Question about 9/11 'conspiracy'
- Thread starter max_freakout
- Start date
FridgeMagnet said:
Then you say...
So why should evidence for the official theory not be called for, if people are saying it is basically true?
You aren't referring to a 'straw man' anyway. No-one is misrepresenting the official theory, or presenting a weak argument for it.
In fact this post is particularly outrageous for me to read personally, having been many times called for to provide 'proof' for any alternative 9-11 theory, although I am certainly not hoarding the firefighter's communications, the unreleased pilot's transcripts, the black boxes, the Pentagon footage, etc.
Anyway, onto the debate, which is not permitted on these forums thanks to de facto censorship, but luckily is taking place in mature fashion elsewhere...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=12
Jazzz said:
Debate is permitted on these boards. You should try it sometime rather than keep posting up reams of unproved assertions which are then quickly torn to shreds.
editor
hiraethified
You lying shit.Jazzz said:
You've been at absolute liberty to post up - literally - THOUSANDS of posts detailing and discussing each and every bonkers conspiracy theory you dredge up from the web. None of your posts have been censored, edited or altered in any way.
However, endlessly repeating those same fact-free fruitloop fantasies will get the thread deleted. Just like kitten threads.
And we've endured far more conspiraloon threads than the other forum you mention. I wouldn't be surprised if they soon get fed up with the handful of obsessed individuals posting the same shit there...
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I was going to call this breathtaking bollocks but it seems like you honestly don't see that you (and other people, it's not just you) do it.Jazzz said:
Asking people to defend positions they haven't stated absolutely is a straw man argument. It goes like this, and it happens pretty much every time.
X: "Here is a theory as to what happened at blahblah"
Y: "I consider the evidence for this to be flimsy at best and I do not accept it."
X: "Well you defend the official line then."
Apart from the non-sequitur element - if you propose an argument you have to defend it on its own merits, and attacking other people's positions, particularly positions that they don't even hold, doesn't achieve that goal - it's as if there can be no deviation from a complete narrative, and accepting any portion means you are One Of The Team. As if it's impossible to simply hold a number of different pieces of information, with varying levels of assigned believability, that might change at a moment's notice, and perhaps link them into a tentative structure with the knowledge that you might have to reject it all the next day.
It's very similar to the factionalised American political "debate", that so confuses people here because we don't tend to be on either "team":
X: "Bush did this, that seems like a bad thing"
Y: "Oh yeah, well Clinton did this, which was worse"
or even the hypothetical
X: "My personal demon Azabaoloth protects me from all harm."
Y: "Prove it."
X: "If I'm so wrong, why don't you prove the existence of the Christian god, eh?"
Did you look at that 'debate'?Jazzz said:
I did. It makes me want to beat up a conspiranoid. A bunch of conspiranoids invade a physics forum with their incredibly stupid lack of understanding of science. A few physicists explain to them in great detail why they are mistaken and have made woeful errors with their basic science, the conspiranoids start insulting and smearing the physicists, lying, misrepresenting and accusing them of all sorts of nasty things.
It's the most conclusively humiliating argument for conspiranoids that I've ever seen and it reveals them to be utterly dishonest fuckwits to a (wo)man without a shred of integrity between them.
Jazzzz, does such shameful behaviour really not make you cringe?
No FridgeMagnet, you'll have to excuse me but I get irritated when people see someone going 'straw man' or 'ad hominem' or whatever, and thinking, hey that looks flash, I'll bring that out next time even if I don't understand it. 'ad hominem' is a particularly good example for editor, who seems to consider it applies whenever someone insults him.FridgeMagnet said:
The fallacy you are mooting is not 'straw man' (where a weak opposition argument is put forth as if it well represents the opposing view, and then refuted) but '(shifting of the) burden of proof'
and guess what?
That particular fallacy is always thrust in my direction!
Whever editor, or another demands that I - should I dare to question some aspect of the official theory - say exactly what I think happened instead, and then angrily retorts that 'I have no proof' - the very fallacy you are going on about, do I ever see you stepping in to help me out?
No. Maybe you are not personally responsible for that approach, but in the context of 9-11 discussion on these boards, it's a bit rich for believers in the official tale (which is either essentially true, or not) to be moaning about that one.
And the essential question for 9-11 is, is the official story essentially true? Does it stand up to analysis?
I say no. The evidence for it, to use your phrase, is 'flimsy'.
That's the question posed by Ian Henshall's new book which is currently bothering the USG so much they have it in their 'misinformation' section. Nick Fielding in the Sunday Times wrote of it "The authors, both radical journalists, have subjected the official version of what happened to intense scrutiny and found huge gaps."
So why can't we examine those gaps? You seem to acknowledge that factions within the USG would be prepared to kill their own citizens, so what does it take to put them on the suspect list for the huge crime of 9-11? And why is that discussion of it - the most important issue of the day - is effectively censored here?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
You've just entirely avoided addressing every single thing that I said (regardless of the nothing that you posted about the straw man argument; yes, saying "if you want to criticise me, prove the USG position" is straw man) whilst simultaneously confirming it. Nice one. I'm quite chuffed with that.
Can you actually make one post defending your position without referring to somebody else's argument that whoever it is you're addressing hasn't even propounded?
Can you actually make one post defending your position without referring to somebody else's argument that whoever it is you're addressing hasn't even propounded?
It's not STRAW MAN!!! I am not asking you to prove anything, I am telling you what is 'straw man' and what isn't. You are talking about displacement of the burden of proof. For god's sake, get your fallacies right if you want to act fancy. In straw man (this you would know had you bothered to study the links I carefully made for you) the opponent's position is selected as a weak argument, which the person making the 'straw man' refutes himself. In the case of 'burden of proof', there is no refuting going on, rather the burden of proving something which can neither be proved nor disproved (instead of a weak argument easily disproved) is placed on the opponent.FridgeMagnet said:
Read the links before you start calling people on fallacies.
I have never demanded that my preferred alternative theories must be true because the official story is unproven. What I do ask for is that those who aggressively attack my theories for 'lacking proof' question the official theory in the same way - especially given that it has so many holes in it. And in the absence of proof either way, what is wrong with speculation?
Why should evidence for the official theory not be called for? Also - the thing is, it should be all over the place - that the evidence for the official theory is so flimsy is cause for great concern, because if it was there, we should know about it.
editor is again using another fallacy ('unnacceptable consequences') - and it's breathtaking, with 9-11 sceptics now commanding the respect of the Sunday Times. Oh god, permit proper and reasonable discussion of crucial issues of the day, and the sky will fall on urban's head, there will be an invasion. It would be an invasion only of sanity.
editor
hiraethified
Could you show me where the Sunday Times has shown its "respect" to loonjobs trotting out your wild stories about invisible missiles fired from invisible pods hitting towers invisibly prewired with invisible explosives please?Jazzz said:
I can't say I've seen that in their editorial line.
Thanks awfully.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
No. Let's get this straight.
Straw man is when you make up a position for somebody else, and then attack that. That is absolutely precisely unarguably what you are doing when somebody objects to one of your theories and you say "well why don't you defend what Rumsfeld said then", because you think you can deal with Rumsfeld's position better than theirs. You are quite consciously (I would hope) refusing to address the actual arguments that the person concerned is using, and instead caricaturing and misrepresenting them into a form which you feel will be easier to deal with. You are also shifting the burden of proof - but that's not the primary purpose at all, because you are actually saying that the person concerned is arguing in a different way to how they are.
Your repeated demands that people who attack your theory dance on sticks for your amusement - oh, sorry, "question the official theory in the same way" and thus avoid criticising your theories - are simple diversionary tactics, particularly as you pay no attention whatsoever to the history of the people who are demanding such things of.
Why should evidence for the official theory not be called for? Why not indeed? Fuck off and ask people who are proposing it then. Because all that happens here is that you turn up, say something which is definitively proved to be untrue or if not is completely evidenceless, people call you on this and you whine that they can't prove the official theory when all they were doing was answering you.
(NB you *did* mean "the respect of the Sunday Times" to make people laugh, right?)
Straw man is when you make up a position for somebody else, and then attack that. That is absolutely precisely unarguably what you are doing when somebody objects to one of your theories and you say "well why don't you defend what Rumsfeld said then", because you think you can deal with Rumsfeld's position better than theirs. You are quite consciously (I would hope) refusing to address the actual arguments that the person concerned is using, and instead caricaturing and misrepresenting them into a form which you feel will be easier to deal with. You are also shifting the burden of proof - but that's not the primary purpose at all, because you are actually saying that the person concerned is arguing in a different way to how they are.
Your repeated demands that people who attack your theory dance on sticks for your amusement - oh, sorry, "question the official theory in the same way" and thus avoid criticising your theories - are simple diversionary tactics, particularly as you pay no attention whatsoever to the history of the people who are demanding such things of.
Why should evidence for the official theory not be called for? Why not indeed? Fuck off and ask people who are proposing it then. Because all that happens here is that you turn up, say something which is definitively proved to be untrue or if not is completely evidenceless, people call you on this and you whine that they can't prove the official theory when all they were doing was answering you.
(NB you *did* mean "the respect of the Sunday Times" to make people laugh, right?)
FridgeMagnet - here is a perfect example of 'Straw Man' for you. Henshall/Morgan have not taken the approach of claiming alternative theories to be true in their book, they have taken the approach of investigating the official theory to see whether it stands up to scrutiny - which it doesn't.editor said:
Here editor assumes anyone who doubts the official story must accept ALL of the wilder propositions about 9-11, and puts them in a way as to look ridiculous - classic straw man!
editor - a link to the quote has already been provided, however Henshall/Morgan do not fit your description, they are however sceptics of the official story.
Fridge, you still haven't got your fallacies straight at all. I make no apology for being pedantic here.FridgeMagnet said:
You are not accusing me, or others of 'straw man'.
You are accusing me, and others, of 'shifting the burden of proof'.
In 'straw man', the opponent is not asked to do anything - the weak argument is selected for him AND REFUTED (or made to look ridiculous).
When you understand this perhaps somewhat pedantic point as to which fallacy is which we might be able to have a proper discussion?
Jazzz said:
I'm going to regret this.
A government used an appalling act to enable repression of their civilian population and as the excuse to invade some people they wanted to invade.
I have ten toes. I can see them all. At the moment, there is nothing outside this room.
No, I don't believe. I'm a f'in Discordian.
(that's it, I'm done here. Sorry - not trying to wake the trolls)
editor
hiraethified
Incredible. So you - the king of zero research - hadn't actually bothered to read the review?Jazzz said:
But no matter how much you try and twist it the book categorically does NOT "command the respect of the Sunday Times."
One reviewer thought it was interesting. That's not the same.
Similar threads
