144 replies to this topic

[Stundie]

flyingswan, on 26 February 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

No logical fallacy at all.

Oh but I disagree!!

flyingswan, on 26 February 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

An actual hijack and suicide attack just involves the attackers themselves, maybe a few extra helpers.

So these few extra helpers couldn't be from the inside then?? lol

Or does it require hundreds of thousands of people on the inside?

flyingswan, on 26 February 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

An "inside job", however, would require an army of people for everything from demolition set-up to planting eyewitnesses all over New York and Washington.

That depends on how far you think the conspiracy goes doesn't it?

For instance there are people who believe that 9/11 was possibly an inside job, but don't think the towers were demolished, so obviously for their conspiracy, it doesn't require all these planting eyewitnesses all over New York and Washington that you are on about does it?

And lets just assume for a minute that the buildings were demolished, then you are employing another logical fallacy that it would require an army of people.

Didn't you ever see what Timothy McVeigh did to the building in Oklahoma? He nearly totalled the entire building, imaging if he had a friend or two with him with trucks? They could have completely flattened that building which was like 8 stories, all in one morning.

So image what a few McVeighs could do the WTC if they had more experience, time and equipment?

Besides, I digress......

Put it simply, if you believe that no explosives were needed and the towers came down, then logically, only one explosives could have been planted and it would have still happened according to your logic, which kind of shoots down the whole, it requires tons of explosives and lots of men, with many days,weeks, months argument down in flames.

[Habitat]

I suppose the 1998 World Trade centre bombing can be woven into the " 9/11 Conspiracy ". Where there's a will, there's a way.

[flyingswan]

Stundie, on 27 February 2011 - 11:16 PM, said:

Look at that, they manage to keep that one secret until wikileaks uncovers it. Another group of hijackers, kept that one secret didn't they?

Er, what precise conspiracy theory is that supposed to support?

[flyingswan]

Stundie, on 27 February 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:

For instance there are people who believe that 9/11 was possibly an inside job, but don't think the towers were demolished, so obviously for their conspiracy, it doesn't require all these planting eyewitnesses all over New York and Washington that you are on about does it?

And lets just assume for a minute that the buildings were demolished, then you are employing another logical fallacy that it would require an army of people.

Didn't you ever see what Timothy McVeigh did to the building in Oklahoma? He nearly totalled the entire building, imaging if he had a friend or two with him with trucks? They could have completely flattened that building which was like 8 stories, all in one morning.
.
.
.
Put it simply, if you believe that no explosives were needed and the towers came down, then logically, only one explosives could have been planted and it would have still happened according to your logic, which kind of shoots down the whole, it requires tons of explosives and lots of men, with many days,weeks, months argument down in flames.

If you have this idea of an "inside job" which is so radically different from most "truthers", I suggest you debate it with them.  However, the "inside job" as generally proposed in this forum is considerably different.  In particular, such a scheme as you propose means that most of the "evidence" for controlled demolition no longer supports the "inside job" case.

[Stundie]

flyingswan, on 28 February 2011 - 12:04 PM, said:

Er, what precise conspiracy theory is that supposed to support?

Well somebody decided to keep this news quiet didn't they until Wikileaks unburied it? So someone or some people conspired to keep this knowledge from the public domain. Plug in your own theory as to why?

However you did say, "All those leaks and not one conspiracy theory confirmed" when the reality is that there were plenty of conspiracies confirmed....

Cover up of US airstrikes in Yemen

WikiLeaks Exposes Pfizer’s Cover Up Of The Deaths Of Innocent Children

WikiLeaks Reveals Cover Up of Contractor Crimes

There's plenty more conspiracy theories but those few disprove your statement.

[Stundie]

flyingswan, on 28 February 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

If you have this idea of an "inside job" which is so radically different from most "truthers", I suggest you debate it with them.

But truthers have many different ideas and theories about what happened on 9/11.

Some of them think that no planes hit the towers, some of them do.
Some of them think that the WTC were rigged with explosives, some of them don't.
Some of them think that space beams were used, some of them don't
Some of them think that UA93 was shot down, some of them don't.

These truthers as you label them are individuals, they all have their own thoughts about what or what didn't happen on 9/11, but one thing they all agree on is that the official story doesn't add up.

I don't need to debate it with them because I agree with them that the official story doesn't add up, even if I don't believe it was space beams that destroyed the WTC.  

flyingswan, on 28 February 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

However, the "inside job" as generally proposed in this forum is considerably different.

