@Lithl
"The fire in my oven is burning at less than 500 degrees. The bricks in the over reach temperatures in the 700-900 degree range"
"What law of thermodynamics has my oven broken?"
Thermal equilibrium, Which is the Zeroth law.
Fire is A, Air is B and Bricks are C.
But I think you are just measuring the fire wrong. Check the pic below!
Are you claiming that the fire is one system, the air is one system, and the bricks are one system? I don't want to put words in your mouth, after all.
If that's the case, then the zeroth law of thermodynamics states that if the fire is in equilibrium with the bricks and the air is in equilibrium with the bricks, then the fire is in equilibrium with the air.
When I light the fire, none of those things are in equilibrium. At some point, the fire may be in equilibrium with the air. At some point, the fire may be in equilibrium with the bricks. As far as I'm aware from firing this oven approximately weekly for several years, those two points in time are not the same. Additionally, this is not a closed system. Among other things, I have an ongoing chemical reaction adding energy to the fire the entire time. (Until, of course, I stop adding fuel to the fire and let it die out.)
"It is therefore extremely difficult to speak to just how heat would transfer throughout the structure. "
Why is it 'extremely difficult' when we know the what the coulombs were made of, the blueprints, we can re design the whole thing!
Isn't selective quoting great? If you would have included the previous sentence from my post, it would be obvious that I'm not claiming it's extremely difficult for anyone to determine these things. I'm saying it's extremely difficult for me, since I don't have the relevant information.
"The terrorists would make a bomb in a similar manner to the one used in the Oklahoma City Bombing by Timothy McVeigh."
Cool it could happen, is anyone arguing this happened in 9/11 except for that sarcastic quote story done by Tiax?
You were suggesting terrorists could not do that, thereby necessitating the airplanes cover story. If you agree that terrorists would be perfectly capable of acquiring and deploying trucks full of explosives, what is the need for the airplanes cover story?
@Stairc
"How do you know the government didn't plant those videos"
Not answering you any more.
See, this is what we mean by inconsistent. You've got a double standard. If we're not allowed to suggest that evidence has been fabricated, then you shouldn't be allowed to suggest that evidence has been fabricated. And your entire case rests on the claim that evidence has been fabricated. So by all rights we should not be responding to you, right?
But apparently you're not yet ready to say it was a plane. Would you have been this cautious if I had shown you video, photos, and testimony appearing to show a cruise missile? Or would you have been more like, "Yeah, this proves beyond all doubt that is was a cruise missile, and only a sheeple [sic] would believe otherwise!"?
@Blinking Spirit
"And your entire case rests on the claim that evidence has been fabricated."
Is my claim that ALL evidence is fabricated? I have made it clear that I agree with some of it.
Please learn to form an argument. I will use your style to answer some of your ramblings(leftie attack).
Please watch Micheal C. Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon as linked above
"Well, I didn't deceive you"
"San Lorenzan Bokononist."
-If you believe that.... Its over
You are probably a socialist too American, and then it wouldn't surprise me if you are a feminist too! Probably not religious, but nationalist(pretty close to religious)!!(leftie argument)
" Afraid you need a few more years in law school before you're ready to take the bar."
Correct, but that is not my goal. I would be quite a few years ahead of you, I'm afraid you need to go back to primary school to get in. (I'm learning to argue like a lefty liberal arts now lol!)
"Says the guy alleging a Jewish banking conspiracy."
And Jews can't be fascist... That seems racist to me... (racist card, leftie arguments FTW!!!)
We are not debating any facts to do with 9/11. This is a leftie liberal arts circus rambling. Bye bye. Please learn to put an argument forth supported by facts, I have linked the video a number of times.
@Blinking Spirit
"And your entire case rests on the claim that evidence has been fabricated."
Is my claim that ALL evidence is fabricated? I have made it clear that I agree with some of it.
You're abusing the quantifiers here. In order to reject Stairc's suggestion offhand, you would have to claim that no evidence is fabricated. If some evidence is fabricated, then it is possible that the evidence Stairc is questioning is fabricated. You cannot reject that possibility without argument -- or rather, you can, but if you do, you are applying a double standard. You clearly expect us to give your own allegations of falsification a fair hearing; doesn't Stairc deserve the same courtesy?
"Well, I didn't deceive you"
"San Lorenzan Bokononist."
-If you believe that.... Its over
You didn't actually believe me, did you? I certainly hope not. So you were not deceived. You are aware, aren't you, of the concept of saying outrageous and obvious untruths for the purpose of humor? Or do you get this upset whenever anybody tells a joke? "Wait a minute! Chuck Norris' tears don't cure cancer! Conan O'Brien is lying to me!1!!"
Please learn to put an argument forth supported by facts...
Before we can even get to the facts we have to have a logical framework that allows us to process facts sensibly. I suspect this is actually what your video is talking about: formal argument, the form of the argument, the argument as it stands before the particular facts have been plugged into it. If your formal argumentation is flawed -- and boy howdy is it ever -- then the facts don't matter, because you can't reliably tell which facts are true or draw accurate conclusions from them. This is what I have been criticizing your argument about from the beginning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
They all snapped at once, this would have happened from demolition charges, not office fires/jetfuell ball
You realize that in order for this to be even slightly plausible, the pilot of the plane would have to fly the plane into the exact floor to avoid damaging the charges and also to keep from accidentally setting any off prematurely. IE set charges at floor 90 fly plane into floor 93.
They actually didn't all break at once. They slowly lost their structural integrity and were unable to support the load of the floors above them. Each floor could only support 1,300t beyond their own weight and each floor weighed ~4,500t. So once the tower started to collapse they took out the floors below them and with each additional floor that feel, more and more tonnage of steel rained down on the remaining floors compromising their structural integrity and causing them to collapse as well.
Still would love to hear why something Typhoon is claiming COULDN'T happen is a more reasonable cover story than something he now admits COULD happen.
Also...
Is my claim that ALL evidence is fabricated? I have made it clear that I agree with some of it.
Yes. We know. You agree with the parts that you think support your jewish conspiracy views and claim anything else is fabricated or false. This is the point Blinkspirit and I have been making. When you have to deal with your own style of reasoning, you get so frustrated by the obvious flaws that you just stop engaging entirely. It's like a horror movie twist. You think you're running from it... But in reality... It was you all along.
@Megiddo
"Typho0n, hi, sorry these guys are ganging up on you."
Not your fault, don't be sorry, and sorry I didn't reply to you sooner
You seem to have a reasonable question so I'll answer you.
'do you have any links to previous examples of buildings "bending?" I don't think I've ever seen that happen before!'
All the other steel frame building after a fire have been left standing, 9/11 is a special case, you can do a quick google search. (check the immages below)
'you're making a lot of good arguments, but this piece I just can't picture in my head.'
Thank you, I hope i can help!
"thanks! sorry other posters for the intrusion!"
Don't be sorry it is refreshing discussing with someone reasonable, I believe the others should be sorry for their ramblings.
@urweak
"You realize that in order for this to be even slightly plausible, the pilot of the plane would have to fly the plane into the exact floor to avoid damaging the charges and also to keep from accidentally setting any off prematurely."
No, they would not have all gone off one was hit, why would all the charges go off if one was hit?
"You realize that in order for this to be even slightly plausible"
-This is your opinion
"They actually didn't all break at once."
if this was the case the building would have fell to the side
"You asked how they would get them and I answered your question. "
You provided a link to what happened before, not how they got them. but lets not continue with the sarcastic quote story any more!
I agree they could have got them. But did not happen in the 9/11 case.
"In what unit of measure? Cubits?"
2,400+ PEOPLE
@Blinking Spirit
"Your first hurdle is that I'm not a leftie."
How to spot a leftie 101. They say they are not a leftie, and then won't tell you what they are. hahaha
I have asked you a number of times, and you lied, which makes me further believe you are leftie
You didn't correct me on the socialist part, which is left in the political scale. S Or the feminist part.
You 'argue' without facts, and ad hominem.
The anti-philosophy book you linked. You agree with the government story.
I do not believe you are a conservative (right), or Anarchist (down)
But feel free to correct me on this since you are having trouble forming a 9/11 argument!!!
(I don't know why I continue with you :S, maybe just being nice to a mod :S) (and maybe 'the last word' feeling too : ) It just feels like victory when you get the last word LOL even tho it can be utter garbage...
I think we should create a 'how to debate' or 'how to spot a leftie' thread to continue this.
I am going to hop in here. There is one huge problem with most conspiracy theories as opposed to exposed conspiracies. Exposed conspiracies usually involve a dozen or so people at the most, and are exposed when one of them flips. Something on the level of 9/11 requires massive amounts of people to pull of. First you need people to plant bombs, people to get rid of the plane's passengers, people to cover it up, and numerous agencies all being coordinated. This leads to at least 100 people, and it is very hard to keep all of them quiet. The success of a conspiracy is inversely related to the people involved.
@Phantom_King_Radix
Have you tried a wikileaks search -> https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=9/11
And you can do numerious number of searches about how the government has lied to you/us.
Who would you expect to talk?
There would only have to be a few in High positions to orchestrate 9/11.
The Hijackers would not need to know, as they think they are doing this for alah and/or Al Qaeda.
Which makes me wonder why they killed Osama Bin Laden, instead of capture... The US army has the resources to do this!
Bomb planters (and security tape thieves) which according to the 'conspiricy' were Mossad, Israels intelligence agency.
How many secret service agents have come out about what they have seen? (if any on their death beds?) Do people listen to them if they come out?
Wait. Let me get this straight. You read the words "Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy" and you assume that it lays out problems with philosophy? If it had been "Problems of Geometry", would you have thought it was anti-geometry, or that it just contained geometry problems? No, the book is not anti-philosophy. It is exactly the opposite. Bertrand Russell is one of the most prominent and respected philosophers of the 20th Century, and he wrote this book as an introduction to the discipline. It's fine if you didn't know this offhand, since not everybody is obliged to follow philosophy, but you could at least have looked it up. Then you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself just now.
I do not believe you are a conservative (right), or Anarchist (down)
I don't care what you believe. But be warned: if your interest is because you want to use my affiliation to evaluate my argument here, then you are committing a real, actual, proper ad hominem fallacy. (Oh, yeah, you've been using that term wrongly all along. You've given me so much else to criticize that that just sort of slipped through the cracks.)
@Blinking Spirit
"Your first hurdle is that I'm not a leftie." What are you? how big of a hurdle is this going to be... I want to get back to 9/11...
and then won't tell you what they are..... What are you?
You lied about religion. What are you?
Sorry I did not ask you your political allegiance I guess I did 'lie' there. But It could be argued that political allegiance is religious, i believe nationalism is religious too... So what are you? Also it could be said that i asked when i stated "and then won't tell you" but that is 'reading between the lines'.
You didn't correct me on the socialist part, which is left in the political scale. Or the feminist part. What are you?
"proper ad hominem fallacy"
Yes but you have made it the first hurdle now, and I am happy to ad hominem on you as that is your argument technique...
I think we should create a 'how to debate' or 'how to spot a leftie' thread to continue this.
"But sure, carry on with thinking you're a debate expert." -ad hominem ..... leftie!!!!
But sure, carry on with thinking you're a debate expert.... right back at you
" receive video"
what video? The one linked a plane cannot be made out.
This is your argument:
This is my argument: that reasoning as you and other conspiracy theorists do, uncritically accepting and repeating any statement that supports your desired position (like "The Pentagon was hit by something which was not a passenger airliner") while being arbitrarily skeptical of any statement that contradicts it (like "Tall buildings really do collapse straight down when their supports are weakened"), is inconsistent, frustrating, and completely unproductive.
Your whole argument is Ad hominem!!!
"that reasoning as you and other conspiracy theorists do"
Ad hominem... Attack on the person, trying to discredit them....
"uncritically accepting and repeating"
Ad hominem
"while being arbitrarily skeptical"
Ad hominem
" is inconsistent, frustrating, and completely unproductive.""
Ad hominem, & you are closing yourself off to change.
Should we go through how much of a bad argument this in to disprove/prove what happened in 9/11??
Lets say there are 3 things that happened:
-Reality
-Government Story
-Conspiracy
I am trying to prove that the conspiracy is closest to reality while you are trying to prove that the government story is closest to reality.
I can use any evidence that is reasonable to me, you cannot say I can't use that evidence. You have to disprove/use that evidence, to build your argument against mine.
Questioning is good, but you still need to build an argument with your 'facts', against my argument with my 'facts'.
"You read the words "Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy" and you assume that it lays out problems with philosophy?"
Yes sorry, I assumed it was leftie propaganda not real philosophy. Have you checked out my 45 min YouTube video that you can get for free!! Can you mail me a copy maybe?
"The Pentagon was hit by something which was not a passenger airliner"
That was a case I was considering, and I am open to change
"Tall buildings really do collapse straight down when their supports are weakened"
As I argue as with other reasons/facts, there have been a number of cases of buildings where they have not collapses from fires that have lasted longer, 9/11 is a special case! You have to build a case on facts how they came straight down, in an instance.
If we were to get a proper debate judge, i would ASSUME that he would say something a little like: 'yo homie, ura wiping da floor wid hiz azz yo!' ~~loosely speaking~~ ...back to school, back to school.... lalala
P.S. what is your political allegiance?
-Maybe a Sanders supporter, in which case leftie!!!!! I'll check that Trump post for evidence
-at first glance you 'seem to be' anti-Trump, which would indicate to me that you are left... Feel free to correct me...
I am just going to assume that you are a leftie by the way that you argue. So until then... It really doesn't matter for me to build my argument tho
-at first glance you 'seem to be' anti-Trump, which would indicate to me that you are left... Feel free to correct me...
That doesn't seem to be a warranted assumption. The left has by no means a monopoly on being anti-Trump. Only about 37% of Republicans would vote for him in the primary, according to the most recent polls I've seen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
" receive video"
what video? The one linked a plane cannot be made out.
Which is why, in the very next sentence, I said, "And there are more than enough photos of 757 debris and eyewitness accounts to make up for any lingering skepticism you might have over the low-resolution footage." You have conveniently chopped that part off.
Saying this doesn't make it so. "Ad hominem" is not a cheat code for complaining about any argument you don't like. It is an argument of a specific fallacious form -- basically, "What you say isn't true because of [irrelevant fact about you]!"
I'm saying you don't back up your claims, because I have asked you numerous times to back up numerous claims, and you haven't. That's a problem with your argument.
I'm saying you dismiss the claims of others without justification, as for example we have seen just above where you "forget" about the photographic and eyewitness evidence. That's a problem with your argument.
I can use any evidence that is reasonable to me, you cannot say I can't use that evidence. You have to disprove/use that evidence, to build your argument against mine.
This is simply not a true statement about the way arguments work. The onus is on you to back up your claims. If I ask you to provide some support for your alleged evidence, and you don't, then that evidence is worthless in your argument. I don't have to actively disprove your evidence; you have to prove it. And if Mr. Molyneux's video is even a passable introduction to formal argumentation, he should say this somewhere. It's called the "burden of proof", and it's not exactly an obscure concept.
"The Pentagon was hit by something which was not a passenger airliner"
That was a case I was considering, and I am open to change
You say that, but when I show you all the evidence that it was hit by a passenger airliner, you remain "open to change" rather than "convinced it was a passenger airliner" or even "examining and discussing that evidence". There comes a point at which "open to change" is just a clever way of being in denial without having to say so.
As I argue as with other reasons/facts, there have been a number of cases of buildings where they have not collapses from fires that have lasted longer, 9/11 is a special case!
And you're completely missing the point. The point is that when they do collapse, it's in a downward direction. This has been explained several times, but you keep ignoring the explanation and continuing to assert that the building should have fallen to one side, giving us absolutely no reason to believe that assertion.
"This is my argument: that reasoning as you and other conspiracy theorists do, uncritically accepting and repeating any statement that supports your desired position (like "The Pentagon was hit by something which was not a passenger airliner") while being arbitrarily skeptical of any statement that contradicts it (like "Tall buildings really do collapse straight down when their supports are weakened"), is inconsistent, frustrating, and completely unproductive."
That my reasoning is uncritically accepting and repeating any statement that supports my desired position, while being arbitrarily skeptical of any statement that contradicts it, is inconsistent, frustrating, and completely unproductive. And therefore the government story fits reality. Congratulations you have proved 9/11 government story.
Time of olives and wine
"You still haven't actually clicked through that link? The entire text of the book is online."
You still haven't actually clicked my link, I will read it if you watch mine, I prefer to watch things, so if you have a video of it that would be nicer I'm pretty weary of people telling me to read things tho... Too much propaganda in books ya know Christians: read this, Muslims: Read this, Socialists: read this, feminists: read this.... get a bit 'frustrating'
If any others of you would like to continue discussing the physics of it, the motive, evidence... then feel free to add
Subscription not regretted. You don't always get to see a guy repeatedly call people names and demanding to know political affiliation (completely irrelevant to any argument, unless you're gearing up for an ad hominem attack of your own) and spending half his time complaining about other people actually engaging with HIS argument as an ad hominem. And then calling Betrand Russell anti-philosophy for the cherry on top.
It seems that he believes that any criticism of his argument IS an attack on him. It isn't. Oh and typhoon, before you try to lecture people on proper forms of argument you might want to review what the burden of proof is at least. That's kinda important.
And therefore the government story fits reality. Congratulations you have proved 9/11 government story.
I get that you're trying to be clever here, but all you're actually doing is revealing that you either didn't read or didn't understand it when I explicitly told you that I was not trying to prove the "government story" and was only trying to show that your proof was unsound.
It's careless to assume, and more careless still to assume that other people are as careless as you are. If I hadn't checked out your link, how could I have dropped Molyneux's name in my last post?
Me, two days ago: "But I'll make a deal with you. I'll listen to this forty-minute ramble in its entirety if you read Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy in its entirety." So you first.
I prefer to watch things, so if you have a video of it that would be nicer I'm pretty weary of people telling me to read things tho...
Oh, you don't like to read books? That's... unsurprising. But if you want to be an educated person, or even just convincingly appear as one, then learn to like reading books.
You really, really can't resist trying to get in the last word, can you? Okay. Time to put this nonsense to bed. You like to say you're open-minded, so use that open mind and entertain, just for a moment, the possibility that I truly am not a "leftie". If this were the case, then your continued insistence that I am wouldn't look good for you at all, now would it? You think you're demonstrating keen insight and intelligence, but in fact, in my eyes and the eyes of anyone else who knew me, you'd only be making a fool of yourself.
Okay. Now. I've been here for ten years. I've made plenty of political statements during that time. My position is not exactly secret. You can ask any of the regulars here where I stand. Or you can go back into my record and see for yourself. And the fact that I'm inviting you to do this... well, that should worry you.
"It's careless to assume"
It seems you haven't changed your argument, so I don't think you have watched it.
"But if you want to be an educated person, or even just convincingly appear as one, then learn to like reading books."
Well I can. Doesn't mean I have to like it... You cannot tell me what to like.. Well you can, but I don't have to listen to you. I got a masters degree n all. I prefer discussion, cause then you can see peoples emotions.
You really, really can't resist trying to get in the last word, can you?
You either, I want to try and discuss the facts around 9/11 and, and its like a circus trying to get you to present some facts.
"if you read Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy in its entirety." So you first."
I'll start it, then maybe we could start another thread discussing it! (I already have an opinion about the first line, this books seems fairly opinionated to begin with.) At least with Stefan you can call up and discuss if you have a problem with one of his theories.
"Time to put this nonsense to bed."
-What are you? Put this nonsense to bed then..... you're all rambling...
"Do I make myself clear?"
I still don't think you have told me you political stance. Unless its: "My position is not exactly secret." -I do not know where 'not exactly secret' belongs on the political scale :S
I've conceded to you, I cannot argue against your argument! (well I can but I don't want to any more, as it is 'ad hominem')
@Stairc & Blinking Spirit
"If any others of you would like to continue discussing the physics of it, the motive, evidence... "
Do I make myself clear?
When in doubt, assume that anyone disagreeing with you must just be ignorant. It's a lot easier than having to think critically.
Yeah,learning how to argue from yours truly Blinking Spirit... Its that book!!!!
"Well, I believe it was a flying elephant"
"San Lorenzan Bokononist."
"Well you don't agree with me yet, so clearly you didn't." - I didn't say that you are putting words in my mouth.
So are you saying that his argument is a decent argument to prove that the government story is closer to reality than the conspiracy? If Yes, then I conceded to you.
I explained it was all Ad hominem... no facts in there about anything.
"I checked out the link" is not the same as "watched it"
CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK TO 9/11 Facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"It's careless to assume"
It seems you haven't changed your argument, so I don't think you have watched it.
You said that you didn't think he watched it because he hasn't changed his argument. That is exactly what I said.
