The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9321  Postby felltoearth » Oct 05, 2017 8:14 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Funnily enough, GrahamH seems to think that even if some 'facts' claimed in the post have been debunked, it is still valid:

"Irrespective of whether the site refers to sources that may have been 'debunked' on some issues..."


The quotes around the word debunked seems to suggest that there is some doubt about the claim to debunking.

And it's helpful to read the rest of what he wrote in that context.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 7177
Age: 50

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9322  Postby proudfootz » Oct 05, 2017 8:20 pm

felltoearth wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Funnily enough, GrahamH seems to think that even if some 'facts' claimed in the post have been debunked, it is still valid:

"Irrespective of whether the site refers to sources that may have been 'debunked' on some issues..."


The quotes around the word debunked seems to suggest that there is some doubt about the claim to debunking.

And it's helpful to read the rest of what he wrote in that context.


I read it in context, as can everyone.

There is nothing hidden here.

For example, the context of the quote you snipped from my post is available.

Thank you for your concern! :cheers:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9323  Postby proudfootz » Oct 05, 2017 8:26 pm

Animavore wrote:Your definition of Gish gallop confirms mine. :lol:


Nope. :nono:

And what has what Graham H thinks got to do with me?


Apparently nothing, if you choose to disown someone of your own ilk.

Post #2 is one argument. Not a string of them. And the reason this conspiracy is implausible is because of the thousands that need to be involved in keeping it, each individual and groups of individuals along the way approached and went along without saying anything or having a moral objection.


It is supposed to be one argument, much like Gish presents his argument against evolution.

It's a post much like your 'joke' about how Trump couldn't keep a secret. Which is why your 'joke' fell flat - it's indistinguishable from the serious contentions or 'serious' would-be debonkers.

Such as your citation from debunkers about the Contras - "One conspiracy was discovered in only a few years, therefore all must be the same. Case closed!"
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9324  Postby Animavore » Oct 05, 2017 8:31 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:Your definition of Gish gallop confirms mine. :lol:


Nope. :nono:

And what has what Graham H thinks got to do with me?


Apparently nothing, if you choose to disown someone of your own ilk.

Post #2 is one argument. Not a string of them. And the reason this conspiracy is implausible is because of the thousands that need to be involved in keeping it, each individual and groups of individuals along the way approached and went along without saying anything or having a moral objection.


It is supposed to be one argument, much like Gish presents his argument against evolution.

It's a post much like your 'joke' about how Trump couldn't keep a secret. Which is why your 'joke' fell flat - it's indistinguishable from the serious contentions or 'serious' would-be debonkers.

Such as your citation from debunkers about the Contras - "One conspiracy was discovered in only a few years, therefore all must be the same. Case closed!"

No it's not. :lol:

The argument is a single argument. There's far too many people involved in the conspiracy for it to be plausible. He then LISTS the individuals, groups, and organisations who would need to be involved. You seem to be treating each item on the list like they are separate arguments, rather than separate items on a list.

In your own words: :crazy:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38806
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9325  Postby proudfootz » Oct 05, 2017 8:50 pm

You're right - it is a crazy argument in post #2.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9326  Postby Animavore » Oct 05, 2017 8:57 pm

proudfootz wrote:You're right - it is a crazy argument in post #2.

Did you seriously just use the, "I know you are but what am I?" argument again?

:lol:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38806
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9327  Postby Animavore » Oct 05, 2017 9:03 pm

I'm gonna help you out here, Proudy. The trick to debunking #2 is to reduce the amount of people involved to the absolute lowest set possible.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38806
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9328  Postby proudfootz » Oct 05, 2017 9:06 pm

Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:You're right - it is a crazy argument in post #2.

Did you seriously just use the, "I know you are but what am I?" argument again?

:lol:


WTF is wrong with you? :scratch:

You think your kind of bullshit is convincing to anyone? :doh:

The post which you claim (maybe jokingly, maybe not - it is impossible to tell) that 'says it all' is a list of arguments about whom the poster believes 'must be' involved in some theory regarding 9/11.

It's a pure Gish Gallop - no ifs, ands, or buts.

But that seems to tickle your fancy, so you think that is the be-all and end-all of discussion.

As you've made clear, you are only here for the lulz. Always happy to see you are entertained by our own apparent inability to understand what others are talking about.

:drunk:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9329  Postby Thommo » Oct 05, 2017 9:12 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:You're right - it is a crazy argument in post #2.

Did you seriously just use the, "I know you are but what am I?" argument again?

:lol:


WTF is wrong with you? :scratch:


Nothing's wrong with him.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21624

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9330  Postby Animavore » Oct 05, 2017 9:13 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:You're right - it is a crazy argument in post #2.

Did you seriously just use the, "I know you are but what am I?" argument again?

:lol:


WTF is wrong with you? :scratch:

You think your kind of bullshit is convincing to anyone? :doh:

The post which you claim (maybe jokingly, maybe not - it is impossible to tell) that 'says it all' is a list of arguments about whom the poster believes 'must be' involved in some theory regarding 9/11.

It's a pure Gish Gallop - no ifs, ands, or buts.

But that seems to tickle your fancy, so you think that is the be-all and end-all of discussion.

As you've made clear, you are only here for the lulz. Always happy to see you are entertained by our own apparent inability to understand what others are talking about.

:drunk:


Jesus! You really don't understand Gish gallop at all.

A Gish gallop goes like this -

If evolution is true then why are there no transitional fossils? Why don't we see dogs giving birth to cats? How can there be half an eye? How did the first life evolve? What happened before the Big Bang?

A list of barely or unconnected questions the arguer beliefs need to all be fulfilled to satisfy their unrealistic expectations.

This is not like that. At all.
Last edited by Animavore on Oct 05, 2017 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38806
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9331  Postby proudfootz » Oct 05, 2017 9:14 pm

Animavore wrote:I'm gonna help you out here, Proudy. The trick to debunking #2 is to reduce the amount of people involved to the absolute lowest set possible.


Well, Annie, I'm not exactly sure what theory aspire1670 was proposing.

It would have been better if aspire1670 was actually addressing something in particular, instead of making up some vague theory probably no one ascribes to.

Apparently some folks are wedded to the idea that if one theory is 'refuted' they all are. So making up a strawman like that works well for people stuck on that level of intelligence.

I don't suffer from that deficiency. :cheers:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9332  Postby proudfootz » Oct 05, 2017 9:17 pm

Thommo wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:You're right - it is a crazy argument in post #2.

Did you seriously just use the, "I know you are but what am I?" argument again?

:lol:


WTF is wrong with you? :scratch:


Nothing's wrong with him.


Really?

Me, I find such childishness and trolling rather below reasonable standards.

But if you vouch for that, I suppose I might be in a minority. :cheers:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9333  Postby Animavore » Oct 05, 2017 9:21 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:I'm gonna help you out here, Proudy. The trick to debunking #2 is to reduce the amount of people involved to the absolute lowest set possible.


Well, Annie, I'm not exactly sure what theory aspire1670 was proposing.

It would have been better if aspire1670 was actually addressing something in particular, instead of making up some vague theory probably no one ascribes to.

Apparently some folks are wedded to the idea that if one theory is 'refuted' they all are. So making up a strawman like that works well for people stuck on that level of intelligence.

I don't suffer from that deficiency. :cheers:

What strawman? Which made up, vague theory? The argument simply states why a massive conspiracy is implausible.

At least you tacitly admitted there are numerous, non-official, and mutually exclusive theories.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38806
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9334  Postby proudfootz » Oct 05, 2017 9:26 pm

Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:You're right - it is a crazy argument in post #2.

Did you seriously just use the, "I know you are but what am I?" argument again?

:lol:


WTF is wrong with you? :scratch:

You think your kind of bullshit is convincing to anyone? :doh:

The post which you claim (maybe jokingly, maybe not - it is impossible to tell) that 'says it all' is a list of arguments about whom the poster believes 'must be' involved in some theory regarding 9/11.

It's a pure Gish Gallop - no ifs, ands, or buts.

But that seems to tickle your fancy, so you think that is the be-all and end-all of discussion.

As you've made clear, you are only here for the lulz. Always happy to see you are entertained by our own apparent inability to understand what others are talking about.

:drunk:


Jesus! You really don't understand Gish gallop at all.

A Gish gallop goes like this -

If evolution is true then why are there no transitional fossils? Why don't we see dogs giving birth to cats? How can there be half an eye? How did the first life evolve? What happened before the Big Bang?


So you say - but normal people define it differently:

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.

Which is exactly what aspire1670's post does - a laundry list of 'arguments' about who 'must be' involved in this theory no one in particular necessarily ascribes to.

A list of barely or unconnected questions the arguer beliefs need to all be fulfilled to satisfy their unrealistic expectations.

This is not like that. At all.


Sorry, but post #2 by aspire1670 is a series of arguments about parties supposedly involved in a theory someone, somewhere is alleged to hold.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9335  Postby proudfootz » Oct 05, 2017 9:30 pm

Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:I'm gonna help you out here, Proudy. The trick to debunking #2 is to reduce the amount of people involved to the absolute lowest set possible.


Well, Annie, I'm not exactly sure what theory aspire1670 was proposing.

It would have been better if aspire1670 was actually addressing something in particular, instead of making up some vague theory probably no one ascribes to.

Apparently some folks are wedded to the idea that if one theory is 'refuted' they all are. So making up a strawman like that works well for people stuck on that level of intelligence.

I don't suffer from that deficiency. :cheers:

What strawman? Which made up, vague theory? The argument simply states why a massive conspiracy is implausible.


Well, aspire1670 seems to have debunked his own theory.

So fucking what? :roll:

At least you tacitly admitted there are numerous, non-official, and mutually exclusive theories.


Of course there are numerous theories.

It is common in unsolved mysteries, like the identity of Jack the Ripper. Disproving you own theory about that says nothing about any other theory.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9336  Postby Animavore » Oct 05, 2017 9:34 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Did you seriously just use the, "I know you are but what am I?" argument again?

:lol:


WTF is wrong with you? :scratch:

You think your kind of bullshit is convincing to anyone? :doh:

The post which you claim (maybe jokingly, maybe not - it is impossible to tell) that 'says it all' is a list of arguments about whom the poster believes 'must be' involved in some theory regarding 9/11.

It's a pure Gish Gallop - no ifs, ands, or buts.

But that seems to tickle your fancy, so you think that is the be-all and end-all of discussion.

As you've made clear, you are only here for the lulz. Always happy to see you are entertained by our own apparent inability to understand what others are talking about.

:drunk:


Jesus! You really don't understand Gish gallop at all.

A Gish gallop goes like this -

If evolution is true then why are there no transitional fossils? Why don't we see dogs giving birth to cats? How can there be half an eye? How did the first life evolve? What happened before the Big Bang?


So you say - but normal people define it differently:

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.

Which is exactly what aspire1670's post does - a laundry list of 'arguments' about who 'must be' involved in this theory no one in particular necessarily ascribes to.

A list of barely or unconnected questions the arguer beliefs need to all be fulfilled to satisfy their unrealistic expectations.

This is not like that. At all.


Sorry, but post #2 by aspire1670 is a series of arguments about parties supposedly involved in a theory someone, somewhere is alleged to hold.

As I've said, it's your job to reduce that list to a fewer, more plausible amount of people.

Not to mention identify these people and provide evidence to support the accusations.

The ball's in your court.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38806
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9337  Postby proudfootz » Oct 05, 2017 9:40 pm

If aspire1670 wants to 'prove' all those people named and unnamed would have to be 'in on it' the ball is in his court.

don't try the old 'reversal of the burden of proof' schtick on me - I'm wise to that one.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9338  Postby Animavore » Oct 05, 2017 9:52 pm

proudfootz wrote:If aspire1670 wants to 'prove' all those people named and unnamed would have to be 'in on it' the ball is in his court.

don't try the old 'reversal of the burden of proof' schtick on me - I'm wise to that one.


#2 explains clearly why they believe the parties mentioned would need to be involved. You need to whittle down the list by ruling out persons and groups which you believe are superfluous and why to make a counter case.

Notice I didn't ask you to 'prove' anything. Just provide a plausible account.

The ball is firmly in your court.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38806
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9339  Postby proudfootz » Oct 05, 2017 10:40 pm

Again, you fail to understand why I don't even need to have a theory about who Jack the Ripper is to find someone else's theory unpersuasive.

The same sane and rational reasons apply to aspire1670's theory.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10005

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9340  Postby Animavore » Oct 05, 2017 11:01 pm

proudfootz wrote:Again, you fail to understand why I don't even need to have a theory about who Jack the Ripper is to find someone else's theory unpersuasive.


Nailed it. :thumbup:

Thanks for arguing my own point for me. :lol:
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38806
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests