And yet many in the truth movement make a great deal of the fact that the NIST reports contradicted the FEMA report, which also did not change the established narrative. Could it be that looking for trifling apparent anomalies isn't the best way to falsify a hypothesis?
Dave
Hello cheeky,
It's got nothing to do with me what the truth movement makes a great deal of.
The details of how the towers disintegrated has no impact on the hastily established 911 narrative, the one later used so deceptively and powerfully to launch, justify and sustain our first, murderous, Twenty First Century Resource Wars.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With apologies to Par for explaining this to JJ...
Your mistake lay in thinking that the negation of "Truthers are dangerous" would be "Truthers aren't dangerous." Had you logic-fu, you'd have said "Not all truthers are dangerous" (or, if you were indeed using "truthers" as a collective noun, something like "Truthers are no more dangerous than truckers").
Your mistake is common in informal conversation. Had you not made a bogus objection to another poster's logic, Par might not have called you on it.
Will
I assumed readers would be able to work all that out for themselves without my having to spell it out for them, but thanks for clarifying it.
The "mistake", as far as I can see it, is sylvan8798's, not mine, and one frequently made by the sensationalist, gossip column/tabloid wing of the Anti-Twoofie Party. Calling it a "mistake", of course, is being charitable in the latter case.
My "
Truthers aren't dangerous " comment was supposed to highlight this inaccuracy. It was obviously too cryptic! I added my quip "Humans are dangerous - discuss" in the hope that it would make it obvious what I was saying...
The comment "
Truthers aren't dangerous " was a direct response to 911kongen’s appeal for corrections:
Thank you! That was a good advice! 
Please tell me if I have something else wrong. I need it! So it will be fixed in the film..
and deliberately mirrored the OP title,"
Why truthers are dangerouse!", for humorous/rhetorical effect! Ho ho!
Sylvan8798 responded:
Tell that to the families of Richard Poplawski's victim's in Pittsburgh, and James von Brunn's victim's in Washington, JJ.
It seemed transparently illogical of sylvan8798 to claim that the actions of two people (supposedly “Truthers” (whatever that is)) could be used to draw conclusions about "Truthers" in general.
Tell that to your logic teacher.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erm. Well, that’s not all that precise. In fact, I just don't know what you mean. If I’ve made a logical mistake – which is of course possible – I’d like to know about it. So, can you be specific about what I get wrong?
I don't know how to make it more precise. There's nothing wrong with your logic in itself but it fails to recognize the collective nature of the noun "Truthers" ("
Tx: x is a Truther") and therefore your very logical logic doesn’t apply to my statement or, as I understood it, to the OP’s. Perhaps "irrelevant" would be more accurate than "illogical".
UD/DD: People.
Tx: x is a Truther.
Dx: x is dangerous.
Lxy: x is y's logic teacher.
r: Richard Poplawski.
v: James von Brunn.
p: Par.
j: JihadJane.
1. [?x(Tx?¬Dx)?¬?x(Tx?Dx)]
2. [(Tr?Dr)?(Tv?Dv)]
3. ??x(Tx?Dx)
4. ?¬[?x(Tx?¬Dx)]
5. ?Lpj
against the wall that something is eventually going to stick. They then turn around and say "I told you so" while conveniently ignoring the claims that they made that were proven wrong.
