Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime

[_Z_Ryuken]

So, to recap, your logical argument is this:

A) FBI surveillance of a terrorist suspect ends.

B) At a later time, the terrorist attempts an attack on america.

Therefore, given A and B: The entire 9/11 attack and more were all orchestrated by the United States government.


So, you claim this is ENTIRELY VALID, without ANY LOGICAL FLAWS AT ALL?

You made the first and last parts up. I mentioned no organization but the FBI, and I merely stated they are doing themselves disservice for not denying the allegations of this agent.

As far as surveillance, if the FBI's higher ups really did have a handle on the situation, not only would the surveillance not have ended, we could go so far to call it "protection".

Try to understand it is not "my" arguement whether any of this happened. I don't care if it's true or false.

It is my arguement that the FBI and other affiliated parties are not taking an assertive role in denouncing these allegations and people like you expect the alternative theorists (a group whom I repeatedly state I am not affilated with) to "come around in due time".

That my friends, is completely illogical and it would behoove you to pull your head out of your metaphysical rectum for long enough to understand what I am trying to say without nigh endless discussion reiterating myself over and over and over and over.

----

Then again even I am not heard after so much repetition so perhaps I should follow the FBI's example and just ignore you as you pretend to know what I am thinking.
Maybe one day you will "Come around in due time" to understand my perspective.

 

[Glirk Dient]

You made the first and last parts up. I mentioned no organization but the FBI, and I merely stated they are doing themselves disservice for not denying the allegations of this agent.

As far as surveillance, if the FBI's higher ups really did have a handle on the situation, not only would the surveillance not have ended, we could go so far to call it "protection".

Try to understand it is not "my" arguement whether any of this happened. I don't care if it's true or false.

It is my arguement that the FBI and other affiliated parties are not taking an assertive role in denouncing these allegations and people like you expect the alternative theorists (a group whom I repeatedly state I am not affilated with) to "come around in due time".

That my friends, is completely illogical and it would behoove you to pull your head out of your metaphysical rectum for long enough to understand what I am trying to say without nigh endless discussion reiterating myself over and over and over and over.

----

Then again even I am not heard after so much repetition so perhaps I should follow the FBI's example and just ignore you as you pretend to know what I am thinking.
Maybe one day you will "Come around in due time" to understand my perspective.

Why do they need to deny these allegations? They have no evidence to support those claims.

If I say aliens blew the towers up, do they need to deny that too?

 

[VirusType2]

Allow me to say that it is usually impossible to prove something 100%. The goal is beyond reasonable doubt. Innocent until proven guilty within resonable doubt'

You must be proven guilty!

You do NOT have to be proven innocent as that is usually impossible and irrelevant

NASA says we landed on the moon. There are conspiracy theorists today who don't believe it. You can show them all the equipment, the cameras, all types of equipment, documents, dirt and rocks, photos, movies, eyewitnesses, the astronauts, EVERYTHING. They believe what they will. There is actually no way to prove something unless you see it, and everyone can't eyewitness everything.

"seeing is believing"

Even then, a good mind-**** individual can **** with your head and make you think maybe you didn't really see it or something. I swear, I hope kids these days don't **** with all of the drugs that the babyboomers and the generation-X ****ed with, it's really made everyone so paranoid.

If there is a truth, it will come out. If it is not a truth, it will not come out. It is impossible to cover things up forever with that many people that must have been involved. Someone, sometime is going to slip, maybe on his/her death-bed, but if there is a lie, it will come forth. I don't have to worry about it. I sleep through the night because I am innocent. Whoever is responsible would be accounted for.

If there was enough proof, we wouldn't even be discussing it anymore, it would be 'busted' case closed. But obviously the most proof is that the US government, although maybe guilty of stupidity, is innocent of nearly everything mentioned. One can't even prove that the terrorists didn't pick the 'war games' day (since it's such common knowledge ) (that sounds like a ****ing really bad movie plot)to execute their attack, and thats why they thought they would succeed. (assuming there really is a 'war games' of course)



I wonder if many of the theorists originations came from Democrats in the US.... Desperate to totally **** the Republicans reputation as much as possible, because they are about to lose their seat. :O Maybe I am becoming a bit of a conspiracy theorist against the conspiracy theorists! The conspiracy theorists are part of a conspiracy! *explodes*


BTW, while I don't keep up on the news much, that sounded really stupid when you said the US is trying to screw you out of your oil since Alaska is part of the US, and therefore the oil belongs to the US. (how can you steal from yourself?) When was the last time the government cruised over to Alaska to buy some oil. I could swear it was oil companies. Anyway, maybe another thread you could explain what you are talking about because it just sounded ridiculous.


Zzz reading time is over. Goodnight world.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Why do they need to deny these allegations? They have no evidence to support those claims.

If I say aliens blew the towers up, do they need to deny that too?

If you were an alien, yes.

 

[Ludah]

wtc is far too transparent for me ..it's like a propaganda piece they often show during wartime to distract citizens from the horrors of war ...oh wait

Except Oliver Stone has never had much love for the government and, by all information know thus far, has no intention of making a propaganda film.

That film, on the other hand, looks like two-dimensional, sappy dross.
If you personally like it, then fair play to you; there's no accounting for taste. Personally, I'd place good money on the film making me feeling physically unwell.
It looks so saccharine it'd give whole audiences diabetes, simply through watching.

A novel idea: Wait until you've actually seen it.

Oliver Stone may not consistently churn out gold, but there is no reason to believe he is insincere with this attempt. All I've ever seen is knee-jerk reactionary criticism because "OMG it's too soon!" or "OMG this is pro-war propaganda!".

Stop looking for a hidden agenda.

/end slightly off-topic contribution

 

[jverne]

mecha, are you a scientist to know what is written is true? they could be lying! you will never now...that is why i'll call you a conspiracist ("Someone who believes that a conspiracy explains a set of evidence"), because mostlikely you don't know shit about what happened and your evidence is as biased as any other!

ps: i'm not saying that i do know!

 

[ComradeBadger]

Peer-reviewed papers are far more credible sources than some random conspiracy nut.

 

[jverne]

Peer-reviewed papers are far more credible sources than some random conspiracy nut.

so if lots of people jump off a cliff, it must be the right thing to do?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm sorry, but it's kinda obvious you don't understand the scientific methodology of which peer-review is an important part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Please read this link, which I hope answers your questions.

Peer-review is designed to ensure the scientific method is followed.

Since conspiracy theorists ether:

A) do not understand the scientific method (example: You)
B) understand, but deliberately avoid following the scientific method(example: Clarky)
or
C) lie and claim that they are following the scientific method when they are actually not (example: Steven E Jones, whose paper was not reviewed objectively)

their claims range from the unreliable to the outright deceptive.


A published, peer-reviewed paper means the following:
-The paper has been read over by semi-random neutral scientists and no errors were found.
-The paper has then been published so that every interested scientist in the world can check it for any missed errors and, more importantly, replicate the procedures detailed in the paper to check their validity.
-Those that approved it are risking their reputations as scientists if the paper is false.

Therefore, unless every single scientist (or amateur scientist) in the entire world (including those in hostile countries like North Korea and Iran) are a part of the "american conspiracy", peer-review prevents fanciful claims.
Especially in high-profile papers such those that would make a 9/11 conspiracy claim.

Conspiracy theorists don't even try to get peer-review status - which is bizarre, to say the least.


Here is the only completed peer-reviewed scientific paper written about 9/11 so far, along with a list of scientists who reviewed it.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

 

[baxter]

mecha, are you a scientist to know what is written is true? they could be lying! you will never now...that is why i'll call you a conspiracist ("Someone who believes that a conspiracy explains a set of evidence"), because mostlikely you don't know shit about what happened and your evidence is as biased as any other!

ps: i'm not saying that i do know!

I personally tend to believe these guys. Who can boast this.

Did you know ?

* NIST’s weights and measures services, a job assigned to the federal government in the Constitution, provide the basis for the fairness and efficiency of sales totaling more than $5 trillion—roughly half of the U.S. economy?

* Between 3 percent and 6 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) is attributed to measurements and measurement-related operations that rely on NIST for accuracy, reliability, and international recognition?

* Eighty percent of global merchandise trade is influenced by testing and other measurement-related requirements of regulations and standards—and that U.S. companies increasingly depend on NIST to help ensure access to global markets that create new business and jobs?

* Without NIST, U.S. manufacturers of such products as glucose and cholesterol test kits—in vitro diagnostic (IVD) devices—wouldn’t be able to meet requirements of new European Union regulations and would have been shut out of the $7 billion European market where they now have more than 60 percent of the business?

* The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, the nation’s highest honor awarded by the President of the United States to U.S. organizations for their performance excellence and quality achievements, is managed by NIST—and the award criteria are used by thousands of companies, schools, and hospitals to improve their products and services?

* The total economic benefit of the NIST Baldrige National Quality Program—which receives little federal funding—is estimated at almost $25 billion, for a stunning benefit-cost ratio of 207 to 1?

* The Baldrige program is so successful that it has spawned similar programs in 41 states and nearly 80 quality programs internationally?

* NIST-developed performance-measurement methods have accelerated the adoption of new manufacturing capabilities, such as accuracy-enhancing software for machine tools, and led to new technology, such as laser tracker measurement systems used increasingly in the aerospace, automotive, and other industries?

* NIST’s technical contributions to the development of encryption standards for information technology have been estimated to have saved private industry more than $1 billion—and enable consumers and business to be confident about the security of their
billions of dollars worth of electronic data transactions daily, such as withdrawals from ATMs?

* About 1.5 billion times a day NIST’s Internet Time Service sets computer clocks and other networked time-keeping devices, such as those used to synchronize telecommunications systems?

* NIST’s Internet Time Service is used by NASDAQ members to time-stamp hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stock trades and other financial transactions conducted every business day?

* In the Army alone, 58,000 different types of equipment require regular “NIST traceable” calibration, ensuring that measurements made during the development, testing, maintenance, and operation are valid; that their system will perform as designed; and that they will be interoperable with other systems on the battlefield?

* NIST developed the testing procedures and other key technical elements of the Department of Homeland Security’s performance standards for radiation detectors used at seaports, airports, and other points of entry into the United States?

* About 2,700 law-enforcement officers have been spared from death or disabling injury as a result of NIST-developed standards for ballistic-resistant body armor (“bullet-proof” vests)?

* The National Research Council credits NIST Standard Reference Materials for DNA analyses with improving the accuracy of forensic DNA tests while reducing testing costs and that the criminal justice community depends on NIST to assure that its testing is accurate?

* The United States spends about $1.1 trillion on health care, and 10 percent to 15 percent of that is associated with making measurements—NIST’s specialty?

* NIST measurement services underpin the safety and effectiveness of about 10 million medical procedures that use radioactive materials—from prostate- and breast-cancer treatment to diagnostic imaging?

* NIST X-ray standards and proficiency tests ensure proper radiation exposure levels in more than 9,000 facilities that perform more than 30 million mammograms yearly?

* Many of the tools and materials used in modern dentistry—from the panoramic X-ray to composite fillings to an array of adhesives—originated at NIST through a continuing 75-year-old partnership with the American Dental Association?

* NIST Standard Reference Materials helped to significantly improve the accuracy of cholesterol tests, resulting in better diagnoses and treatments and an estimated annual savings of about $100 million?

* Consumers and industry benefit from NIST measurement aids that help manufacturers to validate food production and quality control procedures and to ensure accurate nutritional labeling?

* Emissions trading, called for by the Clean Air Act of 1990, depends on an initiative begun by NIST and the Environmental Protection Agency in cooperation with the specialty gas industry—and that a $140 million market in the United States and a growing market overseas was created?

* NIST led the development of performance standards and placement recommendations for smoke detectors, now in 94 percent of American homes and saving thousands of lives, or that half of home fire deaths occur in the 6 percent of homes with no smoke alarms?

* NIST scientists have earned three Nobel Prizes over the last eight years?

* Closed-captioning for people with impaired hearing, now featured on all TV sets, was co-invented at NIST, earning it an Emmy Award?

* Thousands of small manufacturers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico rely on the NIST Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership for hands-on technical and business assistance?

* In a recent survey completed in September 2004, covering projects completed in fiscal year 2003, 4,865 clients of NIST’s Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership reported that, as a result of MEP services, they realized almost $686 million in cost
savings; invested $912 million in modernization, including plant and equipment, information systems, and workforce training; increased or retained $4.1 billion in sales; and created and retained over 50,315 jobs?

* U.S. automakers and their suppliers, which account for more than 3 percent of the nation’s GDP, rely on NIST Standard Reference Materials to ensure quality in a wide range of tasks, from the processing of materials to final assembly, to emissions
compliance?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/NIST_Did_you_know.htm

Rather than random conspiracy nuts.
Sorry, you were saying about how qualified you were to comment

( Incidentally jvene I find your signature offensive. )

 

[jverne]

I personally tend to believe these guys. Who can boast this.



http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/NIST_Did_you_know.htm

Than random conspiracy nuts.
Sorry, you were saying about how qualified you were to comment

( Incidentally jvene I find your signature offensive. )

no i never said i'm more qulified. i'm trying to say that one shouldn't so blindly belive in one side of the story.

yes NIST is a very credible source to gather technical data...i think i never doubted the thechnical side of the evidence, only once with that molten steel thing.

i've probably repeated it a million times.

yes, from the technical side you have more or less strong evidence to support your claims

but what about the other side the agenda?

simple example...how can you disprove with credible evidence all the plots that went on:

-some of the hijackers were found alive and their identity was confirmed by an high ranking, higly respectable miliary officer (can't remember his name...but it's in the video)
-why did NORAD fail right at that moment
-why did so many VIP get messages not to fly that day
-why was the ring leader on an secret party on a jaht
-...

i'm not saying this is all true, but something sure is.

and where is your credible evidence that this things didn't happen or to what did actually happen?

this is the tough part...because there is no 1+1=2! get it?

so...you win the technical part of the challange...but the "conspracy" part, probably wont be won for a long time!

that is why i don't naively belive into the official story.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

but what about the other side the agenda?

simple example...how can you disprove with credible evidence all the plots that went on:

-some of the hijackers were found alive and their identity was confirmed by an high ranking, higly respectable miliary officer (can't remember his name...but it's in the video)
-why did NORAD fail right at that moment
-why did so many VIP get messages not to fly that day
-why was the ring leader on an secret party on a jaht
-...

and where is your credible evidence that this things didn't happen.

You need to uphold the burden of proof before making outrageous claims.
It is not our job or anyone's job to prevent you from saying absurd things.
You need to make a valid point before people start taking you seriously.

A detailed explanation for why can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

An argument that uses logical fallacy cannot be considered valid.

and where is your credible evidence [...] to what did actually happen?

It's called the NIST report that you apparently already forgot about.
Also, the peer-reviewed paper I just linked to.
Aso, there is www.911myths.com, which presents clear evidence to support its conclusions.
Many more are listed in The Clarky Challenge thread, which you've read already.

there is no 1+1=2! get it?

One plus one is equal to two, last time I checked.

Are you claiming that it is three or six?

I don't get it.

It seems you're claiming that science does not exist...?

so...you win the technical part of the challange...but the "conspracy" part, probably wont be won for a long time!

that is why i don't naively belive into the official story.

I'm sorry, but what you just said makes absolutely no sense at all.

You won't "naively" use knowledge?

Could you repeat that with different phrasing?

 

[jverne]

You need to uphold the burden of proof before making outrageous claims.
It is not our job or anyone's job to prevent you from saying absurd things.
You need to make a valid point before people start taking you seriously.

A detailed explanation for why can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

An argument that uses logical fallacy cannot be considered valid.


It's called the NIST report that you apparently already forgot about.
Also, the peer-reviewed paper I just linked to.
Aso, there is www.911myths.com, which presents clear evidence to support its conclusions.
Many more are listed in The Clarky Challenge thread, which you've read already.


One plus one is equal to two, last time I checked.

Are you claiming that it is three or six?

I don't get it.

It seems you're claiming that science does not exist...?



I'm sorry, but what you just said makes absolutely no sense at all.

You won't "naively" use knowledge?

Could you repeat that with different phrasing?

look...in 911myths
they just write their take on it, and they use the same technique as the conspiratist do!

"Our take..."

they post some articles to prove their claims, but so do the conspratists! so if you are saying the conspiratist are talking bullshit it means that they (the debunkers) are also talking shit.

there si simply no mathemathical prof, everything is just maybe, possibly,...

"Confirmation? Maybe, but again we don't know the source, so there’s no way to determine its accuracy, a problem when there's considerable motive for undermining the US. And even if accurate, this doesn't support any relation between the meeting and September 11th."

http://www.911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_met_the_cia.html

that is why i said there is no 1+1=2!
you can calculate the impact force of an aeroplane, but you can't calculate when somebody is lying or not.

therfore you win the technical part of the callenge, because NIST is a quite credible source for TECHNICAL issues.


that is why i'm sceptical about the official story, because some of the important questions aren't answered! especialy by a site named 911myths.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What 911myths does is use logical conclusions.
Conclusions which are supported by the all the science and research.

Logical thought is a tool science uses, but it is not exclusive to science.

Conspiracy theorists, however, use logical fallacies to fool people and fool themselves.

Do you know the difference between a logical fallacy and a logical conclusion?

 

[jverne]

What 911myths does is use logical conclusions.
Conclusions which are supported by the all the science and research.

Logical thought is a tool science uses, but it is not exclusive to science.

Conspiracy theorists, however, use logical fallacies to fool people and fool themselves.

Do you know the difference between a logical fallacy and a logical conclusion?

mech...you need to stop the playback, your repeating yourself over and over again it's like the only thing you can say! science, fallacy, science, fallacy, science, fallacy,...

911myths...very few articles are non biased, most of them come from doubtful sources

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/eberhart_statement.pdf

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/calgaryherald101301_scrables.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

they are all "filtered" to show only what they want you to see...

and yes this makes 911myths very credible

"Regardless of that, it’s worth bearing in mind that intercepts may not always be successful."


this site is just as bad as any conspiracy sites.
both use news and other filtered articles.

here is a good example how media mess up alot of things:
read both articles and compare their stories

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2178097,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4774429.stm


so a logical conclusion would be not to trust media reports and sites that use them as their source of debunking!

that is why i'm not so naive to belive in the conspiratists or you mecha! you both are the same shit...why don't you understand this?

ok...let me guess...logical fallacy, right?!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What you're saying isn't relevant.
The source is not as important as what it is saying, regardless of percieved bias.
If a conclusion is logical, bias is not an issue.


So don't dodge the question.

Do you know the difference between a logical fallacy and a logical conclusion?

 

[baxter]

no i never said i'm more qulified. i'm trying to say that one shouldn't so blindly belive in one side of the story.

yes NIST is a very credible source to gather technical data...i think i never doubted the thechnical side of the evidence, only once with that molten steel thing.

i've probably repeated it a million times.

yes, from the technical side you have more or less strong evidence to support your claims

but what about the other side the agenda?

simple example...how can you disprove with credible evidence all the plots that went on:

-some of the hijackers were found alive and their identity was confirmed by an high ranking, higly respectable miliary officer (can't remember his name...but it's in the video)
-why did NORAD fail right at that moment
-why did so many VIP get messages not to fly that day
-why was the ring leader on an secret party on a jaht
-...

i'm not saying this is all true, but something sure is.

and where is your credible evidence that this things didn't happen or to what did actually happen?

this is the tough part...because there is no 1+1=2! get it?

so...you win the technical part of the challange...but the "conspracy" part, probably wont be won for a long time!

that is why i don't naively belive into the official story.

I get it,do you ?

Rather than relying on credible evidence your entire theory now rely’s on gut feeling and small anomalies that you feel are so important.

All the above have been debunked time and time again on this forum . They are debunked on many sites, but none better than the one Mecha has provided to you over and over again.

Please read this, it is a European article.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html

It is quite long but worth a read, it explores the entire culture of conspiracies.

My understanding is:
There is zero number of intelligence specialists who think 9/11 was an inside job.
There is zero number of historians who subscribe to the inside-job hypothesis.
There is zero number of architects who posit bombs in the towers.
There is zero number of explosions registered by seismologists when the towers fell.
There is zero number of engineering conferences held to discuss bombs in the towers.
There is zero number of seismologists who posit bombs in the towers
There are zero number of demolition experts who posit bombs in the towers
There are zero number of documents revealing the secret plan
There are zero number of NORAD people who said they stood down on 9/11
There are zero number of NORAD people who said they were confused by drills on 9/11
There are zero number of defence experts who say NORAD standing down was inexplicable.
There are zero number of commercial airline pilots who say the NORAD thing sounds fishy
There are zero number of journalists (mainstream or otherwise—but NOT wing nuts posing as journalists) who write seriously about 9/11 conspiracy theories
There are zero number of people who say they were actually involved in the plan.
There is zero number of FBI agents, ex-agents, or whistle blowers who say 9/11 was an inside job (as opposed to mere incompetence).

Other than you have a pretty strong case.

 

[jverne]

I get it,do you ?

Rather than relying on credible evidence your entire theory now rely’s on gut feeling and small anomalies that you feel are so important.

All the above have been debunked time and time again on this forum . They are debunked on many sites, but none better than the one Mecha has provided to you over and over again.

Please read this, it is a European article.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html

It is quite long but worth a read, it explores the entire culture of conspiracies.

My understanding is:
There is zero number of intelligence specialists who think 9/11 was an inside job.
There is zero number of historians who subscribe to the inside-job hypothesis.
There is zero number of architects who posit bombs in the towers.
There is zero number of explosions registered by seismologists when the towers fell.
There is zero number of engineering conferences held to discuss bombs in the towers.
There is zero number of seismologists who posit bombs in the towers
There are zero number of demolition experts who posit bombs in the towers
There are zero number of documents revealing the secret plan
There are zero number of NORAD people who said they stood down on 9/11
There are zero number of NORAD people who said they were confused by drills on 9/11
There are zero number of defence experts who say NORAD standing down was inexplicable.
There are zero number of commercial airline pilots who say the NORAD thing sounds fishy
There are zero number of journalists (mainstream or otherwise—but NOT wing nuts posing as journalists) who write seriously about 9/11 conspiracy theories
There are zero number of people who say they were actually involved in the plan.
There is zero number of FBI agents, ex-agents, or whistle blowers who say 9/11 was an inside job (as opposed to mere incompetence).

Other than you have a pretty strong case.

ok i'll belive spiegel...the news media... :dozey:

ok, ok it was debunked...yes on forums and cheap sites...


"If a conclusion is logical, bias is not an issue."

hehe...logical to whom? so you're saying that those who made the report are basicaly God...because their logic is unmistakable?

and i understand the meaning logical fallacy enough to know, that "your" arguments are just as bad.

i guess we''ll go nowhere this way...

what do you say that we meet again here in 60 years time where all the confiscated evidence will be brought or leaked to the public? by that time enjoy yourself


for the record: i'm not a conspiratist, i'm just being somewhat sceptical, but i realize you don't care about this, you're the kind of guy who says "if you are not with us then you are with them"

 

[baxter]

you're the kind of guy who says "if you are not with us then you are with them"

Actually I'm the type of guy who just accepts facts, logic and common sense.

See you in 60 years then.

 

[Ludah]

Jverne, as much as I like seeing you get ripped apart by logic and rationalism, I sincerely advise you to take my advice.

You are not "somewhat skeptical". You've gone far beyond that and jumped head-first into what is often termed as paranoia.

n. par-a-noi-a
Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

If the way you've chosen to deal with this particular subject is any indication of your dealings in life in general, then I'm in awe at how you muster the will to do anything.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

so you're saying that those who made the report are basicaly God...because their logic is unmistakable?

No, that is not what I am saying.
However, logical thought consistently supercedes illogical thought as the reliable method of understanding the world.

Thanks to Ludah for pointing out the paranoia.

n. par-a-noi-a
Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

Irrational means illogical.
Logic is important, or else you start yelling at ghosts.

i understand the meaning logical fallacy enough to know, that "your" arguments are just as bad.

Then demonstrate a single logical fallacy in any argument I've made.

But first, answer the question:

Do you know the difference between a logical fallacy and a logical conclusion?

 

[ríomhaire]

Summary of debate:
jverne: All experts could be lying, even the competly impartial ones, zomg. You aren't a scientist, they might all be lying!
ComradeBadger: I'd go with a scientist before a conspiracy theorist
jverne: I don't know the difference between peer-presure and peer-review, lol
Mechagodzilla: Explains peer-review does not involve telling others to smoke
baxter: Yeah, go with the experts
jverne: Conspiracy theorists are just as credible as experts. Believing the government is naive
Mechagodzilla: LOGIC!!!
jverne: 911Myths uses the same techniques as conspiracy theorists so I'll go with the conspiracy theorist ZOMG! NIST only shows it wasn't blowed up with bombs, it no say that Bush didn't do it lol.
Mechagodzilla: Do you know the difference between logic and POOPY HEAD! NASTY POOPY HEAD!
jverne: STOP TALKING ABOUT YOUR PRECIOUS SCIENCE! ME NO TRUST MEDIA! ME IGNORE EXPERTS THEY ALL LIE, MEAN EXPERTS!
Mechagodzilla: LOGIC! ROCK ON, ROCK OOOOOOON! LOGIC, w00t!
baxter: You're ignoring science and just knit-picking
jverne: ME NO BELIEVE NEWS-MEDIA! LOGIC IS DIFFERENT FROM PERSON TO PERSON ZOMG!

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

-> lol

Do me next.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

My arguments would actually be this colour.

It's been carefully matched to the colour of my skin, so that reading this is like staring directly into my cock.

 

[jverne]

No, that is not what I am saying.
However, logical thought consistently supercedes illogical thought as the reliable method of understanding the world.



Then demonstrate a single logical fallacy in any argument I've made.

But first, answer the question:

Do you know the difference between a logical fallacy and a logical conclusion?

come on mecha...stop it...of course it does...but you are saying that their logic is right, that is why you belive them otherwise you wouldn't!

yes i do (to some extent). a logical conclusion requiers using a scientific method to back it up.

Ludah...logic and rationalizm...one has to know everything to tell what is logical or not. are you God of something?

and no i'm not paranoid, i just like to be open to other possibilitys.

and while we are talking about logic and rationalizm...your posts are full of wrong assumptions, you know squat...get your head out of your ass and stop being Freud!

 

[ríomhaire]

My arguments would actually be this colour.

It's been carefully matched to the colour of my skin, so that reading this is like staring directly into my cock.

Done and done
*stares at Mecha's lovely cock and feeds it grain*

 

[Mechagodzilla]

you are saying that their logic is right, that is why you belive them otherwise you wouldn't!

Yes. There are no logical flaws in the conclusion that there is no conspiracy.

a logical conclusion requiers using a scientific method to back it up.

that science is openly provided by NIST and the peer-reviewed paper. Both have been linked for you.

one has to know everything to tell what is logical or not.

No, they don't.
That belief is a logical fallacy called the Perfect Solution fallacy.

and no i'm not paranoid, i just like to be open to other possibilitys.

Your "possibilities" are paranoia, by definition.
You'll have to either accept that or believe in things that are more logical.

You still haven't answered the question.

Do you know the difference between a logical fallacy and a logical conclusion?

 

[jverne]

Yes. There are no logical flaws in the conclusion that there is no conspiracy.


that science is openly provided by NIST and the peer-reviewed paper. Both have been linked for you.


No, they don't.
That belief is a logical fallacy called the Perfect Solution fallacy.


Your "possibilities" are paranoia, by definition.
You'll have to either accept that or believe in things that are more logical.

You still haven't answered the question.

Do you know the difference between a logical fallacy and a logical conclusion?

i think i did answer it, in a way.


hey listen up closely, please (refering to "Yes. There are no logical flaws in the conclusion that there is no conspiracy")!

do you know that every calculation that uses non whole (1,2-5,..) or natural (1,2,3,4,5,..) numbers has a mistake (type 17/11 in your calculator). do you know how do mathematicians deal with it....they guess the mistake, and this gues has also mistakes and so forth! engeneers estimate the mistake, humman intelligence even with current computers isn't able to calculate the mistake exactly.
so currently there's a flaw in math, it's very miniature but it's still there!

so by your theory even science can be doubted it in the state it's currently in.

but i think you'll just ignore what i've written and carry on with your fallacy!


edit: but i agree with you that science is the way to go!


edit#2: "What is logical fallacy?

"The term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.

However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is invalid for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies – those which are invalid for reasons other than structural flaws, such as an error in the premises – as well as formal fallacies."

In other words, if you make an argument and it is based on a logical fallacy, you have failed to make a valid argument.
Invalid arguments, by definition, do not make logical sense, and can be dismissed until they are corrected.
Any argument (and any question) based on a logical fallacy is invalid until repaired.

There are many types of logical fallacy.
These are a few of the biggest I have seen used lately to promote invalid arguments, grouped more-or-less arbitrarily:"




EDIT#4: yes science is a logical fallacy...by your standards!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

i think i did answer it, in a way.

No, you haven't.
You are avoiding the question, and the answer is fundamental to this discussion.

[...] so currently there's a flaw in math, it's very miniature but it's still there!

so by your theory even science can be doubted it in the state it's currently in.

but i think you'll just ignore what i've written and carry on with your fallacy!

That doesn't make any sense at all.
It certainly isn't a fallacy.

I have already shown you that the argument you just made is a Perfect Solution fallacy.

Mathematical estimations do not let scientists just go out and say 3.1459.... equals 2000.
Decimals are not "mistakes". They represent the most accurate answers that are possible.
These conspiracy theorys are essentially the least accurate answers.

For that reason, your analogy is a False Analogy.

False Analogies are also a logical fallacy.

edit#2: "What is logical fallacy?

Very funny.

Answer the question without cutting and pasting things that you do not understand.

Do you know the difference between a logical fallacy and a logical conclusion?

 

[jverne]

No, you haven't.
You are avoiding the question, and the answer is fundamental to this discussion.



That doesn't make any sense at all.
It certainly isn't a fallacy.

I have already shown you that the argument you just made is a Perfect Solution fallacy.

Mathematical estimations do not let scientists just go out and say 3.1459.... equals 2000.
Decimals are not "mistakes". They represent the most accurate answers that are possible.
These conspiracy theorys are essentially the least accurate answers.

For that reason, your analogy is a False Analogy.

False Analogies are also a logical fallacy.





Very funny.

Answer the question without cutting and pasting things that you do not understand.

Do you know the difference between a logical fallacy and a logical conclusion?

A logical fallacy is a conclusion that is based on a non logical and non scientificaly proven fact. in short, but there are many variations. maybe i don't fully understand every variatoin, but those here yes.


Yes but it's still a guess, so i just proven to you that currently nobody can be sure of anything!

"Yes. There are no logical flaws in the conclusion that there is no conspiracy."


so lets presume for a second:

maybe the NSIT engeineer knew that there was a 0.001% mistake in his calculations... but he PRESUMED that it is irrelevant. 10000 years in the future some mathemathicans recalculate everything and find out that the 0.001% mistake was the key to the destruction of WTC!

so are the NIST engeneers 100% reliable? no

but yes i'm exagerating, thing is that there is a logical flaw, because if he would stick with logic he wouldn't ignore the 0.001% mistake, because it is logical that the mistake is the key to everything!

something is terribly wrong with you.

i think there are lots of mistakes in your equation, but you simply ignore them, because apparently you do not understand how your equation works.

and mecha...lets leave the WTC alone for a bit, like 60 years!
now we are talking about you, who fell in its own trap!


edit: "
9: False Analogy:
Using an analogy in which the compared objects or events are fundamentally and relevantly different in some way, without addressing the differences, invalidates the analogy."

haha...do you even understand what you are accusing me? define "in some ways", and what differences should i be adressing?

at first...i really thought you were smart, but if you don't explain these two questions i will conclude that you are a moron, because your accusations are a logical fallacy

"7c: Infinite Regress:
Infinite regress occurs when one premise is simultaneously dependant on another when neither is proven."

altough it could use some modifications!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

maybe the NSIT engeineer knew that there was a 0.001% mistake in his calculations... but he PRESUMED that it is irrelevant. 10000 years in the future some mathemathicans recalculate everything and find out that the 0.001% mistake was the key to the destruction of WTC!

This is called paranoia.
You have no reason to believe that NIST intentionally cover up errors.
Their website contains every calculation they have made. Show me one error.

When you are at the supermarket, do you assume you got the wrong change?
Then, when you check and find that the change is correct, do you become terrified that 1000000 years from now it will be discovered that the cashier was wrong by .0001 cents?

When you drive a car, do you become terrified that 10000 years from now, the gas meter will be off by .000001 millilitres?

Do you then become terrified that cars and supermarkets don't exist?

you do not understand how your equation works.

My "equation" is that there is a difference between a logical fallacy and and a logical conclusion.

Do you know the difference between a logical fallacy and a logical conclusion?

A logical fallacy is a conclusion that is based on a non logical and non scientificaly proven fact. in short, but there are many variations. maybe i don't fully understand every variatoin, but those here yes.

Yes but it's still a guess, so i just proven to you that currently nobody can be sure of anything!

This is incorrect. The claim that "nobody can be sure of anything" is illogical. The claim that logic is just a guess is unfounded.
Likewise, there is no such thing as an illogical fact.

Please try again.

 

[baxter]

so lets presume for a second:

maybe the NSIT engeineer knew that there was a 0.001% mistake in his calculations... but he PRESUMED that it is irrelevant. 10000 years in the future some mathemathicans recalculate everything and find out that the 0.001% mistake was the key to the destruction of WTC!

Premused? Sorry could you actually explain where any of the NIST people assumed anything.

Could you actually point out what is so irrelevant...?

So are the NIST engineers 100% reliable? No

Do you actually expect this, do you honestly believe that anybody could put forward an absolute perfect picture that would satisfy all parties. Can you imagine the sheer scale and complexity that was facing these guys?
It is not as simple as you suggest that two planes flew into two towers and the Towers collapsed, but wait a minute that shouldn’t have happened.
You are literally talking about thousands, if not millions of variables, ranging from the grade of the steel used at each level of the Towers to the actual damage each and every one of the supports sustained.
You are talking about shifting loads and even individual bolts that supported floor trusses. The variables are literally incalculable and I would be more sceptical had NIST offered up a complete and perfect picture. It was never going to happen.
Global models and computer simulations can never replicate real live events and it is naive and silly to think otherwise.
You are basing your entire argument on a singular fact. That being that, as stated it is impossible to fully explain what happened inside those Towers, down to the level you wish it to be explained.
Eventually logic and common sense must kick in because despite the best will and intentions nobody can ever offer up a complete and absolute perfect picture of the events inside these buildings. People can only put forward the best case scenario, based on scientific knowledge and proven facts.
If you wish to cling to the percentages you have put forward fine hang on in there, cling to this self believe that it was done for you, it is all part of a massive conspiracy and hey, guess what? Even the best scientists on the planet can’t offer up you what you want.

Besides had you not already stated that you believed NIST and it was other events you were concerned about, events that have already been debunked that is.

What exactly is your point by the way?

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Premused? Sorry could you actually explain where any of the NIST people assumed anything.

I really didn't want to get involved again but I must make note the NIST report admits to a great deal of assumption regarding strengths of the building, exact location of destroyed support beams, spread and amounts of jet fuel, office combustibles, backdraft, fire barrier integrity, and a host of other important variables.

These variables and their values at the time are all very impossible to know.

 

[baxter]

I really didn't want to get involved again but I must make note the NIST report admits to a great deal of assumption regarding strengths of the building, exact location of destroyed support beams, spread and amounts of jet fuel, office combustibles, backdraft, fire barrier integrity, and a host of other important variables.

These variables and their values at the time are all very impossible to know.

Listen pal, do you actually understand what NIST was commissioned to do? It was not solely to determine why the Towers collapsed but to try and offer up recommendations that would prevent it happening again.

This they did, I believe they offered up some 30 recommendations and improvements.

They based their recommendations on what they believe happened.

Did they make it all up? That’s your call pal, as far as I see these guys have done the best they could. They have worked on your behalf to try and prevent this type of disaster ever happening again. If you wish to condemn them fine, feel free. If you wish to accuse them, good on you.

By your standards they shouldn't have even bothered in the first place, after all what is the point of trying to implement something that is based on a lie?

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

You wanted to know where they made assumptions, I gave you some examples. No need to get snarky to prove you point that I don't even care about.

 

[baxter]

You wanted to know where they made assumptions, I gave you some examples. No need to get snarky to prove you point that I don't even care about.

Of course you don’t, better to scuttle off to your conspiracy websites.

Join the rest of the "truth seekers".

Have fun not caring.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Ok I will.


*fun fun fun*

Man I am having a grand ole time, considering I never go to any conspiracy sites.
Yeah I love being artifically stereotyped by people with a massive chip on their shoulder.

*fun fun fun*


















*fun fun fun fun*

 

[baxter]

Why do you assume I have a massive chip on my shoulder because I am putting fact after fact to you?
Some sort of denial is it? Maybe it is urge to simply place your fingers in your ears and sing as load as possible "Lalalalala, I'm not listening".

Shall I let you into a secret pal?
It's no longer cool or trendy to promote this, and it is actually very offensive. People really do get annoyed at the likes of you, who jump on bandwagons, thinking they have this really,really rebellious attitude and they are dead cool.

Guess what pal had you the slightest inclination of what you are talking about, rather than offering up nothing but snotty school kid remarks, maybe I would take you serious.

Have fun mocking those who try to help you and have even more fun mocking those who died.

I do not artificially stereotype you; I openly accuse you of denial, vanity and complete lack of any logical thought process whatsoever.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

[...] These variables and their values at the time are all very impossible to know.

However, you've neglected to consider that they are relatively easy to estimate in an accurate manner.

I'm sorry, but you've got to realize that your argument is just a less-insane version of what jverne has been saying all along.

It's a long string of what-ifs and fear of ghosts hidden in the variables.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Why do you assume I have a massive chip on my shoulder because blah blah blah nothing to do with me.

You just seem to be blowing off steam in every 9-11 thread and I don't need your uppity condescending remarks.

*fun fun fun*

However, you've neglected to consider that they are relatively easy to estimate in an accurate manner.

I'm sorry, but you've got to realize that your argument is just a less-insane version of what jverne has been saying all along.

It's a long string of what-ifs and fear of ghosts hidden in the variables.

-Irellevant.
-What argument?
-Substitute "fear of" for "curiosity for".