POPCORN! Gravy is on...! :D

Just finished watching part 2.... excellent job gravy!

Am amazed that the CTers still cling on to their "I would expect to see..." type of argument in the face of expert testimony.

But gravy did a great job of explaining the collapse initiation and even put to bed the nonesense about molten steel.

Brilliant!
 
Going off of part one of the debate, does anyone think Bermas would be happy if a portion of Flight 93 was reconstructed from the debris? I don't think so, especially after he somehow tried to make the release of a few photo's of debris a few years after 9/11 evidence of a cover up.
 
Let me point to Ron's killer question at about 27:55, where he asks the Loosers what would "falsify" their beliefs. When they respond, "Nothing," they apparently don't realize what they're saying. Even our old buddy Steven Jones' first criticism against the "Star Wars Beam Weapon" is that it's non-falsifiable.

Beliefs that are non-falsifiable are not based on evidence or testimony or physics. They're completely based on faith.
 
Brainster said:
Let me point to Ron's killer question at about 27:55, where he asks the Loosers what would "falsify" their beliefs. When they respond, "Nothing," they apparently don't realize what they're saying. Even our old buddy Steven Jones' first criticism against the "Star Wars Beam Weapon" is that it's non-falsifiable.

Beliefs that are non-falsifiable are not based on evidence or testimony or physics. They're completely based on faith.
Click to expand...

You're average punter is likely to miss that and just assume that these guys are so convinced by the 'evidence' they have seen that they will stand by those convictions come what may.

Of course eventually it sinks in that they are actually saying "Nope, even if some form of documentary evidence of impeccable provenance came to light proving that this was solely an AQ operation from start to finish, we still would believe it was a government conspiracy"

I also notice that the woowoos are going into overdrive in an attempt to argue the points avery and bermas failed to.

:D
 
Just finished Part Two.

Gravy you tore them a new one! :D I'm proud of you.

Even if you did fluff the Kader Toy Factory Fire... ;)

Bermas and Avery looked like children in that last section, arguing way out of their depth. The "top topple over" argument is ridiculous (Keebler elves aside).

-Gumboot
 
That was great. I am in awe.
Those guys just don't get it do they?
Avery: How could the top 30 stories destroy the bottom 70?
Answer:One at a time in quick succession.
 
Zombie is frustrated:

why is he so hell bent on "debunking" the truth, even though its right in front of his face.
hes gotta know what really happened on 9/11 by now, with all the evidence and smoking guns right in his face, so why is he trying to debunk it?

why? :ph43r:?
Click to expand...
The truth really doesn't mean anything to these people, it just gets in the way of their own self importance.....and fun (gag)

Killtown responds, as only an immature inadequate can:

$$$
Click to expand...
Good ol' silly killy, projecting as usual.

While Muckraker respons rationally:

I don't see anything wrong about it. If we're really seeking truth, we should have nothing to fear. If he can successfully debunk stuff, good, thank you.

I'm an engineer, but not structural, so I'm not qualified to truly evaluate things like the collapse. I can see why many people including myself feel that collapse LOOKS like a demolition and may well be, but I can also say I seriously question how when the best demolition team in the USA needs 4 months of unrestricted access to take down a 30 story building, how did someone do three buildings when no one was looking?

Anyways, I definitely go for LIHOP. John Albanese said the time for investigation is over, it's time for action. Case is closed on MSM, they won't be helping us. besides, the investigative reporting is done, by us, thank you very much. Our next move is to get lawyers and drag this case into court. People like Mark Roberts serve us well to show us what our strong case is versus our weak cases. Bob Bowman says we need to focus on what is known, solid. We can surely say the chain of command on 9/11 is guilty of gross negligence at very least, and with Norm Mineta's testimony considered, certainly much more.

Speculation time is over - it's time for legal action. Christine Todd Whitman looks to be the first head on the platter. Maybe she'll want to sing to save her skin. So who's gonna file the first lawsuit?
Click to expand...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1654

How long before Muckraker is branded a disinfo agent?
 
Last edited:
Personally I thought Roberts was pathetic. Ad-homs and a sympathetic compere do not a good debater make.

Obviously Avery is also useless, but Bermas, although seemingly lacking a really solid knowledge of the crime (most likely due to Loose Change pushing him to be a Jack of all trades, rather than a master of one) certainly outdebated Roberts.

Is this the best you lot can do?
 
IronSnot said:
Personally I thought Roberts was pathetic. Ad-homs and a sympathetic compere do not a good debater make.

Obviously Avery is also useless, but Bermas, although seemingly lacking a really solid knowledge of the crime (most likely due to Loose Change pushing him to be a Jack of all trades, rather than a master of one) certainly outdebated Roberts.

Is this the best you lot can do?
Click to expand...
Please name a point on which I was "outdebated."

Also, please name an "ad hom."

(Be prepared to participate in the discussion that follows, IronSnot.)

Proceed.
 
IronSnot said:
Personally I thought Roberts was pathetic. Ad-homs and a sympathetic compere do not a good debater make.

Obviously Avery is also useless, but Bermas, although seemingly lacking a really solid knowledge of the crime (most likely due to Loose Change pushing him to be a Jack of all trades, rather than a master of one) certainly outdebated Roberts.

Is this the best you lot can do?
Click to expand...
Can you show the adhoms please IronSnot, or are you just going to make a claim out of thin air? You'll notice when we claim that Bermas or Avery didn't debate so well (i.e. When they changed the topic) we'll give you the very point in which this happened in the tape, the discussion that was happening and even a link to the timestamped part of the video we're talking about.

You on the other hand, make some claims and leave it at that. You're certainly one to be judging people's debating skills.
 
You're not getting a debate on this subject from me, as it's a pointless exercise. I've given you my opinion, you'll just have to take it at face value. And anyway I'm damned if I'm going to watch that drivel again just to pick out the obvious points against your 'arguments'.

But you started with ad-hominem arguments (go check your dictionary, gumboots) and you never deviated. Debate the evidence, next time Gravy.

You also looked a little on the bitter side, constantly eyeballing Bermas as if he was some sort of devil incarnate. To repeat for emphasis, you wern't debating the evidence Gravy, you were fighting the enemy.
 
IronSnot said:
You're not getting a debate on this subject from me, as it's a pointless exercise. I've given you my opinion, you'll just have to take it at face value.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. That's what CT credophiles do. Here at the JREF forum, we value critical thinking.

Proceed with your specific critique, IronSnot, or withdraw your statement. Name an ad hom argument I made, and name a point on which I was outdebated.

Isn't that what a gentleman would do? Back his claims with evidence?
 
Brainster said:
Let me point to Ron's killer question at about 27:55, where he asks the Loosers what would "falsify" their beliefs. When they respond, "Nothing," they apparently don't realize what they're saying. Even our old buddy Steven Jones' first criticism against the "Star Wars Beam Weapon" is that it's non-falsifiable.

Beliefs that are non-falsifiable are not based on evidence or testimony or physics. They're completely based on faith.
Click to expand...


I noted that question as well. So even if the claims made in Loose Change are true, logically sound, and honestly made (and of course I recognize that the claims are largely preposterous), there is no item of evidence to be advanced that can disprove the claims. And as you say, the Loose Change proponents seemed blissfully unaware of their gaffe.
 
drivel? so would you say the loosers lost?
guess ad hom works against the iron clad "building should have toppled over" argument
 
IronSnot said:
Personally I thought Roberts was pathetic. Ad-homs and a sympathetic compere do not a good debater make.

Obviously Avery is also useless, but Bermas, although seemingly lacking a really solid knowledge of the crime (most likely due to Loose Change pushing him to be a Jack of all trades, rather than a master of one) certainly outdebated Roberts.

Is this the best you lot can do?
Click to expand...

Darn did you actually watch the whole thing? You must be as short on facts as Bermas is. I do not understand how someone without facts can win a debate.

I do not understand how being wrong wins a debate.

LC lost the first two rounds.

Plus you need to check out what you mean about Roberts. What is an Ad Hom, you must mean something else. If you mean what I think you mean, you are wrong.
 
IronSnot said:
(go check your dictionary, gumboots)
Click to expand...


It's "Gumboot". Singular.

Hmmm... let's see:

ad hominem
Latin. (lit: "to the man")
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Nope, didn't see any of that from Mark.

-Gumboot
 
ironsnot, unless you post here to back up your claim of ad hom argument with at least some basis in the debate, i cant see any reason not to call you a troll just posting random and baseless attacks.
now come on what made you think that he was playing the man and not the argument? we all want to know
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom