You missed out your middle name Brit 'psuedo' skeptic.

MORE PSEUDO-SKEPTIC FALLACIES:

There are many tactics and side-steps, the Skeptinazi will use to ‘win’ any argument. Here are some that I’ve personally experienced:

Argumentum ad Loosium Change (NEW): This is the flawed mentality driven position that our “Skeptics” have been employing for a good couple years now. Its a mainstream sort of perception, also. You see the old “Loose Change 2nd Edition” had quite a few flaws, some rather drastic. Back in the day LC2E was a sort of phenomenon. In those days Google Video still showed how many views a video had and they had a Top 100 listing. I think at one point I had noticed something around 10,000,000 views. So that film naturally got much of the attention. So it didn’t take too long before there were tons of pages and threads refuting it every way they could. Thats fine, if something has flaws of course, but it should be noted that these types paint everything as a one sided argument. That is, the opposition is 99% wrong without a leg to stand on, and they’re 99.5% right.

Back on point, the entire world of 9/11 discussion has devolved into a LC2E is the entire 9/11 conspiracy universe. That is, mentioning something 9/11 related that isn’t even in that film results in red herring discussions related to LC2E.

The entire mindset boils down to this: “LC2E had been debunked, therefore there can be no 9/11 Conspiracy”.

Domino Effect: They find one flaw, that either is weak, or isn’t written in Skeptinazi language. They then attempt to present the entire article as invalid.

Side Track: I’ve seen where there was irrefutable evidence, yet they resort to some desperate Skeptinazi technicality to pretend the evidence doesn’t matter. In these cases they violate the skeptic definition, and just argue the overall topic, rather than try to provide a real answer to the irrefutable evidence within it.

Avoid the Hard Argument: I’ve entered discussions where the skeptinazis were ganging up on the author, and using extreme Skeptinazi tactics, where they find a flaw in the claim, and then attempt to domino effect the entire argument altogether. I’d enter with great arguments, yet they’d just reply to the author, and try to keep arguing whatever minute thing left to get off of the main topic, and get around my and others counter-arguements. As long as they defeat the author, they ’still win’, and the ‘conspiracy’ remains a ‘theory’.

Conspiratorial Psychology: They present anyone who presents conspiracy content as being a kook. In their minds, anyone who questions the norm, must be a kook. They attempt to classify the author as simply being of the same irrational conspiratal thinker type. They then will further point out any flaws in the overall claim, and use this tactic to further ‘prove’ the ‘kook’ is all wrong.

Selective Testimony: They will often disregard witness testimony that supports the opposing theory, but later try to prove their point by saying there was testimony favor of their theory. They seem to be so stuck on what testimony that the media provided, that they automatically reject any counter-testimony.

Selective Big Picture: They claim that things don’t hold up in the big picture, but then they fail to work in necessary dynamics. A prime example applies to the prior Skeptinazi tactic. They fail to take into account that if there was a real conspiracy, that the Controlled Media ‘news’ would have filtered all of the conspiracy evidence. They seem to deduce it all, as if it couldn’t be true because it wasnt on the news.

Pseudo Maneuvers: They pull the pseudo card. They present this word as if it alone shuts down the entire credibility of the author, which as a result ‘debunks’ any solid evidence the pseudo-kooks case. If you challenge them to demonstrate what they feel is pseudo, you typically get no response. One tactic I’ve learned about, is they will point out use of news headlines as a major component of your argument, as being pseudo. This must be a last resort strategy of desperation. If they do use it, then it is clear that you can not even prove your point using credible sources.

Ignore the Proven Deception: With this move, you can prove a clear and obvious deception, in say a government claim or document. They will sort of skip past this portion, but then will still pretend that the deception wasn’t proven, and continue to pretend that theres no way we could have been deceived, and there is no possible way that theres a conspiracy. Obviously, they continue on in their pursuit to bash the rest of the article.

Conspiracies Don’t Exist: See Above.

No Motive, Switch the Argument: If the author doesnt properly define the motive, they will point out there is no motive. When you provide a solid motive, they will pretend you never did, and continue blasting whatever remains.

Don’t Speak My Language, its Not Possible: This is one of the main symptoms of the Skeptinazi: unless the entire article is purely written in their language, they will not accept it. If it is in their language, and undeniable, they won’t comment, and will pretend like it never happened. Later they will go argue the same topic elsewhere, using their same approaches; they will argue things that they’ve already seen proven elsewhere, in attempts to at least debunk the current author.

Occam’s Flip Flops: This is a tell tale sign of a Skeptinazi. Skeptinazis always point out every time a claimant uses the infamous Occams Razor (path of least resistance). For some reason they seem to think they can actually win the argument by pointing out any occurrences of it. Oddly enough, they always seem to follow this themselves.

For example, in the 911 case, the governments 911 Report is clearly the Occams Razor report. Not only do skeptinazis follow this as the definitive bible on the matter, they even fail to recognize the governments report as being the Occams Razor version of what happened. They fail to realize that if a faction of elitists were plottinga conspiracy, and knew that some scale of debate would eventually result, that you ensure that your cover story would be the ‘path of least resistence’. That is, you merely ensure your cover story appears far simpler than the reality. Then the masses would later say the truth was too difficult and you’d be in the clear.

I recieved a complaint from you Brit Sceptic via personal message stating that you felt Mule had made a personal attack.


Here at a Martial Edge we have two golden rules...

1. No Personal attacks

2. No profanity


Sure the debate got heated but there was no personal attacks in that thread from Mule.

If any forum members read this please have a read through and give your opinion, but to be honest our decision on such matters is final and this is a really good thread so I dont want it hijacking.

PeteMills wrote:
I recieved a complaint from you Brit Sceptic via personal message stating that you felt Mule had made a personal attack.
I appreciate you wanting to keep things open and above board Pete, but I do think a private message should remain private knowledge.
Den has embarrassed himself enough, without teacher telling everyone he is a snitch too.





Sure the debate got heated but there was no personal attacks in that thread from Mule.
Not even warmed up here!

Its rather funny actually that people are still saying there is no evidence to back up a conspiracy theory...

But there is no evidence to back up a genuine terrorist attack either... You have planes that crashed into the tower, an apparent confession from Bin Laden, and the president saying it was terroists.. If Mr Bush had said it was the crab people from underground would you believe him then?

It has been said about the 9/11 witnesses and how did the USA silence them? fact is they didn't silence them and people still testify to hearing several explosions before the buildings convieniently collapsed in exactly the SAME way! People have video evidence of flashes that appear on several floors of the buildings before they came down in what appeared to be in a CONTROLLED manor.
I suppose you think its just a big fuse blowing?...
What is the official 'scientific' explaination for this?? there isn't one and why? because they don't know and why? because they deny it's existance even though witnesses and video footage quite clearly shows this.

Why is it that when the planes were all grounded the Bin Laden family was given permission to fly? I don't know if this is true maybe someone can verify this?

So just on those points alone... Tell me, what is the explaination of the flashes in the buildings?? and the several explosions before the buildings came down in the exact same way even though they was hit in different places?

Thats only 2 questions...

I'll chuck this in here aswell though as a bonus...

When they took pictures of the base of the towers, the support struts were cut at 45' angles??? a little like what they do with a controlled demolition... funny that? explanation please?

go here, downlaod this video and watch it I swear to you it will educate you one way or another... www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Go forward to about 1 hr in as the first bit is about religion and its relation to astronomy. It is a video and the first few minutes are just speech so don't think its just audio its a very interesting view...

Hi guys,

against better judgement I have returned,

In reply to admin hereis the pm I just sent

Hi pete,

sorry about that I worded it wrongly I meant ad hominem attack, s in he attacks me and my credentials to have opinion rather than debating the evidence, my bad.

Jamie persuaded me to continue and if you are happy I shall continue for a while, although it does seem a circular argument,

again apologies for using wrong word im very tired all the time, no excuse but sometimes i slip, sorry!

Den.

PS I used sheep as mule said if you refuse to answer a question you are a sheep, otherwise i would never do that.

Now back to the evidence hopefully although I do actually get loads of energy from ad hominem attacks as it shows people have no answer

So Mule,

will you please answer how the American government has covered up the evidence for 7 years?

As to your conspiracy hypothesis, its certainly not a theory, Between me and Jamie evrything you have posted has been debunked in our evidence already posted, were in a circular argument but heres some more real evidence for you, evidence that has withstood rigorous analysis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7485331.stm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/911-truthers-a-pack-of_b_84154.html
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/rss.xml
http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html
http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter20.html#3

click link no.2

Warm regards,

Den.

None of those references or anyone I have seen or read about can answer the two simple questions I asked in a previous thread. Where's the Evidence disproove those theories?

Even the people who don't believe in conspiracy haven't got solid evidence which is why it all comes into question.

But as an amlumni of University of Manitoba and a proud Canadian I am not about to comment on your ridiculous, erroneous and generally ignorant generalizations.Hmm - yet you DID comment! I must have hit pretty close to the mark, eh? Granted, I did generalize. I apologize for that. I'm sure there must be SOME Canadians who like America (and I'm not just talking about the strippers in 'Detroit's Tijuana', Windsor, either!). I have never met any, but I'll grant the odds are they probably exist.

What I will say it is because of American's like yourself that comment on forums (and other media) that Canadians like myself may judge Americans a little harshly.Incidentally, no apostrophe is needed for the plural form of a word...but in your defense, maybe that wasn't covered at the University of Manitoba?

Enjoy your freedom of speechOh but I do, and many other freedoms the unfortunate citizens of Canada can only dream about.

Ryusui_Ryu wrote:
None of those references or anyone I have seen or read about can answer the two simple questions I asked in a previous thread. Where's the Evidence disproove those theories?

Even the people who don't believe in conspiracy haven't got solid evidence which is why it all comes into question.

Indeed.
Anyone with any scientific academia should be tackling those points first and foremost.

Jamie persuaded me to continue
Can Jamie not be bothered to post on here now, instead of shit-stirring from afar?

I appreciate you wanting to keep things open and above board Pete, but I do think a private message should remain private knowledge.TRUE! Boy I'm really happy I didn't post any whiny complaints to the moderators when Mule and I were beating up on each other, only to see them splashed all over the boards for everyone to see!

On the other hand, why complain to the moderators at all? Man up and present and defend your arguments. Get over it if someone insults you personally. You should be more like Americans, after all, we don't care what anyone thinks of us, right? Why should we? We're right and we know it.

(Is ANYONE missing the tongue-in-cheek? Lighten up for goshsakes!)

People have video evidence of flashes that appear on several floors of the buildings before they came down in what appeared to be in a CONTROLLED manor.
I suppose you think its just a big fuse blowing?...
What is the official 'scientific' explaination for this?? there isn't one and why? because they don't know and why? because they deny it's existance even though witnesses and video footage quite clearly shows this.

So just on those points alone... Tell me, what is the explaination of the flashes in the buildings?? and the several explosions before the buildings came down in the exact same way even though they was hit in different places?


Yes we have. Answer from Phil Molé, a man of "scientific academia" if you wish, which I think both Den and I have posted - I know Den did any way.

The Collapse of
World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2
When most of us recall the events of 9/11, we think of the image of those two seemingly indestructible World Trade Center towers crumbling to the ground. Not surprisingly, their collapse is also a central issue for the 9/11 Truth Movement. An overwhelming amount of the organization’s talks and publicity materials address the fall of Buildings 1 and 2. But as these materials show, 911truth.org does not believe the official story that the primary damage to the WTC occurred when two airplanes hijacked by terrorists crashed into the towers. Rather, they maintain that the towers fell due to a controlled demolition, planned in advance by the United States government.

Why do they think this? A primary reason seems to be that the collapse of the towers looks like the result of a controlled demolition. Since there is no structural resistance to gravity in a controlled demolition, the building collapses straight into its own footprint, with each floor “pancaking” onto the floors below at or near the speed of a free fall. Many of the presenters at the Hyatt Conference compared videos of the collapse of the towers with videos of known controlled demolitions, noting the similarity in both the appearance and speed of collapse. 911truth.org maintains that if actually hit by an airplane, the steel structure of the WTC buildings should have provided at least some resistance to the weight of the floors above, causing the falling structure to pitch over to one side rather than pancake straight down. They further argue that fires caused by burning jet fuel from the crashed planes could not have caused the collapse, since jet fuel burns at a temperature of no more than 1500° Fahrenheit,1 while a temperature of approximately 2800° is needed to melt steel. David Heller makes the point in a widely read article:

The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they’re built from steel that doesn’t melt below 2750° Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500° Fahrenheit.2

Since burning jet fuel is not hot enough by itself to melt steel, reports that melted steel was observed at Ground Zero suggest to conspiracy theorists that some other incendiary substance must have been introduced.

Finally, many of the leaders of the movement claim that demolition “squibs” can be seen in videos of the WTC collapse just before and during the time the towers began to fall. In professional demolition lingo, a “squib” is an explosive device used to weaken building structure during a controlled demolition. Several presenters at the conference pointed out small bursts of debris spraying out horizontally from the towers during collapse, and identified these as “squibs” secretly detonated to fell the buildings.

What can we make of these allegations? First, let’s examine the similarity in appearance between the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and the collapse of buildings destroyed through planned demolitions. In controlled demolitions, detonating devices weaken or disrupt all major support points in a building at the same time. Therefore, once the collapse begins, all parts of the building are simultaneously in motion, free-falling to the ground. However, this is definitely not what happens during the collapse of WTC Buildings 1 and 2. Carefully review footage of the collapses, and you will find that the parts of the buildings above the plane impact points begin falling first, while the lower parts of the buildings are initially stationary.3 The parts of the towers below the impact point do not begin to fall until the higher floors have collapsed onto them. This is not what we would expect if the towers collapsed from a controlled demolition, but it is exactly what we would expect if the building collapse resulted from damage sustained by the impact of the planes and subsequent fire damage. A conspiracy theorist may counter that the buildings were rigged to begin falling from the top down, but what are the chances that those planning such a complicated demolition would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers, and prepare the towers to begin falling precisely there?

Additionally, footage of the collapse of the South Tower, or Building 2 reveals that the tower did not fall straight down, as the North Tower and buildings leveled by controlled demolitions typically fall. Instead, the tower tilted toward the direction of the impact point, and then began to pancake downward with the top part of the building tilted at an angle. The difference between the two collapses can be explained by the different way each airplane struck the buildings. The first plane struck the North Tower (Building 1) between the 94th to 98th floors and hit it head on, burrowing almost directly toward the core of the building. The second airplane struck the South Tower between the 78th and 84th floors, but sliced in at an angle, severely damaging the entire northeast corner of the building.4 Compared with the North Tower, the South Tower sustained damage that was both less evenly distributed and significantly lower on the building’s frame, requiring the weakened point to support more upper building weight than the corresponding crash site on the North Tower. This explains both the tilt of the building as it fell toward the weakened corner, and the fact that the South Tower fell first despite being struck after the North Tower was struck. Again, this scenario makes good sense if the buildings fell due to damage inflicted by the plane crashes, but makes very little sense if the buildings fell due to a planned demolition.
The 9/11 Truth Movement often states or implies that steel would have needed to melt in order for the structure to collapse at the speed of a free-fall. While there are varying assessments of the temperature of the fire at WTC, most agree that the temperature probably reached 1,000° Fahrenheit and possibly higher than 1,800° F. Flames of this temperature would be far short of the approximately 2800° F needed to melt steel, but they would have been sufficient to severely reduce the structural integrity of the metal. Best engineering estimates tell us that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650° F, and can lose as much as 90% of its strength at temperatures of 1,800° F.5 Even if we assume temperatures of no higher than 1,000° F during the fire, we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse.

The unique structure of the WTC towers exaggerated the problems caused by the weakened steel. The towers had a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers, with 95% of the structure’s interior consisting of nothing but air (see Figure 1).6 Within this perimeter tube design there was a 27m by 40m core, designed to provide additional support to the tower. Steel trusses, or joists, connected the outer beams to the core at each story, and provided much of the overall support to the weight of each floor. The impact and explosion of the airplane crashes probably knocked off most of the insulating material intended to fireproof the steel beams, considerably increasing their vulnerability to flames. The heat of the flames reduced the steel to a fraction of its initial strength, while also causing the steel trusses to expand at each end until they no longer supported the weight of the building’s floors, triggering the collapse. The expansion and warping of the steel would have been particularly significant due to temperature differences within the burning structure.7 Thus, the trusses went limp much like a slackened laundry line, providing little or no resistance to the weight of the floors overhead.


Figure 1 A cutaway diagram of the
structure of the main towers at WTC
What about the “melted steel” that 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim was at Ground Zero? Dr. Steven Jones’ popular article cites several anecdotal sources speaking about flowing or pooled samples of melted steel found at Ground Zero.8 However, the sources in question are informal observations of “steel” at Ground Zero, not laboratory results.9 To many people, any grayish metal looks sufficiently like steel to call it “steel” when speaking informally. To actually establish that the substance in question is steel, we need analytical laboratory results using atomic absorption (AA) or another suitable test. It seems far more likely that the metal seen by the contractors was aluminum, a component of the WTC structural material that melts at a much lower temperature than steel and can look superficially similar to it. As for the “squibs” conspiracy theorists claim to see in videos of the WTC collapse, these are plumes of smoke and debris ejected from the building due to the immense pressure associated with millions of tons of falling towers (see Figure 2). Videos of the WTC collapse show that these plumes do not begin until after the towers begin falling and increase in intensity as the collapse continues — this is not the scenario one would expect if the plumes were actually explosives used to cause the buildings to fall.

For more please click on http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

Both questions answered.

Can Jamie not be bothered to post on here now, instead of shit-stirring from afar?

Low Mule, very low. This is a civil debate. I brought Den in to add to and improve the discussion. That's hardly the work of Iago.

Jamie Clubb wrote:
Low Mule, very low. This is a civil debate. I brought Den in to add to and improve the discussion.
Yes, I'd say it was 'low' of you.
There's certainly been no addition to civil debate or improvement of discussion.

Yes, I'd say it was 'low' of you. There's certainly been no addition to civil debate or improvement of discussion.

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?

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.

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. All we have done is provide facts and addressed all your points.