A proposal to reduce confusion.

FatFreddy said:
Evidence is evidence. Who presents it is irrelevant. Please address the argument.
Click to expand...
You haven't presented an argument. Present it in your own words so we know that you understand it.

If I want to address an argument on another website, I'll do it over there.
 
sideshowbob said:
You haven't presented an argument. Present it in your own words so we know that you understand it.

If I want to address an argument on another website, I'll do it over there.
Click to expand...
Conspiracy advocates have their own rules about debating at topic. The first required for someone questioning their hypothesis is that they admit that the hypothesis is factually correct. This saves them the time of thinking about what they've said, allowing them to proceed immediately to a declaration of victory and the status "righteous among nations."
 
FatFreddy said:
Translation:
What's shown in that video is such clear proof that the government planned and carried out the 9/11 attack that if I try to obfuscate it, I'll just look silly.

Evidence is evidence. Who presents it is irrelevant. Please address the argument.
Click to expand...
As others have stated, it's not proof. And it hasn't been argued here.
You are here to make the argument, so make it.
 
It's all stated here.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/interesting-9-11-video.142265/page-20#post-3492637

You're avoiding it because it has you checkmated. Sincere truth-seekers would simply address it. The viewers who didn't already know about that info are looking at it and your refusing to address it isn't going to cause them to doubt it although they may be doubting it for their own reasons. Let's hear some actual serious analyses. Stop tap dancing around.
 
This thread is turning out to be a good study of sophistry.

The footage seems to have been doctored. That would make an objective truth-seeker suspicious. Please comment on the doctored footage. Also, please comment on the fact that the government hasn't released all of the footage that it says it has.
 
FatFreddy said:
This thread is turning out to be a good study of sophistry.

The footage seems to have been doctored. That would make an objective truth-seeker suspicious. Please comment on the doctored footage. Also, please comment on the fact that the government hasn't released all of the footage that it says it has.
Click to expand...
And please comment on the fairies in the attic.
 
FatFreddy said:
This thread is turning out to be a good study of sophistry.
Click to expand...
The onus still remains on you to first advance a well-structured argument.
Until then, there is no counter-argument.

FatFreddy said:
The footage seems to have been doctored. That would make an objective truth-seeker suspicious. Please comment on the doctored footage. Also, please comment on the fact that the government hasn't released all of the footage that it says it has.
Click to expand...
So, we've moved from 'proof' to 'this seems suspicious to me'. That's progress.
 
At least we have a volunteer case study, I thought perhaps they'd be obdurate. Well, they're still obdurate but at least we have the fun of seeing what they consider to be reasonable replies.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The onus still remains on you to first advance a well-structured argument.
Until then, there is no counter-argument.
Click to expand...
Ok. I'll copy and paste the info from the other thread so that you don't have to click on the link.


I want to continue a discussion here about whether 9/11 was an inside job that's taking place on a different thread so as not to go off-topic on that thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-proposal-to-reduce-confusion.160313/page-2

Check out what it says here about the footage of the Pentagon crash that was released by the government.

September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
(2:13:35 time mark)

Does this make you a little bit suspicious?
Click to expand...

Now all you have to do watch the video from the 2:13:35 time mark to the 2:18:44 time mark. That's not a lot. Objective truth-seekers would not insist that I summarize the argument before they took the time to analyze it.
 
FatFreddy said:
Ok. I'll copy and paste the info from the other thread so that you don't have to click on the link.
Now all you have to do watch the video from the 2:13:35 time mark to the 2:18:44 time mark. That's not a lot. Objective truth-seekers would not insist that I summarize the argument before they took the time to analyze it.
Click to expand...
1] Yep. That's a blurry video frame. Yep. Hard to tell what's what.
2] Therefore it was all faked.
Your logic is inescapable.

Because it is far more likely that the other 9,573,721 individual items of evidence pointing toward a real disaster are all wrong, than that this - I can't tell what it is so I'm going to guess what it is, and then draw a conclusion, and then extrapolate that the entirety of events surrounding it are therefore utterly fake, and then call it compelling proof. - is wrong.
 
Last edited:
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they seem to assume that, in a real disaster there should never be any confusion or chaos (because lord knows; it's a disaster, surely there should never be any chaos). So any that they find, they argue that it's sign of a conspiracy.

Isn't it strange that any ambiguity and confusion can always be leveraged the conspiracist in whatever way suits them?

9/11: Strange video artifacts? Must be faked footage. Therefore the other 9,876 points of data are irrelevant and it's all fake.

UFOs, ghosts: Strange video artifacts? Must be real defiance of the laws of physics. Therefore the other 9,876 points of data are irrelevant and it's all real.


Conspiracists are narcissists. They get their egos stroked by convincing themselves they're the smartest guys in the room - smarter than all the other thousands of professionals, who do this for a living. And the more they are shown the errors of their ways, the more they double-down, reveling in the role of downtrodden pariah, defender of truth.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they seem to assume that, in a real disaster there should never be any confusion or chaos (because lord knows; it's a disaster, surely there should never be any chaos). So any that they find, they argue that it's sign of a conspiracy.

Isn't it strange that any ambiguity and confusion can always be leveraged the conspiracist in whatever way suits them?

9/11: Strange video artifacts? Must be faked footage. Therefore the other 9,876 points of data are irrelevant and it's all fake.

UFOs, ghosts: Strange video artifacts? Must be real defiance of the laws of physics. Therefore the other 9,876 points of data are irrelevant and it's all real.


Conspiracists are narcissists. They get their egos stroked by convincing themselves they're the smartest guys in the room - smarter than all the other thousands of professionals, who do this for a living. And the more they are shown the errors of their ways, the more they double-down, reveling in the role of downtrodden pariah, defender of truth.
Click to expand...

Conspiracists are More informed , you know , have more knowledge . Than most of you .
 
If the reduction of confusion is really important , then inform yourself .

For the most part confusion is avoidable .
 
river said:
Conspiracists are More informed , you know , have more knowledge . Than most of you .
Click to expand...
Demonstrably false.

For example: Fat Freddie's thread.
There is a literal mountain of evidence that points to us going to the Moon.
While FF has a conjecture, and points to what he considers flaws in the actual evidence, he has zero evidence of any actual conspiracy. Not an atom. No cameras, no abandoned studios, no models, no nothing.
And he doesn't understand any of the science he spews. He is parroting it from other sources.

So, the very best he's got, when all is said and done, is a one-man "argument from incredulity": I don't understand how X and Y work, therefore the only possible explanation is that X through YYYYYYYY must be fake.

Same with 9/11 conspiracists. Same with UFO conspiracists.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Demonstrably false.

For example: Fat Freddie's thread.
There is a literal mountain of evidence that points to us going to the Moon.
While FF has a conjecture, and points to what he considers flaws in the actual evidence, he has zero evidence of any actual conspiracy. Not an atom. No cameras, no abandoned studios, no models, no nothing.
And he doesn't understand any of the science he spews. He is parroting it from other sources.

So, the very best he's got, when all is said and done, is a one-man "argument from incredulity": I don't understand how X and Y work, therefore the only possible explanation is that X through YYYYYYYY must be fake.

Same with 9/11 conspiracists. Same with UFO conspiracists.
Click to expand...

Going to the moon , no problem .

9/11 and UFO's , well , a whole different perspective .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top