Unanswered questions in regards to 9/11[W:762]

[Mark F]

Actually - if we think about it and get the logic the right way round - the true situation is that no one has shown reasonable doubt.

...it is beyond reasonable doubt unless someone shows reasonable doubt.

True dat.

 

[ozeco41]

True dat.

Wouldn't normally need to point out the "burden of proof' issue but.......:roll:

...some folks around here sometimes lose sight of the basics

 

[Fledermaus]

Now if only you could prove that beyond a reasonable doubt....:lol:

It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The problem is reasoning is a skill not shared by so many TRUTHERS.

BTW - Got GROUND EFFECT?

 

[ozeco41]

Said as though you've ever actually got to that level of specificity.

It needs someone interested in honest reasoned debate who will follow a rational process:
1) Start by identifying and agreeing to the claim to be discussed;
2) Outline and agree the context;
3) Define any necessary and valid assumptions;
4) Then step by step assemble and discuss stages of logical reasoning needed to build a valid case.


Specificity is required at all stages - to the level needed by that stage - and not just at stage 4 where the details come into play.

The concept of "reasoned discussion" seems to be beyond the comprehension of many. And it is pointless specifying details if the other party is not interested, not honest OR simply keeps shifting goalposts in serial evasions. Or determined to not even say what their claim is.

 

[Mark F]

Wouldn't normally need to point out the "burden of proof' issue but.......:roll:

...some folks around here sometimes lose sight of the basics

Its like a parent who stays home with the kids all the time. Sometimes you just need to talk with an adult.

 

[BmanMcfly]

It needs someone interested in honest reasoned debate who will follow a rational process:
1) Start by identifying and agreeing to the claim to be discussed;
2) Outline and agree the context;
3) Define any necessary and valid assumptions;
4) Then step by step assemble and discuss stages of logical reasoning needed to build a valid case.


Specificity is required at all stages - to the level needed by that stage - and not just at stage 4 where the details come into play.

The concept of "reasoned discussion" seems to be beyond the comprehension of many. And it is pointless specifying details if the other party is not interested, not honest OR simply keeps shifting goalposts in serial evasions. Or determined to not even say what their claim is.

Right, so, because you have a demonstrated track record showing a lack of interest in honest reasoned debate, I won't hold my breath.

I know, you can only have reasonable and honest debate with those that agree with you. It's ok.

 

[Fledermaus]

Right, so, because you have a demonstrated track record showing a lack of interest in honest reasoned debate, I won't hold my breath.

I know, you can only have reasonable and honest debate with those that agree with you. It's ok.

Repeated....

It needs someone interested in honest reasoned debate who will follow a rational process:
1) Start by identifying and agreeing to the claim to be discussed;
2) Outline and agree the context;
3) Define any necessary and valid assumptions;
4) Then step by step assemble and discuss stages of logical reasoning needed to build a valid case.

Your idea of "honest debate" is to lie about what others post, spam claims that have long been debunked, and remain intentionally ambiguous as to what your are currently talking about.

I can see why you refuse to debate under the above guidelines...

Harder to GISH.

 

[Mark F]

Repeated....

It needs someone interested in honest reasoned debate who will follow a rational process:
1) Start by identifying and agreeing to the claim to be discussed;
2) Outline and agree the context;
3) Define any necessary and valid assumptions;
4) Then step by step assemble and discuss stages of logical reasoning needed to build a valid case.

Your idea of "honest debate" is to lie about what others post, spam claims that have long been debunked, and remain intentionally ambiguous as to what your are currently talking about.

I can see why you refuse to debate under the above guidelines...

Harder to GISH.

That post was not even worthy of response.

 

[Fledermaus]

That post was not even worthy of response.

Repeating Oz's guidelines was worthy.

And far better worded than I can produce.

I think every Bman post can be responded to with Oz's four points.

 

[mike2810]

Right, so, because you have a demonstrated track record showing a lack of interest in honest reasoned debate, I won't hold my breath.

I know, you can only have reasonable and honest debate with those that agree with you. It's ok.

Nice attack BM.

Your last statement seems to apply to you also. I gave up trying to carry a discussion with you. No real straight answers.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Nice attack BM.

Your last statement seems to apply to you also. I gave up trying to carry a discussion with you. No real straight answers.

This is not always false, what I do is I start by assuming the best, until I'm proven wrong... Then I just return the attitude in kind.

You may not know the sequence; but what happened was that, while he was going through his perspective I was asking detailed questions. I was getting detailed answers, that's when I noticed an issue with the progression proposed. From that point, I have yet to see but blatant games and a superiority complex... I have tried to get him to return to that honest discussion, and he continues the same games.

I've also pointed out a favoured tactic of his, that is a form of gas lighting, where he will attack by accusing you of the tactic his is currently using. What this does is it, in his mind, preempts him from having this tactic pointed out without appearing childish in the process.

This is a straight answer.

 

[ozeco41]

Nice attack BM.

Your last statement seems to apply to you also. I gave up trying to carry a discussion with you. No real straight answers.

Are you suggesting that his comments - which are projections of his own shortcomings - actually apply to me....also. :roll:

I thought not.

 

[Kanzaki]

Nice attack BM.

Your last statement seems to apply to you also. I gave up trying to carry a discussion with you. No real straight answers.

Careful, someone might get curious and start asking him questions on that whole matter of spontaneously arguing strawmen and accusing people who press issues too hard of plagiarism

 

[Fledermaus]

Careful, someone might get curious and start asking him questions on that whole matter of spontaneously arguing strawmen and accusing people of plagiarism...

And if someone does, they should prepare to be ignored.

 

[Fledermaus]

This is not always false, <snipped the nonsense>.

Have you any unanswered questions?

And if so, do they undermine the core concepts of what some call the "Official Conspiracy Theory"?

 

[ozeco41]

Repeating Oz's guidelines was worthy.

And far better worded than I can produce.

And concise. The advantage of making simple honest and valid points. Rather than rebutting the multiple level dishonesties of the never ending personal attack posts.

AND it avoids the need for posts near the 5000 character post limit which are needed to rigorously parse, carve up and spit out the resulting mincemeat of those posts.

Especially since he disregards any efforts made to assist him out of his delusional positions - whether false claims about what I never did OR false claims about what he alleges he did....when he didn't. (And that cumbersome sentence construction was deliberate. If you cannot beat them why not join them. Except I cannot get down to kindergarten level untruthfulness...it is far easier to write mature adult objective reasoned responses....if there is anything defined clearly enough to discuss...)

I think every Bman post can be responded to with Oz's four points.

They are just the basic rules of courteous forum discussion - re-written in my words. Nothing special about my words. BUT they do highlight the shortcomings of a lot of postings.

Here let's test the FIRST one:
"1) Start by identifying and agreeing to the claim to be discussed;"

Has Bman made it clear the he is addressing the topic? OR identified clearly a variant on the topic that he prefers to discuss?

 

[ozeco41]

Have you any unanswered questions?

And if so, do they undermine the core concepts of what some call the "Official Conspiracy Theory"?

What a revolutionary concept.

"Discuss the OP."

I doubt that it will become popular. :doh

F'watitswurth I am not aware of any genuine, honest, unresolved questions that undermine the core concepts of what some call the "Official Conspiracy Theory".

Which is a significantly different question to "do you have any questions where you do not understand why they do not undermine the core concepts of what some call the "Official Conspiracy Theory?"


And - if we ever get serious answers - we need to avoid the false dichotomy. So a third question is needed:
"are you falsely claiming that you do not understand..." [/SmartArseMode]

 

[BmanMcfly]

Are you suggesting that his comments - which are projections of his own shortcomings - actually apply to me....also. :roll:

I thought not.

Lol... You're the one who stopped giving straight answers and playing games the SECOND I started to question you on your hypothesis of collapse.

Haven't got an honest answer out of you since. So, say what you want, you broke your own credibility when you showed how poor you handled scrutiny.

That was when I gave your position greater weight than apparently merited because you are an engineer.

 

[Mark F]

Lol... You're the one who stopped giving straight answers and playing games the SECOND I started to question you on your hypothesis of collapse.

Haven't got an honest answer out of you since. So, say what you want, you broke your own credibility when you showed how poor you handled scrutiny.

That was when I gave your position greater weight than apparently merited because you are an engineer.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say that is not even remotely what happened. You may be fooling yourself, but I seriously doubt anyone else (except maybe Bob) is going to fall for it.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Ok, unanswered questions :

What could have people so fundamentally opposed to a new investigation, when they themselves make every effort to distance themselves from the only actual investigation because of its many admitted flaws?

Especially given the confidence in the finding, you would expect people would have desired a new investigation, if only to shut up the critics?

(This is asked with the acceptance that there will not ever be a investigation)

Hopefully this doesn't distract from you guys blowing smoke up each other's arses for too long.

 

[mike2810]

This is not always false, what I do is I start by assuming the best, until I'm proven wrong... Then I just return the attitude in kind.

You may not know the sequence; but what happened was that, while he was going through his perspective I was asking detailed questions. I was getting detailed answers, that's when I noticed an issue with the progression proposed. From that point, I have yet to see but blatant games and a superiority complex... I have tried to get him to return to that honest discussion, and he continues the same games.

I've also pointed out a favoured tactic of his, that is a form of gas lighting, where he will attack by accusing you of the tactic his is currently using. What this does is it, in his mind, preempts him from having this tactic pointed out without appearing childish in the process.

This is a straight answer.

Strange.

I do not recall ever calling you a name, slamming your sources (when you supply any). What I have done is ask you questions, point out where I disagree with your post, and at times suggest for example research investigation methods.

What i see from you is when someone presses details from you, ask detailed questions, you rarely provide a straight answer.

But I do appreciate your last post.

 

[mike2810]

Are you suggesting that his comments - which are projections of his own shortcomings - actually apply to me....also. :roll:

I thought not.

No. He made the statement towards you. I was just noting its applies to him.

 

[ozeco41]

No. He made the statement towards you. I was just noting its applies to him.

I understood. Just having fun with the ambiguity.

Contrary to some truther/troll opinions this is a fun hobby. :roll:

 

[ozeco41]

I think I speak for everyone here when I say that is not even remotely what happened. You may be fooling yourself, but I seriously doubt anyone else (except maybe Bob) is going to fall for it.

Agreed. Add one member who will pretend and one who - if he is up to speed - will project with ambiguity.

 

[Mark F]

Ok, unanswered questions :

What could have people so fundamentally opposed to a new investigation, when they themselves make every effort to distance themselves from the only actual investigation because of its many admitted flaws?

Especially given the confidence in the finding, you would expect people would have desired a new investigation, if only to shut up the critics?

I assume you are referring to 7 World Trade Center specifically? You don't make that clear but I will run on that assumption and you can correct me if I am wrong.

The simple fact is, 7 collapsed due to prolonged exposure to un-fought fires well in excess of the buildings design safety limits. This known fact has been known since before the building even collapsed and there is no significant disagreement on this fact from the FDNY, the City of New York, the buildings owners, the buildings insurers, CTBUH, ASCE or NIST. What NIST tried to do is add to our knowledge base by trying to identify the specific point of failure that initiated collapse. Their investigation created a Probable Collapse Scenario that is plausible. Contrary to Truther mythology this conclusion is not etched in stone for the simple reason it is beyond unlikely that any investigation could reach a definitive conclusion with the limited evidence available. You may agree or disagree with NIST's conclusions on this detail of collapse initiation (most of us here I think either disagree or at least have reservations) but even if you remove the NIST report from the picture completely the null hypothesis remains fire + time + gravity = collapse.

CT's I think have this fantasy of falsify NIST = prove CD, which is of course complete nonsense.

No plausible alternative has ever been put forward, by anyone, ever (that most definitely includes you). There is no new evidence any new investigation could use to reach a fundamentally different conclusion than fire-induced collapse. Building 7 was not a terrorist target. Therefore, what exactly is it a new investigation is supposed to investigate and why? Is the purpose of this new investigation just to shut up critics, which consist of a tiny lunatic fringe minority who will automatically reject any conclusion that does not fit their own personal brand of reality-distortion?

Is that really worthwhile?