BS and I have repeatedly attacked your argument by pointing out that the standards of evidence used by your argument are inconsistent. It's one giant special pleading fallacy (the double standard variety).
You need to learn what an ad hominem attack is. Here's a useful definition.
"When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized"
-42 Falacies
This is a fallacy in formal logic because an argument stands or falls on its own merits. The basic form of this fallacy is, "You are arguing that things fall when you drop them. You are an idiot. Therefore, your argument is incorrect."
Some good examples can be found in your posts, such as your continued attempts to discredit BS's arguments by trying to attach a political label to the arguer.
"standards of evidence used by your argument are inconsistent"
which evidence? and how is it inconsistent? and how does it make the government story reality?
"That is exactly what I said."
Me: "so I don't think you have watched it."
You: "It's clear I checked out the link"
What does 'exactly' mean in your definition?
When did I say that your argument being fatally flawed makes the government's story reality?
Have you forgotten all the posts pointing out your inconsistent skepticism? BS has not been subtle about this.
And do you really expect anyone to take the trouble to respond to this absurdity:
"That is exactly what I said."
Me: "so I don't think you have watched it."
You: "It's clear I checked out the link"
What does 'exactly' mean in your definition?
I already provided the full quote above, where the exchange makes sense. You chopped it up taking OUT the whole basis I was objecting to in the first place: The *reason* you gave for saying you don't think he watched it. Why? Are you trying to bury the evidence? Are you considering a career with the government?
And what does the word "definition" mean in your definition?
So if I'm inconsistent skepticism about different evidence in the government story, that proves that that government story is reality?
PS. that book would have you believe reality isn't real lol... maybe the meaning behind that book in response to an argument is that there is no argument.
Its a leftie propaganda book, I think we should start a thread about it!!!!
This is exactly why i do not like reading, do you like to read the Bible or the Koran?
If that's the case, then the zeroth law of thermodynamics states that if the fire is in equilibrium with the bricks and the air is in equilibrium with the bricks, then the fire is in equilibrium with the air.
When I light the fire, none of those things are in equilibrium. At some point, the fire may be in equilibrium with the air. At some point, the fire may be in equilibrium with the bricks. As far as I'm aware from firing this oven approximately weekly for several years, those two points in time are not the same. Additionally, this is not a closed system. Among other things, I have an ongoing chemical reaction adding energy to the fire the entire time. (Until, of course, I stop adding fuel to the fire and let it die out.)
Isn't selective quoting great? If you would have included the previous sentence from my post, it would be obvious that I'm not claiming it's extremely difficult for anyone to determine these things. I'm saying it's extremely difficult for me, since I don't have the relevant information.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
You were suggesting terrorists could not do that, thereby necessitating the airplanes cover story. If you agree that terrorists would be perfectly capable of acquiring and deploying trucks full of explosives, what is the need for the airplanes cover story?
But apparently you're not yet ready to say it was a plane. Would you have been this cautious if I had shown you video, photos, and testimony appearing to show a cruise missile? Or would you have been more like, "Yeah, this proves beyond all doubt that is was a cruise missile, and only a sheeple [sic] would believe otherwise!"?
Well, I didn't deceive you, and I personally gained nothing. Afraid you need a few more years in law school before you're ready to take the bar.
Says the guy alleging a Jewish banking conspiracy.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"And your entire case rests on the claim that evidence has been fabricated."
Is my claim that ALL evidence is fabricated? I have made it clear that I agree with some of it.
Please learn to form an argument. I will use your style to answer some of your ramblings(leftie attack).
Please watch Micheal C. Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon as linked above
"Well, I didn't deceive you"
"San Lorenzan Bokononist."
-If you believe that.... Its over
You are probably a socialist too American, and then it wouldn't surprise me if you are a feminist too! Probably not religious, but nationalist(pretty close to religious)!!(leftie argument)
" Afraid you need a few more years in law school before you're ready to take the bar."
Correct, but that is not my goal. I would be quite a few years ahead of you, I'm afraid you need to go back to primary school to get in. (I'm learning to argue like a lefty liberal arts now lol!)
"Says the guy alleging a Jewish banking conspiracy."
And Jews can't be fascist... That seems racist to me... (racist card, leftie arguments FTW!!!)
We are not debating any facts to do with 9/11. This is a leftie liberal arts circus rambling. Bye bye. Please learn to put an argument forth supported by facts, I have linked the video a number of times.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Good luck with that. Your first hurdle is that I'm not a leftie. (Well, except physiologically.)
Please read my response to your link above.
You didn't actually believe me, did you? I certainly hope not. So you were not deceived. You are aware, aren't you, of the concept of saying outrageous and obvious untruths for the purpose of humor? Or do you get this upset whenever anybody tells a joke? "Wait a minute! Chuck Norris' tears don't cure cancer! Conan O'Brien is lying to me!1!!"
This is not a hole you want to keep digging, bud.
Before we can even get to the facts we have to have a logical framework that allows us to process facts sensibly. I suspect this is actually what your video is talking about: formal argument, the form of the argument, the argument as it stands before the particular facts have been plugged into it. If your formal argumentation is flawed -- and boy howdy is it ever -- then the facts don't matter, because you can't reliably tell which facts are true or draw accurate conclusions from them. This is what I have been criticizing your argument about from the beginning.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You realize that in order for this to be even slightly plausible, the pilot of the plane would have to fly the plane into the exact floor to avoid damaging the charges and also to keep from accidentally setting any off prematurely. IE set charges at floor 90 fly plane into floor 93.
They actually didn't all break at once. They slowly lost their structural integrity and were unable to support the load of the floors above them. Each floor could only support 1,300t beyond their own weight and each floor weighed ~4,500t. So once the tower started to collapse they took out the floors below them and with each additional floor that feel, more and more tonnage of steel rained down on the remaining floors compromising their structural integrity and causing them to collapse as well.
In what unit of measure? Cubits?
You asked how they would get them and I answered your question.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
Also...
Yes. We know. You agree with the parts that you think support your jewish conspiracy views and claim anything else is fabricated or false. This is the point Blinkspirit and I have been making. When you have to deal with your own style of reasoning, you get so frustrated by the obvious flaws that you just stop engaging entirely. It's like a horror movie twist. You think you're running from it... But in reality... It was you all along.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
"Typho0n, hi, sorry these guys are ganging up on you."
Not your fault, don't be sorry, and sorry I didn't reply to you sooner
You seem to have a reasonable question so I'll answer you.
'do you have any links to previous examples of buildings "bending?" I don't think I've ever seen that happen before!'
All the other steel frame building after a fire have been left standing, 9/11 is a special case, you can do a quick google search. (check the immages below)
'you're making a lot of good arguments, but this piece I just can't picture in my head.'
Thank you, I hope i can help!
"thanks! sorry other posters for the intrusion!"
Don't be sorry it is refreshing discussing with someone reasonable, I believe the others should be sorry for their ramblings.
@urweak
"You realize that in order for this to be even slightly plausible, the pilot of the plane would have to fly the plane into the exact floor to avoid damaging the charges and also to keep from accidentally setting any off prematurely."
No, they would not have all gone off one was hit, why would all the charges go off if one was hit?
"You realize that in order for this to be even slightly plausible"
-This is your opinion
"They actually didn't all break at once."
if this was the case the building would have fell to the side
"You asked how they would get them and I answered your question. "
You provided a link to what happened before, not how they got them. but lets not continue with the sarcastic quote story any more!
I agree they could have got them. But did not happen in the 9/11 case.
"In what unit of measure? Cubits?"
2,400+ PEOPLE
@Blinking Spirit
"Your first hurdle is that I'm not a leftie."
How to spot a leftie 101. They say they are not a leftie, and then won't tell you what they are. hahaha
I have asked you a number of times, and you lied, which makes me further believe you are leftie
You didn't correct me on the socialist part, which is left in the political scale. S Or the feminist part.
You 'argue' without facts, and ad hominem.
The anti-philosophy book you linked. You agree with the government story.
I do not believe you are a conservative (right), or Anarchist (down)
But feel free to correct me on this since you are having trouble forming a 9/11 argument!!!
(I don't know why I continue with you :S, maybe just being nice to a mod :S) (and maybe 'the last word' feeling too : ) It just feels like victory when you get the last word LOL even tho it can be utter garbage...
I think we should create a 'how to debate' or 'how to spot a leftie' thread to continue this.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Have you tried a wikileaks search -> https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=9/11
And you can do numerious number of searches about how the government has lied to you/us.
Who would you expect to talk?
There would only have to be a few in High positions to orchestrate 9/11.
The Hijackers would not need to know, as they think they are doing this for alah and/or Al Qaeda.
Which makes me wonder why they killed Osama Bin Laden, instead of capture... The US army has the resources to do this!
Bomb planters (and security tape thieves) which according to the 'conspiricy' were Mossad, Israels intelligence agency.
How many secret service agents have come out about what they have seen? (if any on their death beds?) Do people listen to them if they come out?
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Wait. Let me get this straight. You read the words "Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy" and you assume that it lays out problems with philosophy? If it had been "Problems of Geometry", would you have thought it was anti-geometry, or that it just contained geometry problems? No, the book is not anti-philosophy. It is exactly the opposite. Bertrand Russell is one of the most prominent and respected philosophers of the 20th Century, and he wrote this book as an introduction to the discipline. It's fine if you didn't know this offhand, since not everybody is obliged to follow philosophy, but you could at least have looked it up. Then you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself just now.
I don't care what you believe. But be warned: if your interest is because you want to use my affiliation to evaluate my argument here, then you are committing a real, actual, proper ad hominem fallacy. (Oh, yeah, you've been using that term wrongly all along. You've given me so much else to criticize that that just sort of slipped through the cracks.)
I've made my argument. You have yet to even properly respond to it. But sure, carry on with thinking you're a debate expert.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"Your first hurdle is that I'm not a leftie." What are you? how big of a hurdle is this going to be... I want to get back to 9/11...
and then won't tell you what they are..... What are you?
You lied about religion. What are you?
Sorry I did not ask you your political allegiance I guess I did 'lie' there. But It could be argued that political allegiance is religious, i believe nationalism is religious too... So what are you? Also it could be said that i asked when i stated "and then won't tell you" but that is 'reading between the lines'.
You didn't correct me on the socialist part, which is left in the political scale. Or the feminist part. What are you?
"proper ad hominem fallacy"
Yes but you have made it the first hurdle now, and I am happy to ad hominem on you as that is your argument technique...
I think we should create a 'how to debate' or 'how to spot a leftie' thread to continue this.
"But sure, carry on with thinking you're a debate expert." -ad hominem ..... leftie!!!!
But sure, carry on with thinking you're a debate expert.... right back at you
" receive video"
what video? The one linked a plane cannot be made out.
This is your argument:
Your whole argument is Ad hominem!!!
"that reasoning as you and other conspiracy theorists do"
Ad hominem... Attack on the person, trying to discredit them....
"uncritically accepting and repeating"
Ad hominem
"while being arbitrarily skeptical"
Ad hominem
" is inconsistent, frustrating, and completely unproductive.""
Ad hominem, & you are closing yourself off to change.
Should we go through how much of a bad argument this in to disprove/prove what happened in 9/11??
Lets say there are 3 things that happened:
-Reality
-Government Story
-Conspiracy
I am trying to prove that the conspiracy is closest to reality while you are trying to prove that the government story is closest to reality.
I can use any evidence that is reasonable to me, you cannot say I can't use that evidence. You have to disprove/use that evidence, to build your argument against mine.
Questioning is good, but you still need to build an argument with your 'facts', against my argument with my 'facts'.
"You read the words "Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy" and you assume that it lays out problems with philosophy?"
Yes sorry, I assumed it was leftie propaganda not real philosophy. Have you checked out my 45 min YouTube video that you can get for free!! Can you mail me a copy maybe?
"The Pentagon was hit by something which was not a passenger airliner"
That was a case I was considering, and I am open to change
"Tall buildings really do collapse straight down when their supports are weakened"
As I argue as with other reasons/facts, there have been a number of cases of buildings where they have not collapses from fires that have lasted longer, 9/11 is a special case! You have to build a case on facts how they came straight down, in an instance.
If we were to get a proper debate judge, i would ASSUME that he would say something a little like: 'yo homie, ura wiping da floor wid hiz azz yo!' ~~loosely speaking~~ ...back to school, back to school.... lalala
P.S. what is your political allegiance?
-Maybe a Sanders supporter, in which case leftie!!!!! I'll check that Trump post for evidence
-at first glance you 'seem to be' anti-Trump, which would indicate to me that you are left... Feel free to correct me...
I am just going to assume that you are a leftie by the way that you argue. So until then... It really doesn't matter for me to build my argument tho
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
That doesn't seem to be a warranted assumption. The left has by no means a monopoly on being anti-Trump. Only about 37% of Republicans would vote for him in the primary, according to the most recent polls I've seen.
Which is why, in the very next sentence, I said, "And there are more than enough photos of 757 debris and eyewitness accounts to make up for any lingering skepticism you might have over the low-resolution footage." You have conveniently chopped that part off.
Saying this doesn't make it so. "Ad hominem" is not a cheat code for complaining about any argument you don't like. It is an argument of a specific fallacious form -- basically, "What you say isn't true because of [irrelevant fact about you]!"
"Reasoning" means "argument". I literally could not be any more clearly attacking your argument.
I'm saying you don't back up your claims, because I have asked you numerous times to back up numerous claims, and you haven't. That's a problem with your argument.
I'm saying you dismiss the claims of others without justification, as for example we have seen just above where you "forget" about the photographic and eyewitness evidence. That's a problem with your argument.
I realize that this was a long sentence and you might have lost track, but the subject of this predicate, again, is "reasoning".
No. I'm only trying to show that your proof is unsound. Not the same thing. Mine is a negative position, not a positive one.
This is simply not a true statement about the way arguments work. The onus is on you to back up your claims. If I ask you to provide some support for your alleged evidence, and you don't, then that evidence is worthless in your argument. I don't have to actively disprove your evidence; you have to prove it. And if Mr. Molyneux's video is even a passable introduction to formal argumentation, he should say this somewhere. It's called the "burden of proof", and it's not exactly an obscure concept.
Given that I've taken the negative position, I really, truly don't.
Maybe take this as a lesson about not making assumptions?
You still haven't actually clicked through that link? The entire text of the book is online.
You say that, but when I show you all the evidence that it was hit by a passenger airliner, you remain "open to change" rather than "convinced it was a passenger airliner" or even "examining and discussing that evidence". There comes a point at which "open to change" is just a clever way of being in denial without having to say so.
And you're completely missing the point. The point is that when they do collapse, it's in a downward direction. This has been explained several times, but you keep ignoring the explanation and continuing to assert that the building should have fallen to one side, giving us absolutely no reason to believe that assertion.
Irrelevant.
The last assumption you made didn't turn out well for you. Or have you forgotten Professor Russell already?
Finally! You have said something that is absolutely correct!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That my reasoning is uncritically accepting and repeating any statement that supports my desired position, while being arbitrarily skeptical of any statement that contradicts it, is inconsistent, frustrating, and completely unproductive. And therefore the government story fits reality. Congratulations you have proved 9/11 government story.
Time of olives and wine
"You still haven't actually clicked through that link? The entire text of the book is online."
You still haven't actually clicked my link, I will read it if you watch mine, I prefer to watch things, so if you have a video of it that would be nicer I'm pretty weary of people telling me to read things tho... Too much propaganda in books ya know Christians: read this, Muslims: Read this, Socialists: read this, feminists: read this.... get a bit 'frustrating'
If any others of you would like to continue discussing the physics of it, the motive, evidence... then feel free to add
PS: Leftie
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
It seems that he believes that any criticism of his argument IS an attack on him. It isn't. Oh and typhoon, before you try to lecture people on proper forms of argument you might want to review what the burden of proof is at least. That's kinda important.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
It's careless to assume, and more careless still to assume that other people are as careless as you are. If I hadn't checked out your link, how could I have dropped Molyneux's name in my last post?
