evidence. Period.

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.

You will need to explain in great detail what this has to do with the issue, here. You seem to be claiming that "because some people have a hypothesis with only small amounts of substantiation- we should accept all arguments without evidence to be equally valid".

Clearly, the difference between the Watergate scandal and any conspiracy theory is that the Watergate scandal had evidence. Well, that's just one of the differences, I guess.

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.

Frankly, I don't care why you were confused over your interpretation. Providing me with examples to try and justify your failed logic is irrelevant to the failure. You injected the "therefore" in the wrong spot in order to change Gravy's argument. That was my point.

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.

Either "we" were right or we were wrong.

What a stunning admission...

The part that's so painful about watching you try and circle around this particular failure is that you have had to admit that Gravy pointing out you lack any evidence to substantiate your claim is "stating the obvious".

Wow.

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.

There's no such thing as proof of invalidity. Your argument was invalid because you lack the evidence to support any of it. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your argument- not on anyone else to disprove any random claim you happen to like at any particular moment.

If you have any evidence supporting your argument, then present it. Otherwise I think you can stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[KTB]

here for example

Ok, thanks. There appears to be a thread devoted to this, must check it out.
I assume that frank has commented about this to NIST (when they had the public comment period) and maybe we'll get some clarifications where needed.

When these possible problems are addressed are you (or RedIbis) then satisfied that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, or at least that CD wasn't involved in the collapses of the buildings?

 

[DC]

Ok, thanks. There appears to be a thread devoted to this, must check it out.
I assume that frank has commented about this to NIST (when they had the public comment period) and maybe we'll get some clarifications where needed.

When these possible problems are addressed are you (or RedIbis) then satisfied that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, or at least that CD wasn't involved in the collapses of the buildings?

It is impossible to know that, without knowing their answers.
This is always depending on the answer itself.
I hope you dont just belive everything that you get as an answer.
that would be very unsceptical.

we will see.

 

[Gravy]

Influence of Anti-Semites? Griffin to appear on panel with them in Japan

as adversity1 points out in this thread, David Ray Griffin, whom Richard Greene of Air America calls the "Guru of 9/11 Truth," is scheduled to be the star speaker at the "2nd 9/11 Truth International Conference"

Panelists he's to speak with include Akira Dojimaru and Benjamin Fulford. From the conference website (Bolding mine):

Akira Dojimaru, one of the finest Japanese 911 Truth advocates will be coming especially for the conference from Spain. His online pseudonym is With Love From Barcelona. He has been a big voice in the Japanese 911 Truth Movement and will expose all the false truths of the official 911 story from the view point of physics.

adversity1:

But who is Akira Dojimaru anyways? Did John Spiri bother to check? Maybe if he took a look at the man's Web site he would have found out that Akira is a plainly obvious anti-Semite. For example, see his article "Parasitism and Intellectual Conspiracies are Dangerous Elements among International Financiers and Traders" here: www.asyura2.com/2003/dispute8/msg/737.html where he states: "And if I may add to that, we can nearly describe these kinds of dangerous elements as the Jewish ruling class (moneyed class) from a racial values standpoint." [the page is in Japanese, but when translated by Google reveals the repeated use of the words "Jew" and "parasite," as well as "international financial conspiracy," Nazi, etc. Enough to make anyone who isn't brain-dead take notice. –Gravy]

There is plenty of that on his site! In fact there is a whole section of the site devoted to Holocaust denial, one of the most disgusting efforts of the hard right to reverse the history of the Second World War.

Benjamin Fulford? A frothing loon who seems to have never met a conspiracy theory he doesn't like. But he seems to have some audience in Japan, at least according to anti-Semite Jeff Rense:

RENSE: Okay, back with Benjamin Fulford, live from Tokyo. He, by the way, has published 15 books written in Japanese, with cumulative sales running at over half a million copies. He's got his own weekly two-hour television program over there, appears frequently on numerous other nationally broadcast programs in Japan, and has regular columns in a variety of best-selling Japanese magazines.

Fulford: ...There was a German branch of the Rothschilds. They have laid low since Hitler was purged.

...I brought [my case against] David Rockefeller. I actually was able to link him to some murders of bankers and other people in Japan, as a part of his effort to take over the Japanese financial system.

When I confronted the former Japanese finance minister, Heizo Takanaka (ph) with this, he sent a ninja, believe it or not - a real live ninja - who offered me a gold Freemason badge. He told me I could either accept a job of great power or be killed.

Ninja Freemasons offering jobs of great power. Even in our parodies we haven't come up with anything that funny. Horatius? Get on this, will you?

From a critic of Fulford:

Certainly I always find his stories entertaining when he tells us about the Chinese Communist Party being funded by the Rothschilds at its inception, late Princess Diana being sent to the Royal Family from the same Jewish family, an image of Mt. Sinai being watermarked in the background of Mt. Fuji in the Bank of Japan's 1000-yen bill, the Meiji Restoration being a work by Russian Jews who stood behind the Emperor, Adolf Hitler being a Rothschild

...According to your theory, the world is filled with malicious plots and Japan is no exception. The Rockefellers have ripped us off to the bones since the 19th century with their belief that every Jew is entitled to have 2,800 Asian slaves...

Holy crap. But wait, there's more! From Fulford's website:

Anti-Semitism is anti-Satanism

For millennia the ancient Babylonian secret slave driving cults have used the Jews like a matadors’ cape, to distract people from the real source of their anger. When the Jews are attacked, they are forced to huddle around the slave drivers for protection. Later, the cultists appeal to good heart of the people by making them feel guilty about their attacks on the Jews. In Europe and North America, humanity’s natural kindness has been used to brainwash us into a knee-jerk reaction against anything that is labeled Anti-Semitism. The way to remove this brainwash is to compile a database of everything that is called Anti-Semitic and remove from that database anything that is anti-Jew. The remaining body of knowledge can be renamed anti-Satanism. It will be useful in identifying the real villains and the things they are trying to hide.

See? Just remove the Jews from Jew-hatred, and it's no longer Jew-hatred!

As I said to the Loose Change guys: if you need these people to support your claims, there's something very wrong with your claims.

I'll be asking Griffin why he intends to appear with these people.

 

[Pardalis]

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that everyone questioning the official version is part of a pressure or lobby group. Once again the innaccuracy of lumping all such people into a single movement. Change can be brought about through both academic and journalistic paths that by no means require a dedicated lobby group to have wide impact. While social activism are replete with examples of individuals making critical contributions, Watergate is but one case showing their ability to highlight political conspiracy specifically.

No wonder it's taking so long.

So with so much people saying they've got evidence, so many alleged "whistleblowers", what's taking so long?

Isn't it because there is absolutely no substance to any of those claims?

 

[KTB]

It is impossible to know that, without knowing their answers.
This is always depending on the answer itself.
I hope you dont just belive everything that you get as an answer.
that would be very unsceptical.

we will see.

Sure I'll believe anything my dad or the gubmint tells me

Seriously, sure it's nice to be skeptical. But I was thinking that if their answer, whatever it may be, satisfies you as the "correct" answer, and that answer shows a non-CD collapse as possible, will you then still believe that CD is somehow plausible and that 9/11 was an inside job?

Or more specifically. Is the CD theory the "tipping point" in your suspicion of an inside job, ie. can there still be an inside job without CD?

It's always frustrating to have to ask these questions when there seems to be no coherent alternative theories one could evaluate.
And sure I have been skeptical of everything the current US administration has said, but I still haven't figured out for myself any logical plausible alternate theory.

I mean the whole logic behind the need for a CD of tower 7 is a mystery to me. To destroy some files? Insurance fraud? Aren't those kind of dumb motives?
Have I missed some motive?

 

[DC]

Sure I'll believe anything my dad or the gubmint tells me

Seriously, sure it's nice to be skeptical. But I was thinking that if their answer, whatever it may be, satisfies you as the "correct" answer, and that answer shows a non-CD collapse as possible, will you then still believe that CD is somehow plausible and that 9/11 was an inside job?

Or more specifically. Is the CD theory the "tipping point" in your suspicion of an inside job, ie. can there still be an inside job without CD?

It's always frustrating to have to ask these questions when there seems to be no coherent alternative theories one could evaluate.
And sure I have been skeptical of everything the current US administration has said, but I still haven't figured out for myself any logical plausible alternate theory.

I mean the whole logic behind the need for a CD of tower 7 is a mystery to me. To destroy some files? Insurance fraud? Aren't those kind of dumb motives?
Have I missed some motive?

to make the OT short.
CD is important to the decission of MIHOP or LIHOP or OCT, more the Towers than 7.

the shredder motive is not my thingy

Maybe some prefered a controlled collapse over a expected uncontrolled collapse. without any sinister conspiracy involved. I think nobody died in the WTC7 collapse. And i have no clue if any evidence of whatever could have been in WTC7 that would have been effectively destroyed in a CD.

the new Reports moved me already far more to the "no CD theory" than I or any other "debunker" ever would have thought

i dont say im on the fence, im strongly leaning to "conspiracy larger than is known."

 

[Totovader]

the new Reports moved me already far more to the "no CD theory" than I or any other "debunker" ever would have thought

i dont say im on the fence, im strongly leaning to "conspiracy larger than is known."

These two statements seem entirely contradictory... but don't let that bother you.

 

[DC]

sure some might be confused by a world full of colors and grey scales.

 

[KTB]

to make the OT short.
CD is important to the decission of MIHOP or LIHOP or OCT, more the Towers than 7.

the shredder motive is not my thingy

Maybe some prefered a controlled collapse over a expected uncontrolled collapse. without any sinister conspiracy involved. I think nobody died in the WTC7 collapse. And i have no clue if any evidence of whatever could have been in WTC7 that would have been effectively destroyed in a CD.
known."

This may be a little off topic, but as long as we are not bickering I hope nobody minds

Why do you evaluate the CD theories by searching for holes in the official reports that deal only with "normal" collapse (well mostly, the new wtc 7 paper considered CD somewhat)? I mean if I really thought that a CD would be in order, I would try to convince at least myself with explanations of the following:
- a motive for CD
- a means for CD (explosives used, installation, etc.)
- evidence for CD before, during and after the collapses

I mean I also thought that the collapses looked like CD:s initially when I first saw them, but after some thought I realized this is only because I considered the final result when the building comes down. This of course behaves like a CD, because gravity does the job at this stage in both instances.

Finding errors in NISTs reports is of course a fruitful activity in itself, because there undoubtedly exists some, and all future buildings will benefit from finding these and correcting them.
The NIST "answer" to the collapse may of course also be wrong (maybe it was some other column or some minor variation), but I think the important point is that it is proven to be one possible way (meaning that a CD is not the only way for the collapses).

 

[DC]

This may be a little off topic, but as long as we are not bickering I hope nobody minds

Why do you evaluate the CD theories by searching for holes in the official reports that deal only with "normal" collapse (well mostly, the new wtc 7 paper considered CD somewhat)? I mean if I really thought that a CD would be in order, I would try to convince at least myself with explanations of the following:
- a motive for CD
- a means for CD (explosives used, installation, etc.)
- evidence for CD before, during and after the collapses

I mean I also thought that the collapses looked like CD:s initially when I first saw them, but after some thought I realized this is only because I considered the final result when the building comes down. This of course behaves like a CD, because gravity does the job at this stage in both instances.

Finding errors in NISTs reports is of course a fruitful activity in itself, because there undoubtedly exists some, and all future buildings will benefit from finding these and correcting them.
The NIST "answer" to the collapse may of course also be wrong (maybe it was some other column or some minor variation), but I think the important point is that it is proven to be one possible way (meaning that a CD is not the only way for the collapses).

I never claimed a fire cant bring down a building, i doubt a fire can bring down the building in the fashion we saw it. And in my oppinion the current Analyses did not come close enough. But indeed alot closer than i expected.

And when building codes will be changed, alot experts will take a closer look at the theory where those changes are based on.

 

[KTB]

I never claimed a fire cant bring down a building, i doubt a fire can bring down the building in the fashion we saw it. And in my oppinion the current Analyses did not come close enough. But indeed alot closer than i expected.

And when building codes will be changed, alot experts will take a closer look at the theory where those changes are based on.

Fair enough. You sure are no "RedIbis", you actually answer questions and have some thought in your messages
Now if I only could get e.g. RedIbis' answer to these same questions (it's safe to ask without fearing an OT discussion, because no discussion will ensue...)

Now what was this thread about again...

 

[funk de fino]

I never claimed a fire cant bring down a building, i doubt a fire can bring down the building in the fashion we saw it. And in my oppinion the current Analyses did not come close enough. But indeed alot closer than i expected.

And when building codes will be changed, alot experts will take a closer look at the theory where those changes are based on.

Forgot this again?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124771&page=3

 

[Pardalis]

And when building codes will be changed, alot experts will take a closer look at the theory where those changes are based on.

Which makes this even less likely to be a conspiracy, don't you think?

 

[DC]

when i get asked nicely sometimes i indeed try to answer
but i only speak for my self and nobody else, everyone is free to say, think, answer or ignore whatever he wants.

When you have a diffrent oppinion than the majority in this subforum, it is not easy to say what you think. It is like running in between the guns and the target at a shooting stand.

 

[DC]

see they are firing

 

[Pardalis]

Could you answer my question?

Don't you think that since the building code changes will make people look at the data, this makes it even less likely that the NIST's conclusions are a cover-up/conspiracy ?

 

[Gravy]

Could you answer my question?

Don't you think that since the building code changes will make people look at the data, this makes it even less likely that the NIST's conclusions are a cover-up/conspiracy ?

There have been many building code changes based on NIST's recommendations, and in Europe code changes based on the 9/11 incidents took place years before the changes in the US. These changes largely have to do with occupant safety, first responder access, and protection and redundancy of emergency systems, and less to do with structural systems. The events of 9/11 were unique, and it's probably not feasible to design all tall buildings to cope with such extraordinary circumstances. The features of the new WTC 7 would probably prevent its collapse during circumstances like 9/11, but fly an airliner into it and all bets are off.

Fire Safety Engineering and the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires, Building Code Changes

 

[twinstead]

Nevermind

Sometimes that just about says it all.

 

[tomwaits]

Ok, this thread should probably end. When a truther is making these statements:

what irrefutable evidence have you ever presented of anything?

I havent put forward a conspiracy theory to back up. I have only asked for evidence backing up the religion of the official story.

You got that positive ID of the hijackers yet?

then I think it's time to realize we are dealing with an irrational mind, and therefore argument is impossible.