The word "generally" is where the problem lies, you are generalising.  

flyingswan, on 28 February 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

In particular, such a scheme as you propose means that most of the "evidence" for controlled demolition no longer supports the "inside job" case.

It's a not a scheme, or even a theory and I don't know how you have concluded the ideas that I propose no longer supports the inside job case? lol

What it does is highlight the logical fallacies which are employed and used as reasons to reject a controlled demolition theory. Let me simplify it...

Argument: It requires a large amount of explosives to bring down the WTC?
Logical Fallacy: Arguer believes that none were needed in their theory, so therefore the argument that it requires a large amount of explosives is invalid.

Argument: It would take too many men to rig the towers with explosives.
Logical Fallacy: Arguer believes that no explosives were needed in their theory, so therefore the argument that it requires many men is invalid.
Other Logical Fallacy: Arguer (Probably) believes that McVeegh blew up the OKC Building on his own, so one man could plant explosives or a few men in the WTC.

Do you get the point??

[flyingswan]

Stundie, on 28 February 2011 - 10:13 PM, said:

But truthers have many different ideas and theories about what happened on 9/11.

Which in itself suggests that they are just making things up as they go along, rather than looking at the evidence.  They say the official story must be wrong, but they can't agree why.  Truthers really do need to get a consistent scenario, rather than arguing different scenarios and accusing each other of being government stooges.  To put it mildly, it detracts from their credibility.

Quote

It's a not a scheme, or even a theory and I don't know how you have concluded the ideas that I propose no longer supports the inside job case? lol

What it does is highlight the logical fallacies which are employed and used as reasons to reject a controlled demolition theory. Let me simplify it...

Argument: It requires a large amount of explosives to bring down the WTC?
Logical Fallacy: Arguer believes that none were needed in their theory, so therefore the argument that it requires a large amount of explosives is invalid.

Argument: It would take too many men to rig the towers with explosives.
Logical Fallacy: Arguer believes that no explosives were needed in their theory, so therefore the argument that it requires many men is invalid.
Other Logical Fallacy: Arguer (Probably) believes that McVeegh blew up the OKC Building on his own, so one man could plant explosives or a few men in the WTC.

Do you get the point??

I see, you are claiming that all the "looks like a conventional controlled demolition, so that's what it was" arguments are wrong, because it was a single explosive charge which would look nothing like what actually happened.  If you really think you can replicate the details of the collapses with a single charge, you need to do a lot more explaining than you have so far.

[flyingswan]

Stundie, on 28 February 2011 - 09:51 PM, said:

Well somebody decided to keep this news quiet didn't they until Wikileaks unburied it? So someone or some people conspired to keep this knowledge from the public domain. Plug in your own theory as to why?

However you did say, "All those leaks and not one conspiracy theory confirmed" when the reality is that there were plenty of conspiracies confirmed....

Cover up of US airstrikes in Yemen

WikiLeaks Exposes Pfizer’s Cover Up Of The Deaths Of Innocent Children

WikiLeaks Reveals Cover Up of Contractor Crimes

There's plenty more conspiracy theories but those few disprove your statement.

Yeah, really big conspiracy theories revealed.  They been all over this forum for years - NOT.

You need to learn the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory.

Edited by flyingswan, 01 March 2011 - 01:07 PM.

[el midgetron]

flyingswan, on 01 March 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

Which in itself suggests that they are just making things up as they go along, rather than looking at the evidence.  They say the official story must be wrong, but they can't agree why.  Truthers really do need to get a consistent scenario, rather than arguing different scenarios and accusing each other of being government stooges.  To put it mildly, it detracts from their credibility.

  Its obviously a foreign concept to you but people actually think for themselves. Theres only one person on this planet that I feel the need to agree with.

I think you might have highlighted what faults a percentage of the supporters of the official story. They begin with the belief that they were told the truth about 911 and conform to that belief system without the need for further critical thought or question.

In your own words, you believe agreeing with a consistant idea shared by others is where "credibility" comes from. At that point, whats the need for cognitive thought or evidence to base your views on, or even to use as the basis of the larger idea?

[Faeden]

Bracket, on 23 February 2011 - 01:03 AM, said:

I simply agree with that. Anything big WOULD be found out. I mean, government officials can't even keep their affairs secret,and those happen between 2 people in a closed room.  

You think our politicians are the direct administrators of the conspiracies? They are just moronic puppets with little direct influence in the agenda itself.

Anyway onto my view on this...

I would say an intelligent person should only believe in a conspiracy theory if it becomes a fact and when it becomes the truth. No one should believe in any theory 100% until evidence has been found, or the theory is played out, or is playing out being it is simply that, just a theory.

Some conspiracy theories that were laughed at in the past turned out to be true, so it would also be idiocy to write off every conspiracy theory as hokum just because you have a grudge against "tin hat types" or fear out side of the box thinkers. I am not talking about illogical theories here like the flat earth kind of claims, only ones that can happen in reality, like governmental, war based, fascist, or political conspiracies etc.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

el midgetron, on 01 March 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

  Its obviously a foreign concept to you but people actually think for themselves. Theres only one person on this planet that I feel the need to agree with.

I think you might have highlighted what faults a percentage of the supporters of the official story. They begin with the belief that they were told the truth about 911 and conform to that belief system without the need for further critical thought or question.

In your own words, you believe agreeing with a consistant idea shared by others is where "credibility" comes from. At that point, whats the need for cognitive thought or evidence to base your views on, or even to use as the basis of the larger idea?

I agree with you there, and I do agree that different people having different views is a very healthy thing. However, I do often get the feeling from the pages of this very forum that if you have doubts about the 9/11 Official Version (which, even though this isn't a 9/11 thread, is the one we invariably seem to end up arguing about, it's like Roswell), that isn't enough and you have to go for the whole remote-control-switched-planes-demolition shebang. And that, as i've remarked previously, is what I think perhaps puts people off from wondering about it; if they do have doubts, then they may think they they'd have to put them aside if they can't believe in the whole enormous plot.

[el midgetron]

747400, on 01 March 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

I agree with you there, and I do agree that different people having different views is a very healthy thing. However, I do often get the feeling from the pages of this very forum that if you have doubts about the 9/11 Official Version (which, even though this isn't a 9/11 thread, is the one we invariably seem to end up arguing about, it's like Roswell), that isn't enough and you have to go for the whole remote-control-switched-planes-demolition shebang. And that, as i've remarked previously, is what I think perhaps puts people off from wondering about it; if they do have doubts, then they may think they they'd have to put them aside if they can't believe in the whole enormous plot.

If there is a consistency in "truthers" that Flyingswan hopes for, its that they are all asking questions. Its that they want answers and don't believe we have been told the truth.

To be honest, I feel like to much discussion is spent on things like controlled demolition and the planes. Its not that I don't think those things have their merits but they all to often end up dominating the conspiracy dialog with details like the melting point of steel. Personally, I would perfer more attention given to things like the words and actions of the administration.

In contrast, I think its usually evidence related to the towers and the planes that causes people to first question 911. It was in my case and it seems to be the focus of alot of the more well known 911 conspiracy films.

I can't say I can relate to your comment about your experience here at UM but... I am from the other side of the debate. Believe it or not, I belong to another forum where my views regarding things (in the conspiracy sphere) have been attacked one more than one occasion as being disinfo or sheeple-ish (I have very fequently seen it happen to others there as well). Yet, here at UM I wear the pants of a full blown nutter...   And its not that I think the folks at the other forum are "nuts" but I think alot of them digest things with a foregone conclusion.

In the end, theres always gonna be someone who says you're wrong and they probably won't be very tactful...

Edited by el midgetron, 02 March 2011 - 04:59 AM.

[Stundie]

flyingswan, on 01 March 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

Which in itself suggests that they are just making things up as they go along, rather than looking at the evidence.  

No it doesn't! lol

I love how you form these conclusions which are based on nothing more than your preconceived ideas.

What it suggests is that these people are individuals who look at the evidence and form their own opinions.

flyingswan, on 01 March 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

They say the official story must be wrong, but they can't agree why.

They do AGREE why the official story is wrong, what they do not agree on is an alternative hypothesis.

But they just because they can't agree on an alternative hypothesis and work out how something was exactly done, that doesn't mean the official story is therefore still true.

What a pathetic argument.  

flyingswan, on 01 March 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

Truthers really do need to get a consistent scenario, rather than arguing different scenarios and accusing each other of being government stooges.

No they don't, it's not their job to investigate 9/11. They can have as many different scenarios as they like, but if the original one is proven incorrect, it's still incorrect regardless of how many ideas are suggested, even if they are whacky as you might put it. lol

flyingswan, on 01 March 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

To put it mildly, it detracts from their credibility.

Even if truthers agreed on a unified theory, they would still receive the same amount of credibility as you give them right now...lol

Which is none! lol

flyingswan, on 01 March 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

I see, you are claiming that all the "looks like a conventional controlled demolition, so that's what it was" arguments are wrong, because it was a single explosive charge which would look nothing like what actually happened.

Where am I claiming that?? lol

Oh that's right, I'm not, but somehow this is what you are concluding from my argument...lol

Arguments made of strawmen will be burnt down I'm afraid. lol

flyingswan, on 01 March 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

If you really think you can replicate the details of the collapses with a single charge, you need to do a lot more explaining than you have so far.

And again, I don't recall ever saying this, but hilariously, you have failed to take note of the logical fallacy.

If you can replicate this without a single charge as I'm guessing you think you could, then I do not see why it needs explaining to you that it could also be done with a single 1lb charge of low grade explosive placed in a bin on any random floor, in any random location.

Because according to your logic, the conditions for the collapse have already been met WITHOUT explosives.

So any explosives I add and regardless where I put them, the building still would collapse by your logic.

Unless you think that by adding explosives, that the building would somehow resist collapse now?  

[flyingswan]

Stundie, on 02 March 2011 - 10:47 AM, said:

What it suggests is that these people are individuals who look at the evidence and form their own opinions.

If the "evidence" was consistent one would expect an agreed hypothesis that explained it.  The fact that truthers argue among themselves suggests that they are picking which things they like and which things they don't on some other basis than evidence.

Quote

They do AGREE why the official story is wrong, what they do not agree on is an alternative hypothesis.

So what is the evidence that the official story is wrong, what is the agreed piece of evidence that falsifys it?

Quote

But they just because they can't agree on an alternative hypothesis and work out how something was exactly done, that doesn't mean the official story is therefore still true.

Neither does it disprove the official story.

Quote

No they don't, it's not their job to investigate 9/11. They can have as many different scenarios as they like, but if the original one is proven incorrect, it's still incorrect regardless of how many ideas are suggested, even if they are whacky as you might put it. lol
Even if truthers agreed on a unified theory, they would still receive the same amount of credibility as you give them right now...lol

Which is none! lol

Because you haven't shown that the official story is wrong.  You all claim that it is, but you argue about why.  If there was a "smoking gun", you'd all agree on it.

Quote

Oh that's right, I'm not, but somehow this is what you are concluding from my argument...lol

You seem to be claiming that a single explosion could bring down each building, but you don't explain how.  Unless you do, your claim is just pointless speculation.  It could have been nano thermite, or a death ray, or remote-control airliners or any of the many ways proposed, but "could have been" isn't proof of anything.  The official story has a detailed collapse mechanism for each building that fits facts like the observed bowing of the walls of the Towers or the penthouse collapse of WTC7.  Any alternative must not just poke holes in this, but also show how it fits these observations.

Quote

And again, I don't recall ever saying this, but hilariously, you have failed to take note of the logical fallacy.

If you can replicate this without a single charge as I'm guessing you think you could, then I do not see why it needs explaining to you that it could also be done with a single 1lb charge of low grade explosive placed in a bin on any random floor, in any random location.

If the structures were that near to collapse, you wouldn't need an explosion at all. Either you need a big demolition effort because impact/fire isn't enough, or you accept the official story.

[flyingswan]

el midgetron, on 01 March 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

  Its obviously a foreign concept to you but people actually think for themselves. Theres only one person on this planet that I feel the need to agree with.

I think you might have highlighted what faults a percentage of the supporters of the official story. They begin with the belief that they were told the truth about 911 and conform to that belief system without the need for further critical thought or question.

In your own words, you believe agreeing with a consistant idea shared by others is where "credibility" comes from. At that point, whats the need for cognitive thought or evidence to base your views on, or even to use as the basis of the larger idea?

You seem to be completely missing the point I'm making.  I'm not saying that people are not entitled to their opinions, I'm saying that if people do not agree about a factual matter then you can look at those facts and see who's idea matches the facts and who doesn't.  If there are a lot of different interpretations of a set of facts, then it stands to reason that most of the interpretations are wrong.

It's not agreeing with others that gives an idea credibility, it's agreeing with evidence.

You can argue about whether some course of action is right or wrong and get people who can justifiably have different viewpoints, but if you argue whether an event took place or not, there is only one view that is right.

Edited by flyingswan, 02 March 2011 - 02:12 PM.