Me, two days ago: "But I'll make a deal with you. I'll listen to this forty-minute ramble in its entirety if you read Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy in its entirety." So you first.
Oh, you don't like to read books? That's... unsurprising. But if you want to be an educated person, or even just convincingly appear as one, then learn to like reading books.
You really, really can't resist trying to get in the last word, can you? Okay. Time to put this nonsense to bed. You like to say you're open-minded, so use that open mind and entertain, just for a moment, the possibility that I truly am not a "leftie". If this were the case, then your continued insistence that I am wouldn't look good for you at all, now would it? You think you're demonstrating keen insight and intelligence, but in fact, in my eyes and the eyes of anyone else who knew me, you'd only be making a fool of yourself.
Okay. Now. I've been here for ten years. I've made plenty of political statements during that time. My position is not exactly secret. You can ask any of the regulars here where I stand. Or you can go back into my record and see for yourself. And the fact that I'm inviting you to do this... well, that should worry you.
Do I make myself clear?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"It's careless to assume"
It seems you haven't changed your argument, so I don't think you have watched it.
"But if you want to be an educated person, or even just convincingly appear as one, then learn to like reading books."
Well I can. Doesn't mean I have to like it... You cannot tell me what to like.. Well you can, but I don't have to listen to you. I got a masters degree n all. I prefer discussion, cause then you can see peoples emotions.
You really, really can't resist trying to get in the last word, can you?
You either, I want to try and discuss the facts around 9/11 and, and its like a circus trying to get you to present some facts.
"if you read Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy in its entirety." So you first."
I'll start it, then maybe we could start another thread discussing it! (I already have an opinion about the first line, this books seems fairly opinionated to begin with.) At least with Stefan you can call up and discuss if you have a problem with one of his theories.
"Time to put this nonsense to bed."
-What are you? Put this nonsense to bed then..... you're all rambling...
"Do I make myself clear?"
I still don't think you have told me you political stance. Unless its: "My position is not exactly secret." -I do not know where 'not exactly secret' belongs on the political scale :S
I've conceded to you, I cannot argue against your argument! (well I can but I don't want to any more, as it is 'ad hominem')
@Stairc & Blinking Spirit
"If any others of you would like to continue discussing the physics of it, the motive, evidence... "
Do I make myself clear?
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
BS: It's clear I checked out the link, because I referenced something specifically from it.
Typhoon: Well you don't agree with me yet, so clearly you didn't.
When in doubt, assume that anyone disagreeing with you must just be ignorant. It's a lot easier than having to think critically.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Lets fix the 'definition' 'Jewish banking conspiracy' = Rothchild Federal Reserve ownership
http://www.usagold.com/federalreserve.html
What if a president came out against it and was shot?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idYMRmj-T0M
<3 JKF
Its all a conspiracy
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Yeah,learning how to argue from yours truly Blinking Spirit... Its that book!!!!
"Well, I believe it was a flying elephant"
"San Lorenzan Bokononist."
"Well you don't agree with me yet, so clearly you didn't." - I didn't say that you are putting words in my mouth.
So are you saying that his argument is a decent argument to prove that the government story is closer to reality than the conspiracy? If Yes, then I conceded to you.
I explained it was all Ad hominem... no facts in there about anything.
"I checked out the link" is not the same as "watched it"
CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK TO 9/11 Facts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
You said that you didn't think he watched it because he hasn't changed his argument. That is exactly what I said.
BS and I have repeatedly attacked your argument by pointing out that the standards of evidence used by your argument are inconsistent. It's one giant special pleading fallacy (the double standard variety).
You need to learn what an ad hominem attack is. Here's a useful definition.
"When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized"
-42 Falacies
This is a fallacy in formal logic because an argument stands or falls on its own merits. The basic form of this fallacy is, "You are arguing that things fall when you drop them. You are an idiot. Therefore, your argument is incorrect."
Some good examples can be found in your posts, such as your continued attempts to discredit BS's arguments by trying to attach a political label to the arguer.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
which evidence? and how is it inconsistent? and how does it make the government story reality?
"That is exactly what I said."
Me: "so I don't think you have watched it."
You: "It's clear I checked out the link"
What does 'exactly' mean in your definition?
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Have you forgotten all the posts pointing out your inconsistent skepticism? BS has not been subtle about this.
And do you really expect anyone to take the trouble to respond to this absurdity:
I already provided the full quote above, where the exchange makes sense. You chopped it up taking OUT the whole basis I was objecting to in the first place: The *reason* you gave for saying you don't think he watched it. Why? Are you trying to bury the evidence? Are you considering a career with the government?
And what does the word "definition" mean in your definition?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
PS. that book would have you believe reality isn't real lol... maybe the meaning behind that book in response to an argument is that there is no argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell's_views_on_society
"he still believed "that Communism is necessary to the world.""
Its a leftie propaganda book, I think we should start a thread about it!!!!
This is exactly why i do not like reading, do you like to read the Bible or the Koran?
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru