Torin Wolf

In a debate you can tell who's desperate by who hurls the first insult.

Go back to the beginning of the thread and see who first uses insults, name calling and exaggeration. That's where you'll find the desperation.
 
RedIbis said:
In a debate you can tell who's desperate by who hurls the first insult.

Go back to the beginning of the thread and see who first uses insults, name calling and exaggeration. That's where you'll find the desperation.
Click to expand...

Well given they have had the same, near identical debate with I would venture to say a hundred other CTers before you, you gotta give them a little slack.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Well given they have had the same, near identical debate with I would venture to say a hundred other CTers before you, you gotta give them a little slack.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

You're just making an excuse for bad logic. If the people on this forum were truly tired of addressing the same arguments repeatedly, they wouldn't post on these threads.

Your assumption that your debunking is conclusive and the official story is complete is also faulty logic. Neither are true, so therefore, there must be civil debate.
 
RedIbis said:
You're just making an excuse for bad logic. If the people on this forum were truly tired of addressing the same arguments repeatedly, they wouldn't post on these threads.

Your assumption that your debunking is conclusive and the official story is complete is also faulty logic. Neither are true, so therefore, there must be civil debate.
Click to expand...


Let me repeat: in over five years, your evil movement has produced much bogus science, many distorted quotes, and a blizzard of outright lies. It has produced NOTHING that supports the pernicious and wrong-headed myths it promotes.

You have the opportunity of turning a page in the debate by providing a single example of a valid criticism fantasists have made of the rationalist position.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
You're just making an excuse for bad logic. If the people on this forum were truly tired of addressing the same arguments repeatedly, they wouldn't post on these threads.

Your assumption that your debunking is conclusive and the official story is complete is also faulty logic. Neither are true, so therefore, there must be civil debate.
Click to expand...

I agree, that where there is some NEW ANGLE to discuss, a somewhat PLAUSIBLE angle, that a civil debate is warranted. The trouble, Red, is that the truthers come here, and over and over again, like a spambot, post the same old well discussed truth movement cannards. They don't even mix it up for a little variety, or when they do they make it so outrageous as to make addressing it absurd.

The person who comes here to discuss the facts of 9/11, who has done his or her homework, is a rare bird. Most have not read the NIST report, or even tried. Even a mediocre debunker like myself, has read all of the NIST executive summaries, the 9/11 commission report (3 times), the FEMA reports, in addition to the most popular CTist movies.

You are not likely to find civil debate if you prove ignorance on a subject you are discussing, or if you are rehashing subjects that have run their course here numerous times...like it or lump it.

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
I got into several specific claims, including WPI's findings on the eutectic reaction.
Click to expand...
Wow. You completely missed the important words in Mackey's and my posts. I'll highlight them to ease your reading comprehension.

Says the guy who cited David Ray Griffin's latest book, and when challenged by R. Mackey to produce a single significant claim that Griffin got right, could not.
Click to expand...


These fires weren't even hot enough to break the glass above the fires
Click to expand...


Your retraction is expected.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

You still haven't gotten a single thing right. When do you plan to change your behavior?
 
For a skeptics forum, the two logical fallacies I see here the most are ad hominem and appeal to authority.

If your argument is strong, if your position is clear, you will not need to attack the person, only the claim.

If your position is the truth, you will not have to depend on an authority to articulate it. An expert is not a guarantee of accuracy, and a garbageman can make a true statement.
 
Please show me how debunkers referring to experts in a given area, is an appeal to authority fallacy...I will help you out with the definition...

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
Click to expand...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I agree that a rocket scientist can make a mistake involving rocket science, and so can a garbage man, but the chances the rocket scientist is correct, and the garbage man not, is pretty high.


TAM:)
 
The person who had gotten nothing right lectures us about logic and argumentation.

That's funny.

No, it isn't. It's sad. RedIbis, you are severely in denial.
 
Gravy said:
Wow. You completely missed the important words in Mackey's and my posts. I'll highlight them to ease your reading comprehension.







Your retraction is expected.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

You still haven't gotten a single thing right. When do you plan to change your behavior?
Click to expand...

Retraction? In that excellent video, several times the fires are shown in about 13 windows at the most. The glass all around the fires is in tact.

How can you tell? You can see the reflections of smoke and fire in the windows, especially at 3:16.

I thank you for that video. Nothing can better express how small the fires were, occupying only 13 windows at the most. Out of how many hundreds?

This is supposed to be proof that the building was engulfed in flames? I don't care who you debate, you'd have a difficult time convincing people that's an inferno.
 
Gravy said:
The person who had gotten nothing right lectures us about logic and argumentation.

That's funny.

No, it isn't. It's sad. RedIbis, you are severely in denial.
Click to expand...

Projection: In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
 
RedIbis said:
Projection: In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Click to expand...

yes, projection is so common amongst the 9/11 truth movement, I suspect it is part of the mantra.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
yes, projection is so common amongst the 9/11 truth movement, I suspect it is part of the mantra.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Amazing what avoiding the logical fallacies can do for a debate. It's also what makes your position difficult to support.
 
you are going to try and have a discussion about logical fallacies, when you couldn't even get "appeal to authority" correct?

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
Amazing what avoiding the logical fallacies can do for a debate. It's also what makes your position difficult to support.
Click to expand...


It's amazing how long conspiracy liars can tap dance without ever showing us a single piece of real evidence they've produced in over five years.
 
RedIbis said:
Retraction? In that excellent video, several times the fires are shown in about 13 windows at the most. The glass all around the fires is in tact.

How can you tell? You can see the reflections of smoke and fire in the windows, especially at 3:16.

I thank you for that video. Nothing can better express how small the fires were, occupying only 13 windows at the most. Out of how many hundreds?

This is supposed to be proof that the building was engulfed in flames? I don't care who you debate, you'd have a difficult time convincing people that's an inferno.
Click to expand...

This incredible denialist even denies that windows are bursting out of WTC 7 from the heat on the east and west sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

What the hell would make a human being behave that way?

Yes, those fires sure were small in WTC 7!


Amazing.
Amazing.
Amazing.
 
So you guys are actually going to say that there is fire in more than thirteen of those windows, and the glass in the windows around that fire zone are busted out?

I think I understand the confusion now. You guys are saying the windows with flames are the busted out windows. Oh yes that's true. My point, which should have been understood all along, is that those 13 windows are it.

A fire which can't even bust the windows above the fire can't be hot enough to cause the eutectic reaction.
 
A fire which can't even bust the windows above the fire can't be hot enough to cause the eutectic reaction.
Click to expand...

So what temp. does it take to break that particular type of glass? Did you listen to the glass breaking all through that video?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom