As I was saying,

can Mule or anyone else give some evidence as to how exactly the American Government was able to silence all those eyewitnesses planting fake wreckage, planting bombs for detonation, making the passengers of aeroplanes go missing et al ad infinitum.

Wait for it!

Here comes yet another Ad Hominum

I love this place, I normally have to pay to get the sort of abuse I can get for free on here,

wish I found it years ago.

Honestly were having a right good giggle at all the logical fallacies that are being thrown at me lately.

Im going to add them all up and see if we can break the record for fallacies in one thread,

Guess who wins the chocolate medal if he gets to 100

Anyhoo as im obviously not going to have any of my questions or points of reference answered I bid you all be well and good day.

Den

Jamie Clubb wrote:


There is nothing low about bringing in a person who can contribute knowledge to a debate. Den did exactly this, as can be seen by the evidence provided in his links - one piece of evidence I quoted from Den's links answered Ryushi's questions completley. It was a scientific source and the answer was in depth. What more could you ask?
I'm sure I don't have to remind you that you posted "Case closed" after posting a few links back on page five or so of this thread, two weeks ago.

This is not shit-stirring or trolling. Nothing was done in secret. He was honest from the first about me inviting him over. You are the only person who has complained about him coming on board so far. In fact Pete Mills thanked him for his original contribution.
The only person who has made any form of complaint, is Den.

From the thread I have read it would appear that it was you who started getting personal and comments like the one that brought me back into this debate are prime examples of this type of argument.Then you are reading this thread with your own rose tinted spectacles.


All we have done is provide facts and addressed all your points.
You have presented websites and video's just as I have.
The difference is, that you present them as evidence and stand behind them, whereas I'm just interested in the topic.

I'm sure I don't have to remind you that you posted "Case closed" after posting a few links back on page five or so of this thread, two weeks ago.

Yep. Forgive a bloke for wishful thinking. It didn't stop did it and that was not down to Den. In fact, I wrote to him before I wrote the "case closed" post. You virtually invited back on here.

The only person who has made any form of complaint, is Den.

Right...and you didn't go on about him not writing an introductory post and implied that he was "trolling".


You have presented websites and video's just as I have.
The difference is, that you present them as evidence and stand behind them, whereas I'm just interested in the topic.

Correction I have provided evidence by qualified "scientific people". All your links originally stem from the "Troofer" movement.

Loopholing isn't a logical fallacy, but it speaks volumes about the con-theo line of arguing. This is fast becoming text book stuff. If your arguments aren't standing up to scrutiny, pretend you were just asking questions. Is that the endgame?

Brit Sceptic wrote:
As I was saying,

can Mule or anyone else give some evidence as to how exactly the American Government was able to silence all those eyewitnesses planting fake wreckage, planting bombs for detonation, making the passengers of aeroplanes go missing et al ad infinitum.

They didn't silence them, people still claim to have seen and heard the explosions, people claim to know about the setup... they are called liar's and conspiracy nut jobs...

Second to that Jamie thank you for that explanation to the Tower collapsing, that info has yet to be posted on here in such detail, however I would like to throw something out there...

It says about the 'squibs' apparently showing on video's as the towers fell... they also claimed that it would taken alot of work to plan such a controlled explosion..

Well they still didn't deny the fact that these squibs were there for one...
Also if a terrorist or whoever wanted it to look more like the towers fell completely due to the airplanes, why would you have set explosives in all the 'typical' places that you would find on a demolition... that would be way to obvious.
Another thing is that maybe they didn't plan it to collapse like it did, maybe they didn't give a rats bottom but it just happen to fall that way because of the superior architecture...

I am looking at this from a criminal, evil mind. Is it not possible to achieve such a disaster through a criminal psychology? could a evil genius not plan such a thing? I'm not trying to make this thread into a comic book but I am thinking that if I was to do this and not get caught, how would I go about it... if you see what I mean... devils advocate isn't it?

The squibs are denied. They are denied in the information I provided - which is a quote from a link Den posted and a link from a link I posted - in that they are explained. It is also explained how controlled demolitions do not act in this manner. We really stretch the level of plausibility here. Look at the state of America's economy; look at the state of the war. Is this really the work of a criminal genius?

am looking at this from a criminal, evil mind. Is it not possible to achieve such a disaster through a criminal psychology? could a evil genius not plan such a thing? I'm not trying to make this thread into a comic book but I am thinking that if I was to do this and not get caught, how would I go about it... if you see what I mean... devils advocate isn't it?

I study criminology and I have yet to see anything that comes even close to this level of organization or complexity. It just isn't plausible. What you are suggesting really is a conspiracy that would make the Matrix look tame in its credulity - and I feel that is an apt comparison. I cannot argue with comments like "everything is a conspiracy" or "that's what they want you to think" because they are endless arguments. We might as well get right into "Prove to me that this is real" and other such mental masturbation.

You seem to be a bright guy, Ryushi. I think you are much better than this undegraduate/pub gossip nonsense.

I have noticed mule to be a cowardly bully type.

He does not have the courage of his convictions to take a stance so he loopholes with the classic 'I have no stance'; funny that when the evidence he provides is challenged by someone with half a wit more than himself, that would be a halfwit, he reverts back to either, I have no stance, or, Ad Hominem attacks.

Ignoring evidence and attacking the person is not how you win an argument in the real world, which is why I told him I left the playground many years ago.

He is a bully simple as that.

I am certainly no 9/11 freak that knows every nuanced detail but I do know how to have a logical debate, something mule hasn't mastered.

If you don't answer his questions you are a sheep, I asked one question over and over, he never even acknowledged it.

Ryu did supply a brief sentence of anecdotal evidence to counter my, 'How did the American government silence every single witness to the conspiracy?'

Eyewitnesses came forward he said.

Not one piece of cctv footage quoted, not one camera, no explanation of how demolition crew were silenced, who planted plane wreckage? etc etc.

Now eyewitness testimony is anecdotal and mostly irrelevant considering the empirical evidence garnered, something they would know if they read the source Jamie and I left them.

The eye is not a camera!

Eyewitness behaviour is at best evidence of what the witness believes to have happened to have occured. It may or may not tell what actually happened. The familiar problems of perception, of gauging time, speed, height and eight, of accurate identification of persons accused of crime all contribute to making honest testimony something less than completely credible.

Basically honest and intelligent persons who are suddenly exposed to a brief, unexpected event, especially one that involves an unfamiliar object, may be grossly innacurate in trying to describe precisely what they have seen.

As to the fallibility of memory,

Memory is imperfect This is because we often do not see things accurately in the first place. (see above). But even if we take in a reasonably accurate picture of some experience, it does not necessarily stay perfectly intact in memory. Another force is at work. The memory traces can actually undergo distortion. With the passage of time, with proper motivation, with the introduction of of special kinds of interfering facts, the memory traces seem sometimes to change or become transformed. These distortions can be quite frightening, for they can cause us to have memories of things that never happened. Even in the most intelligent among us is memory thus malleable.

Warm regards,

Den.

Jamie Clubb wrote:
[quote]

Yep. Forgive a bloke for wishful thinking. It didn't stop did it and that was not down to Den. In fact, I wrote to him before I wrote the "case closed" post. You virtually invited back on here.
You don't think yourself somewhat arrogant in deciding for everybody else, when their threads should close?



Right...and you didn't go on about him not writing an introductory post and implied that he was "trolling".
No, I didn't.
It was mentioned once, in one post.




Correction I have provided evidence by qualified "scientific people". All your links originally stem from the "Troofer" movement.
Remind yourself of the title of this thread.

Brit Sceptic wrote:
I have noticed mule to be a cowardly bully type.

He does not have the courage of his convictions to take a stance so he loopholes with the classic 'I have no stance'; funny that when the evidence he provides is challenged by someone with half a wit more than himself, that would be a halfwit, he reverts back to either, I have no stance, or, Ad Hominem attacks.

Ignoring evidence and attacking the person is not how you win an argument in the real world, which is why I told him I left the playground many years ago.

He is a bully simple as that.

I am certainly no 9/11 freak that knows every nuanced detail but I do know how to have a logical debate, something mule hasn't mastered.

If you don't answer his questions you are a sheep, I asked one question over and over, he never even acknowledged it.

Brit Sceptic wrote:
I have noticed mule to be a cowardly bully type.

He does not have the courage of his convictions to take a stance so he loopholes with the classic 'I have no stance'; funny that when the evidence he provides is challenged by someone with half a wit more than himself, that would be a halfwit, he reverts back to either, I have no stance, or, Ad Hominem attacks.





I suppose if you see everyone as the enemy or assume that every relationship is an antagonistic one your prior statement would make sense. As I am NOT that sort of person I see many of Mule's threads not about being cowardly or a bully but as being thought provoking and opening discussion.

Perhaps the thread was not started because he was agreeing/disagreeing with the original link but because he wanted us to think about it and discuss it intelligently? Too often there is a lot of talk about things but no thought. Presenting extreme or perhaps controversial views is one way of getting people to talk...and hopefully think.

The whole "I have no stance" accusation may or may not be true. But the bigger picture is that obviously many here do have a stance and it would be nice to see them brought forward in a thoughtful manner so that others may also be able to learn or just be made aware of different positions. Perhaps that may have been the intent of the original post? I can't see into Mule's mind (and I am glad of it because I think it is more than likely a dark and scary place!!), but perhaps you super-imposing your idea of his intentions over his actual ones?

you are perhaps correct,

I am only noting my observation and may well have fell in to a cognitive bias based entirely on what I have read on this thread

interesting point which i thought about after posting.

I am not infallible and again may be completely wrong about this persons character, it was simply my observation.

I still stand by what i stated but do agree I may be completely wrong on his character analysis.

regards,

Den

You don't think yourself somewhat arrogant in deciding for everybody else, when their threads should close?

Nope. When I say "case closed" I am not deciding for anyone other than myself. I would have thought that to be self-explanatory.

9/11- what the architects say

To quote your good self

Jamie Clubb wrote:


9/11- what the architects say

To quote your good self [/quote]
Architects being relatively Scientific and qualified to remark on the construction/demolition of a building eh?