Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?

reply to post by evil incarnate

The burden of proof is upon you

i think this, is what would be correct.even more so for the govt..
they make these extrordinary claims. nobody should believe anything
until they prove it. i don't believe that's what happened so prove it.
simple, just that no one makes the govt. prove anything.
they seem be able to say believe it or not.
dosn't even seem to matter to them
much. scary

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It would be an interesting study to find out just how often that expert opinion was right vs the opinions of non-experts.

Actually there are experts on both sides of this issue. And all of the issues I had in mind had similar two-way splits in which the majority all sided with a pre-conceived notion and were wrong. The first 2 or 3 USS Maine investigations were one example, Gulf of Tonkin was another and heliocentric theory was another. You seem to think that faith in a majority opinion is equivalent to demonstrable fact, which is never the case. Where are the polls that establish the majority opinions anyway? The actual statistics?

reply to post by jthomas

If you continue to evade doing that, and this is only your first exercise, then you will be on record of not being able to support any claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

since proving a neg. is what you insist upon. a highly qualified
witness is what you're gonna have to settle for.

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski A Pentagon eye-witness and a former member of the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret), is a severe critic of the official account of 9/11. A contributing author to the 2006 book 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, she wrote, “I believe the [9/11] Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research

She continued, “It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics.”

Col. Kwiatkowski was working in the Pentagon on 9/11 in her capacity as Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense when Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon. She wrote, “There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Secretary of Defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile.’ [Secretary Rumsfeld also publicly referred to Flight 93 as the plane that was "shot down" over Pennsylvania.]

“I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... [A]ll of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

credit pegasus

“The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight

“The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ... More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day.”

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

Yet I have asked you to provide any evidence whatsoever that a plane hit the pentagon from the first 5 minutes of the alleged crash and you have also been able to do so.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by jprophet420]

Already addressed.

The burden of proof still remains on you to address and refute ALL of the evidence demonstrating that AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

Since you have provided no positive evidence demonstrating AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon and haven't yet addressed the questions I have on the table concerning that evidence, it is meaningless for you to attempt - once again - to shift the burden of proof from your shoulders.

Since you have provided no positive evidence demonstrating AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon...

Just that right there furthers the case of the OP miles good sir. I've made my point in this thread, or rather, you have.

JP

Originally posted by bsbray11

Actually there are experts on both sides of this issue.

No there isn't. Experts like the members of CTBUH agree with NIST. Truthers have guys that MIGHT have some experience, but are certainly not expert.

You seem to think that faith in a majority opinion is equivalent to demonstrable fact, which is never the case.

And you seem to think that the opinion of non experts, that haven't had the access to the evidence and the resources that NIST had, holds any weight.

reply to post by tezzajw


a truther, heh... I had to stop there and stop reading, your immediate bias is pretty funny, I guess I'm a falser by that logic, but I'm not, because your logic is flawed.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by Razimus]

Originally posted by Razimus
a truther, heh... I had to stop there and stop reading, your immediate bias is pretty funny, I guess I'm a falser by that logic, but I'm not, because your logic is flawed.

Thanks for your ill-informed and pointless contribution to this thread.

Maybe next time you'll read it through before you decide to post something as meaningless as you did.

You show your bias by not even trying to read the thread.

Originally posted by jthomas
I've already reminded you that the burden of proof is on your shoulders, evil incarnate:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

NOW, present the evidence of what the wreckage was from inside the Pentagon that over 1,000 people saw, handled, removed, and/or sorted openly on the Pentagon lawn in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11.

If you continue to evade doing that, and this is only your first exercise, then you will be on record of not being able to support any claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

Get to work.

Let me try this again. My appologies but the site went down for maintenance as I was trying to respond and well, you see the result.

Anyway...What?????????????????

How in the world is the burden of proof on me?

The burden to prove what?

Anyone with half a brain knows that the burden of proof never falls on the negative, it falls on the claim. I never claimed flight 77 flew into the pentagon. You did. You cannot prove that it did so you are trying to twist it around on me. Your premise is illogical and I would like to think far more stupid that you actually are. It must be a tactic or a joke, you cannot be serious.

You prove flight 77 flew into the pentagon.

What is it you think I am supposed to be proving to you again? That you are wrong? Well you first have to prove what you say happend happend because I never once said that anything happend at all.

Please tell me that you are not even serious with this. The only reason you would even try to claim that the burden of proof is on me is because you are so brainwashed by your OS that you cannot even think anymore. Ever had an independant thought about anything?

Sorry but you lose here. I have no claim to prove. You do.

You cliaim flight 77 flew into the pentagon.

Prove it or admit that you cannot (again.)

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

Yet I have asked you to provide any evidence whatsoever that a plane hit the pentagon from the first 5 minutes of the alleged crash and you have also been able to do so.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by jprophet420]

Already addressed.

Addressed and dodged are not the same thing. You know you have no proof of your claim so you keep trying to turn it around. This thread is not about the pentagon, or proof, or your ego.Why are you even in this thread demanding someone prove a negative while you completely refuse to prove your claims????????? This thread is about how illogical people like you are and asking us all to prove something did NOT happen is impossible. It will not happen. The really bad part is though, that you insist that you are right even though you cannot prove your claims at all. Re-read the OP and try to get on topic or get lost.

The burden of proof still remains on you to address and refute ALL of the evidence demonstrating that AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

Since you have provided no positive evidence demonstrating AA 77 did not hit the Pentagon and haven't yet addressed the questions I have on the table concerning that evidence, it is meaningless for you to attempt - once again - to shift the burden of proof from your shoulders.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

Actually there are experts on both sides of this issue.

No there isn't. Experts like the members of CTBUH agree with NIST. Truthers have guys that MIGHT have some experience, but are certainly not expert.

expert :

noun
A person with a high degree of knowledge or skill in a particular field

www.answers.com...


I'm not even going there with you. Suffice it to say I consider people like Charles Pegelow experts relative to their fields.

You seem to think that faith in a majority opinion is equivalent to demonstrable fact, which is never the case.

And you seem to think that the opinion of non experts,

So you're not denying that you're trying to say the majority opinion is logically automatically the best?

that haven't had the access to the evidence and the resources that NIST had, holds any weight

No one had the access NIST had except FEMA and NIST, and the best they had to offer in the end was an untested hypothesis and a ton of unanswered questions and un-investigated angles, that everyone has been inherently hostile to even thinking about since day 1.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Suffice it to say I consider people like Charles Pegelow experts relative to their fields.

His field is oil rigs.

One thing I noticed about his paper, it has no positive statements, only questions.

But I guess to a troofer, the only thing that makes him a "relative expert" is that he asks questions, right? It doesn't reaaly matter if there's any basis beyond "I don't believe (insert appropriate phrase here)."

Would you want him, or one of the members of the CTBUH designing a tall apartment block that your family was going to live in?

Answer truthfully, not trooffully, if you're able....

Hmm, this is an....interesting....thread.
It seems to me that I basically just wasted a half hour on what pretty much equates to keeping my eye on the ball in an EXTREMELY long volley in tennis.

For those stating that there is no official story: WHAT??!?! Between the 9/11 Commission Report, NIST, and the MSM feeding us scraps from both reports over time, it's pretty obvious that there IS a government-sanctioned official story. How this could be in any way denied or questioned is beyond me, as both reports are readily available to all who are interested.

I'm also very surprised that no one has yet mentioned www.ae911truth.org ,
as architects and engineers would be far more knowledgeable about structures under a state of duress than 99% of us most likely.
We could also get into the evidence of thermate in the WTC rubble(which many have attempted to discount as paint remnants(LOL) among other things), the steel that remained molten long after 9/11, the very peculiar absence of wreckage at both the Pentagon & Flight 93 crash site. There are FAR too many holes in the "official" account of 9/11 for anyone with even the SLIGHTEST shred of curiousity to believe it. I have a hard time buying that a handful of guys, being directed behind the scenes by some fellas in a cave halfway across the world, simultaneously hijacked airplanes (which they couldn't have flown) with box cutters, and miraculously flew these birds into predetermined targets. Tell me again, how does one navigate an airplane when one has extremely limited flying experience? I have a hard time understanding how a person could receive minimal instruction in flying a single-engine airplane, and then suddenly be able to fly a multi-engined behemoth.

TOO MANY HOLES.

I want the whole story, and i'm sure that we can all agree on that much.
Bickering, labeling, and name-calling are unproductive and lame to the nth.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by mpriebe81]

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Here is a little semi off topic side quest for you. Go find a website or application that measures the reading level of inputted text. Go and input things written by people who use the word "twoofer" or any variation, and then input the text of the "conspiracy theorist" they are "debating". I'm sure you will be amazed that the "twoofers" in question invariably have a greater understanding of the english language. And in such cases like our resident self-debunker jthomas, the comprehension will not match the writing.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by jprophet420

Here is a little semi off topic side quest for you. Go find a website or application that measures the reading level of [size=6inputed]inputed text. Go and input things written by people who use the word "twoofer" or any variation, and then input the text of the "conspiracy theorist" they are "debating". I'm sure you will be amazed that the "twoofers" in question invariably have a greater understanding of the englishlanguage. And in such cases like our resident self-debunker jthomas, the comprehension will not match the writing.

Oh, obviously.

You guys are real deft with the English language.

Your spelling and use of capitalization rocks too.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
His field is oil rigs.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Oil rigs" isn't even a sub-field of structural engineering. He is a structural engineer. That's what his expertise is because that's what he does for a living, and has done for a good number of years, including large and expensive projects. His opinions are still his opinions but he is an expert in his field, which is structural engineering. I would be completely confident in his work. He is legally responsible for everything he does.

reply to post by tezzajw


because most skeptics are not that intelligent......they just think they are....hence the ego, arrogance...


There are few real honorable true skeptics that believers actually admire for their honesty....



I love an honest skeptic who is open minded to the fact that everything they assume could be and possibly is wrong....


Most are ....sorry if this is mean.......arrogant and ignorant..

it seems if they can't understand it then it is not true....

God forbid they ever realize they could be wrong.....I think their head would explode...

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
reply to post by tezzajw

 

because most skeptics are not that intelligent......they just think they are....hence the ego, arrogance...

You know, that is a good point. I never really thought about it these people do seem to show more arrogance than knowledge. JoeyTamonoli was a good example, like CameronFox(throatyogurt) but with even less actual info and far less real knowledge. Thomas too, arrogance is definately a shared trait here. I do not know why I never realized how much that one trait outshined all others.

Maybe I just have not looked around enough but I am fairly certain that there are next to 0 places here where you can find people from both sides of this discussion actually discussing it.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

tr.v. in·put·ted or in·put, in·put·ting, in·puts Computer Science
To enter (data or a program) into a computer.

Did you illogically generalize me as a twoofer because I used a word that you thought was made up but turned out not to be? Sure looks like it. My bad on not capitalizing English.