9/11

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

I understand what you’ve presented.

Its not that I reject what you’ve presented: it’s that I completely disagree that it’s evidence at all: because it doesn’t indirectly or directly support any of the contentions you’ve raised.


You have no evidence that the government is currently doing anything. No evidence of what they’re doing specifically, No evidence that what you’re claiming they are doing is physically or physiologically possible, or achievable to a population, no evidence showing any specific individual is specifically affected, and No evidence of how it is being conducted, who is conducting it, nor why.

All you have is this continual absurd speculation and conjecture that you repeatedly telling us is supported by the disparate collection of facts about Ultra.

Now: while I understand you’re incessant need to not address this, and not defend why you think this is evidence:

You’re presenting an example of the government not doing the same thing as you’re claiming, had limited effectiveness, was limited research In a research environment - rather than scalable large scale government sanction mind control  - and for which there is no evidence continued appreciably after it was shut down - as evidence of you’re non specific generalized speculative accusations - which in turn you’ve been using to explain why other of your arguments not don’t make sense either.


At this point: I’ve explained in detail why it isn’t evidence, and you’ve simply resorted to telling me that it definitely is evidence and I’m not considering it.

I don’t know what else to say. You’re making basic logical errors with evidence: and I have no idea what else there’s is to say that you won’t simply continue to dismiss and ignore.


What do you say to someone who is constantly arguing something as obtuse as “the existence of cheese is evidence that the government is controlling people’s minds”?

Maybe it's because you now have to admit defeat, facing thousands of expert opinion, ignoring obvious motives, WTC7, and a host of other evidence, that you've chosen to persuade this red herring, denying evidence that is put forth, like the whistleblower, and the 9/11 commision report is farcical. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

I understand what you’ve presented.

Its not that I reject what you’ve presented: it’s that I completely disagree that it’s evidence at all: because it doesn’t indirectly or directly support any of the contentions you’ve raised.


You have no evidence that the government is currently doing anything. No evidence of what they’re doing specifically, No evidence that what you’re claiming they are doing is physically or physiologically possible, or achievable to a population, no evidence showing any specific individual is specifically affected, and No evidence of how it is being conducted, who is conducting it, nor why.

All you have is this continual absurd speculation and conjecture that you repeatedly telling us is supported by the disparate collection of facts about Ultra.

Now: while I understand you’re incessant need to not address this, and not defend why you think this is evidence:

You’re presenting an example of the government not doing the same thing as you’re claiming, had limited effectiveness, was limited research In a research environment - rather than scalable large scale government sanction mind control  - and for which there is no evidence continued appreciably after it was shut down - as evidence of you’re non specific generalized speculative accusations - which in turn you’ve been using to explain why other of your arguments not don’t make sense either.


At this point: I’ve explained in detail why it isn’t evidence, and you’ve simply resorted to telling me that it definitely is evidence and I’m not considering it.

I don’t know what else to say. You’re making basic logical errors with evidence: and I have no idea what else there’s is to say that you won’t simply continue to dismiss and ignore.


What do you say to someone who is constantly arguing something as obtuse as “the existence of cheese is evidence that the government is controlling people’s minds”?

Maybe it's because you now have to admit defeat, facing thousands of expert opinion, ignoring obvious motives, WTC7, and a host of other evidence, that you've chosen to persuade this red herring, denying evidence that is put forth, like the whistleblower, and the 9/11 commision report is farcical. 

Wait, what?

You're posting nonsensical and unrelated things and claiming it’s evidence.

I went through every one of your major claims and explained not only which parts of your arguments were wrong, what logical error you made, and which part of your claims were speculatice assertions - I also provided sources of why those assertions were wrong.


Its all there in the long, detailed post I made that you have done your best to ignore.

Im sure this is why your able to believe in these
crack pot theories: when all your errors are pointed out, you seem to convince yourself that such things are just me “ignoring evidence”
- no, your evidence is terrible, and your justifications are riddled with assertions and logical fallacies.

Again - all explained in the posts you repeatedly ignore.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

I understand what you’ve presented.

Its not that I reject what you’ve presented: it’s that I completely disagree that it’s evidence at all: because it doesn’t indirectly or directly support any of the contentions you’ve raised.


You have no evidence that the government is currently doing anything. No evidence of what they’re doing specifically, No evidence that what you’re claiming they are doing is physically or physiologically possible, or achievable to a population, no evidence showing any specific individual is specifically affected, and No evidence of how it is being conducted, who is conducting it, nor why.

All you have is this continual absurd speculation and conjecture that you repeatedly telling us is supported by the disparate collection of facts about Ultra.

Now: while I understand you’re incessant need to not address this, and not defend why you think this is evidence:

You’re presenting an example of the government not doing the same thing as you’re claiming, had limited effectiveness, was limited research In a research environment - rather than scalable large scale government sanction mind control  - and for which there is no evidence continued appreciably after it was shut down - as evidence of you’re non specific generalized speculative accusations - which in turn you’ve been using to explain why other of your arguments not don’t make sense either.


At this point: I’ve explained in detail why it isn’t evidence, and you’ve simply resorted to telling me that it definitely is evidence and I’m not considering it.

I don’t know what else to say. You’re making basic logical errors with evidence: and I have no idea what else there’s is to say that you won’t simply continue to dismiss and ignore.


What do you say to someone who is constantly arguing something as obtuse as “the existence of cheese is evidence that the government is controlling people’s minds”?

Maybe it's because you now have to admit defeat, facing thousands of expert opinion, ignoring obvious motives, WTC7, and a host of other evidence, that you've chosen to persuade this red herring, denying evidence that is put forth, like the whistleblower, and the 9/11 commision report is farcical. 

Wait, what?

You're posting nonsensical and unrelated things and claiming it’s evidence.

I went through every one of your major claims and explained not only which parts of your arguments were wrong, what logical error you made, and which part of your claims were speculatice assertions - I also provided sources of why those assertions were wrong.


Its all there in the long, detailed post I made that you have done your best to ignore.

Im sure this is why your able to believe in these
crack pot theories: when all your errors are pointed out, you seem to convince yourself that such things are just me “ignoring evidence”
- no, your evidence is terrible, and your justifications are riddled with assertions and logical fallacies.

Again - all explained in the posts you repeatedly ignore.

That's awesome, never have I ever seen anybody just proclaim that they've won a debate, while vaguely pointing out mysterious instances of "what I've done" or "what you have done". Without even referencing a single argument there, you make several assertions, lying blatantly about several points. I'm sure the cheerleaders will give you a trophy or two for that post.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

you havent?

thats literally what you did the post I was replying to.

Gooberry

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So let’s start off with the Military response.

Unfortunately I don’t know what facts or information you’re basing your conclusions on. You’re not making any  specific claims about what the military should have done, how or why, Nor are you presenting any facts or evidence to support your accusations. Which is ironic as you seem adamant I am the one making “vague assertions”.

What were the standing orders of the day? What are you expecting the Military to have done. What was their expected response, how would that have been carried out, and who would have been responsible for coordinating the various parties?

Without any of these details, your claims here are mostly insinuations: you don’t provide any evidence or validation of what should have happened: you just are just emphatically stating that it didn’t.

Even worse: it’s not even clear what you’re claiming beyond that. You seem to be claiming that the military didn’t do what it should: but make no specific claims about who should have done what, when. You don’t outline what you think the alternative explanation is, nor provide evidence that it happened. Strangely though: apparently I am the one asserting things. #thatsodd.

This is important, as we know the specific individuals in all the key positions and the people around them: if you claim the FAA didn’t do something: then if you know what they didn’t do, it would be clear which person didn’t do it. That could be investigated and your claims could be verified. But I suspect that’s not what you want

So before I begin: the only supporting arguments you’ve said as to why the military should have done something is that NORAD exists, and there were policies in places to do with hijacking.

That’s not close to supporting your position, as just because policies and norad exist: it doesn’t mean they attack sufficient to deal with the threat: an argument of mine you misrepresented as me implying that they’re weren’t policies - a straw man.

So now that we’ve outlines which part of your claims are unevidenced and unsupported, and left relatively vague: let’s go back to the facts.

Firstly, like you have done repeatedly: you are doing your best to over exaggerate the time line. There was 51 minutes between the first flight hitting the WTC and the third hitting the pentagon. But only 34 after the second hit - whenit was obvious this was an attack - and even less (about 4 minutes) between the military picking up flight 77 after knowing it was hijacked and it crashing into the pentagon.

As the military did not and does not have standing orders to shoot down passenger planes until 10:20am - that’s not enough much time to do much of anything.

Standing orders for hijacking were - and mostly still are - treating hijackings as a law enforcement issue. The military would assist the FAA and escort planes - but the military would be vectored and directed by the Civilian ATC.

For the military to “do something” about a given flight they need to be told it was hijacked - be directed to where it was - site the plane - and gain authorization to shoot it down. Each stage going through a chain of command or process not designed for a terrorist attack like this - much involving civilians of the FAA not trained to deal with a terrorist attack of this nature. 

Stage 1 - would be for the FAA to tell the military a plane was hijacked. It took 30 minutes for flight 77 information to get to the FAA headquarters - and details were given to norad where NEADS radar technicians may have picked up the plane at 9:35 - 2 minutes before it hit the pentagon.

Indeed standing orders were changed to shoot down unresponsive aircraft - at 10:20 from the VP - and the go ahead was given to engage flight 93 at 10:10 - 7 minutes after it had already crashed.

So no: I think given the practicalities, the groups involved, and the process at the time - that the plane was allowed to continue unabated is actually perfectly reasonable. More of a testament as to how the FAA and Military process for hijackings were not configured to quickly and properly respond to an attack of this nature - more than some nefarious plot

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks

So no. While the military and civilian response could have been better: the response wasn’t bad enough or unreasonable enough to conclude there was deliberate wrongdoing on any ones part - leave alone a conspiracy of any kind.

Now: you’ve also made the claim that commercial airliners were used as weapons prior to 9/11

“Maybe not in the US, that we can find, but elsewhere this was happening.”

I call bullsh*t. I can find not a single example of any airplane hijackings using this type of tactic used prior to 9/11.”

As I intimated: you like to throw out the odd link here and there, but leave the more absurd claims - like this one -unsourced, and unevidenced. The claim I’m not providing any proof. #thatsodd.

But importantly: you also continue to misrepresent both my position and reality:

There were intelligence warnings, and intercepts about attacks similar to this:

Having those warnings does not translate into policy - tactics - integrated and streamlined approaches between the FAA and Military - strategic analysis and most importantly - training for the hundreds of individuals involved in the direct response.

The idea that having a forewarning means that the military - and civilian agencies should be automatically able to deal with it - is insane. Again you provide no evidence of argument as to why if should.

You just wave “forewarnings” and “military should have responded” then claim that because of one the other should be true. That is a non-sequitor.

Now: let’s move on to some of your cherry picking.

You’ve said the civilian pilots were military. Okay, let’s go with that: one peice of data.

They were also outnumbered 2:1. In cramped conditions. Cockpit doors were not reinforced. They were unarmed and the assailants were unarmed. Operating procedure up until that point was to cooperate with the hijackers - and not do anything to risk lives. And hijackings up until that point were non lethal do there was no reason not to cooperate. In addition calls from individuals on almost all the planes indicated that they had been hijacked - and ATC recordings.

So that’s one vague reason you’ve cited - with no real explanation or justification as to why you feel they should have been able to take one all the hijackers unarmed: and 10 major reasons why your claims make no sense that you ignore - this includes objective proof that the planes were hijacked despite your protestations. 

Most of the big parts of what I’ve said that aren’t obvious, are here. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking

Ignoring 10 major and obvious pieces of evidence that go against your position and focus on one that does: is cherry picking.

So moving on, I think we should start off with this

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/12/us/richard-russell-q400-flight-simulator.html

Recently - an individual with no formal flight training took off, flew, performed some “amazing maneuvers”, then crashed his plane.

So when you argue that I need a more credible source to indicate how someone with no formal flight training could fly a plane: this reality trumps someone’s opinion.

That in and of itself casts terminal doubt on the credibility of the claims: when they’ve separately been proven wrong.

Now: you again cherry pick when intimating Landing and taking off are “easy”. You have visual references - but you also have to use flaps, maintain the plane at lower speed - control stall speed - and descend on a fixed glide path (often via instruments), all at the same time: is harder than flying fast and broadly level, controlling basic plane movements. Take off as well - flaps, landing gear, thrust, take off angle, etc - all require much more significant judgment and experience to pull off than simply flying. That’s why trainee pilots are handed the controls while airborne well before learning to take off and land.

Information about that is all here (you can also go to part 1+2 too).

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a16290/learning-to-fly-joshua-ferris-part-three/

What seems odd though, is that you seem to recognize the basic facts here Hanjour - who crashed into the pentagon held a commercial pilots license from 1999.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour

Atta and Shehhi were both instrument rated in November 2000: and obtained commercial pilots licenses.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta

And all of them had training in flying jet airliners in simulators.

https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf (241-245)

So the argument that instrument rated, dedicated individuals who trained for months to become trained pilots with commercial pilots licenses that had trained on simulators to familiarize themselves with the planes in question - didn’t have enough skill to use instruments or fly the planes we know they hijacked - makes utterly no sense.

Your “source”, undersells this training and makes it sound like that these individuals - who trained for months-years for this - as if they had no training whatsoever.

Flying a plain is hard - but let’s be clear - they all had the requisite experience to be able to basically operate the airliners in question - maybe not to a professional pilots standard - but enough to know how to turn off the auto pilot, and to subsequently crash the plane.

Despite this fairly basic logic that glosses over the objective training that these pilots received - you demand this source be treated as valid because of his credentials is - as should be obvious - an argument from authority. 

But just in case: try this one:

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

This pretty much picks apart everything your source said in detail. And is also has decent credentials.

These guys were probably bad pilots - and would have no careers as commercial aviators - but they didn’t have to be great pilots to fly a plane into a building. Which leads me to the final piece of cherry picking on this subject.

Hanjour wasn’t a great or experienced pilot. That’s why he was too high approaching the pentagon and wasn’t able to hit it on the first approach, then made a turn finally coming low into the pentagon - and almost crashed in the car park outside. That doesn’t sound like he was an expert - that sounds as if he wasn’t particularly good. Don’t you think?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

So: sources presented, facts presented, and one specific real world example destroys your source here

But even so, remember that we have objective and direct evidence that these planes were hijacked: and you’re continual implication that they didn’t happen because of some circumstantial evidence that turns out to be mostly wrong, seems largely nonsensical. Flight 77 - had two people on the flight phone out to say they had been hijacked.

Moving on quickly

“The idea that they only received training on single engine planes, is a lie.”

“You strawman me, I never said that”

Yes you did:

“A few hours of assisted flight training on single engine planes, multiple suspects even flunked basic training, and never flew at all.”

You should pay more attention to what you say.

“"You’re making up wild conspiracies, based on drawing wild conclusions that the facts don’t implicitly support, cherry picking data and outright lies."

I'm basing my arguments on well sourced material, and a position that any logical thinker would assume was correct.”

As I showed: you’ve made claims about  the military response that ignored the reality: you’ve exaggerated time lines and information: you’ve held up a source that claimed something we’ve seen happen in reality is impossible. You’ve ignored multiple pieces of data that don’t agree with you concerning pilots training, and relating to whether the commercial pilots could or would have fought off the terrorists.

All of this has been emulated and sourced above.

So far, you have provided a single source in your reply that is directly relevant for one claim: and no sources that directly support any of the other more specific claims you make (which I have pointed out), and even this source you set up from an argument from authority that doesn’t really match the evidence or reality.

Worse: you’ve provided absolutely no evidence and no actually specifics as to the conspiracy you claim exists either. At best you are just pointing out some peripheral problems that don’t make sense (but which do when you analyze the information).

Positive evidence for a conspiracy is important, nothing you mention here qualifies as that, as it doesn’t show malefeasance or wrong doing - without it your basically pushing a narrative without evidence and could be even less believable - and supported by even fewer facts that the problems you think there are with the one that is in place.

“Pure and vague assertion, and basing your entire argument on "but, but, muh Wikipedia" or a single, lonely .gov site is not an argument.”

You demand sources: then when sources are provided you reject the sources as being invalid - for no reason.

In addition: you don’t seem able to explain why of my claims are “vague” or “assertions”, I’ve provided links to sources that indicates my claims are true, and I’m being highly specific in almost everything I’m saying. 

Ironically: claiming the military could have or should have done something without saying, what, how, why and providing no evidence, that most assuredly is a pure and vague assumption.

“We see who is providing facts, and expert opinions and who is ignorantly asserting their entire argument. My arguments are well-sourced, with evidence, and yours are pure assertions, and opinions based on your opinions.”

Yes! Let’s! My arguments stand for themselves. If all you have left is generalized attacks like these, feel free to run with that if you want.

your posts are getting ironic enough that they’re almost beyond parody.

You’re detailed complaints list everything you’re doing so succinctly that it gives the appearance you’re projecting so hard that IMAX is going to start charging you royalties per post.

Erfs response to this post be like...

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

So let’s start off with the Military response.

Unfortunately I don’t know what facts or information you’re basing your conclusions on. You’re not making any  specific claims about what the military should have done, how or why, Nor are you presenting any facts or evidence to support your accusations. Which is ironic as you seem adamant I am the one making “vague assertions”.

What were the standing orders of the day? What are you expecting the Military to have done. What was their expected response, how would that have been carried out, and who would have been responsible for coordinating the various parties?

Without any of these details, your claims here are mostly insinuations: you don’t provide any evidence or validation of what should have happened: you just are just emphatically stating that it didn’t.

Even worse: it’s not even clear what you’re claiming beyond that. You seem to be claiming that the military didn’t do what it should: but make no specific claims about who should have done what, when. You don’t outline what you think the alternative explanation is, nor provide evidence that it happened. Strangely though: apparently I am the one asserting things. #thatsodd.

This is important, as we know the specific individuals in all the key positions and the people around them: if you claim the FAA didn’t do something: then if you know what they didn’t do, it would be clear which person didn’t do it. That could be investigated and your claims could be verified. But I suspect that’s not what you want

So before I begin: the only supporting arguments you’ve said as to why the military should have done something is that NORAD exists, and there were policies in places to do with hijacking.

That’s not close to supporting your position, as just because policies and norad exist: it doesn’t mean they attack sufficient to deal with the threat: an argument of mine you misrepresented as me implying that they’re weren’t policies - a straw man.

So now that we’ve outlines which part of your claims are unevidenced and unsupported, and left relatively vague: let’s go back to the facts.

Firstly, like you have done repeatedly: you are doing your best to over exaggerate the time line. There was 51 minutes between the first flight hitting the WTC and the third hitting the pentagon. But only 34 after the second hit - whenit was obvious this was an attack - and even less (about 4 minutes) between the military picking up flight 77 after knowing it was hijacked and it crashing into the pentagon.

As the military did not and does not have standing orders to shoot down passenger planes until 10:20am - that’s not enough much time to do much of anything.

Standing orders for hijacking were - and mostly still are - treating hijackings as a law enforcement issue. The military would assist the FAA and escort planes - but the military would be vectored and directed by the Civilian ATC.

For the military to “do something” about a given flight they need to be told it was hijacked - be directed to where it was - site the plane - and gain authorization to shoot it down. Each stage going through a chain of command or process not designed for a terrorist attack like this - much involving civilians of the FAA not trained to deal with a terrorist attack of this nature. 

Stage 1 - would be for the FAA to tell the military a plane was hijacked. It took 30 minutes for flight 77 information to get to the FAA headquarters - and details were given to norad where NEADS radar technicians may have picked up the plane at 9:35 - 2 minutes before it hit the pentagon.

Indeed standing orders were changed to shoot down unresponsive aircraft - at 10:20 from the VP - and the go ahead was given to engage flight 93 at 10:10 - 7 minutes after it had already crashed.

So no: I think given the practicalities, the groups involved, and the process at the time - that the plane was allowed to continue unabated is actually perfectly reasonable. More of a testament as to how the FAA and Military process for hijackings were not configured to quickly and properly respond to an attack of this nature - more than some nefarious plot

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks

So no. While the military and civilian response could have been better: the response wasn’t bad enough or unreasonable enough to conclude there was deliberate wrongdoing on any ones part - leave alone a conspiracy of any kind.

Now: you’ve also made the claim that commercial airliners were used as weapons prior to 9/11

“Maybe not in the US, that we can find, but elsewhere this was happening.”

I call bullsh*t. I can find not a single example of any airplane hijackings using this type of tactic used prior to 9/11.”

As I intimated: you like to throw out the odd link here and there, but leave the more absurd claims - like this one -unsourced, and unevidenced. The claim I’m not providing any proof. #thatsodd.

But importantly: you also continue to misrepresent both my position and reality:

There were intelligence warnings, and intercepts about attacks similar to this:

Having those warnings does not translate into policy - tactics - integrated and streamlined approaches between the FAA and Military - strategic analysis and most importantly - training for the hundreds of individuals involved in the direct response.

The idea that having a forewarning means that the military - and civilian agencies should be automatically able to deal with it - is insane. Again you provide no evidence of argument as to why if should.

You just wave “forewarnings” and “military should have responded” then claim that because of one the other should be true. That is a non-sequitor.

Now: let’s move on to some of your cherry picking.

You’ve said the civilian pilots were military. Okay, let’s go with that: one peice of data.

They were also outnumbered 2:1. In cramped conditions. Cockpit doors were not reinforced. They were unarmed and the assailants were unarmed. Operating procedure up until that point was to cooperate with the hijackers - and not do anything to risk lives. And hijackings up until that point were non lethal do there was no reason not to cooperate. In addition calls from individuals on almost all the planes indicated that they had been hijacked - and ATC recordings.

So that’s one vague reason you’ve cited - with no real explanation or justification as to why you feel they should have been able to take one all the hijackers unarmed: and 10 major reasons why your claims make no sense that you ignore - this includes objective proof that the planes were hijacked despite your protestations. 

Most of the big parts of what I’ve said that aren’t obvious, are here. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking

Ignoring 10 major and obvious pieces of evidence that go against your position and focus on one that does: is cherry picking.

So moving on, I think we should start off with this

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/12/us/richard-russell-q400-flight-simulator.html

Recently - an individual with no formal flight training took off, flew, performed some “amazing maneuvers”, then crashed his plane.

So when you argue that I need a more credible source to indicate how someone with no formal flight training could fly a plane: this reality trumps someone’s opinion.

That in and of itself casts terminal doubt on the credibility of the claims: when they’ve separately been proven wrong.

Now: you again cherry pick when intimating Landing and taking off are “easy”. You have visual references - but you also have to use flaps, maintain the plane at lower speed - control stall speed - and descend on a fixed glide path (often via instruments), all at the same time: is harder than flying fast and broadly level, controlling basic plane movements. Take off as well - flaps, landing gear, thrust, take off angle, etc - all require much more significant judgment and experience to pull off than simply flying. That’s why trainee pilots are handed the controls while airborne well before learning to take off and land.

Information about that is all here (you can also go to part 1+2 too).

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a16290/learning-to-fly-joshua-ferris-part-three/

What seems odd though, is that you seem to recognize the basic facts here Hanjour - who crashed into the pentagon held a commercial pilots license from 1999.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour

Atta and Shehhi were both instrument rated in November 2000: and obtained commercial pilots licenses.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta

And all of them had training in flying jet airliners in simulators.

https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf (241-245)

So the argument that instrument rated, dedicated individuals who trained for months to become trained pilots with commercial pilots licenses that had trained on simulators to familiarize themselves with the planes in question - didn’t have enough skill to use instruments or fly the planes we know they hijacked - makes utterly no sense.

Your “source”, undersells this training and makes it sound like that these individuals - who trained for months-years for this - as if they had no training whatsoever.

Flying a plain is hard - but let’s be clear - they all had the requisite experience to be able to basically operate the airliners in question - maybe not to a professional pilots standard - but enough to know how to turn off the auto pilot, and to subsequently crash the plane.

Despite this fairly basic logic that glosses over the objective training that these pilots received - you demand this source be treated as valid because of his credentials is - as should be obvious - an argument from authority. 

But just in case: try this one:

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

This pretty much picks apart everything your source said in detail. And is also has decent credentials.

These guys were probably bad pilots - and would have no careers as commercial aviators - but they didn’t have to be great pilots to fly a plane into a building. Which leads me to the final piece of cherry picking on this subject.

Hanjour wasn’t a great or experienced pilot. That’s why he was too high approaching the pentagon and wasn’t able to hit it on the first approach, then made a turn finally coming low into the pentagon - and almost crashed in the car park outside. That doesn’t sound like he was an expert - that sounds as if he wasn’t particularly good. Don’t you think?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

So: sources presented, facts presented, and one specific real world example destroys your source here

But even so, remember that we have objective and direct evidence that these planes were hijacked: and you’re continual implication that they didn’t happen because of some circumstantial evidence that turns out to be mostly wrong, seems largely nonsensical. Flight 77 - had two people on the flight phone out to say they had been hijacked.

Moving on quickly

“The idea that they only received training on single engine planes, is a lie.”

“You strawman me, I never said that”

Yes you did:

“A few hours of assisted flight training on single engine planes, multiple suspects even flunked basic training, and never flew at all.”

You should pay more attention to what you say.

“"You’re making up wild conspiracies, based on drawing wild conclusions that the facts don’t implicitly support, cherry picking data and outright lies."

I'm basing my arguments on well sourced material, and a position that any logical thinker would assume was correct.”

As I showed: you’ve made claims about  the military response that ignored the reality: you’ve exaggerated time lines and information: you’ve held up a source that claimed something we’ve seen happen in reality is impossible. You’ve ignored multiple pieces of data that don’t agree with you concerning pilots training, and relating to whether the commercial pilots could or would have fought off the terrorists.

All of this has been emulated and sourced above.

So far, you have provided a single source in your reply that is directly relevant for one claim: and no sources that directly support any of the other more specific claims you make (which I have pointed out), and even this source you set up from an argument from authority that doesn’t really match the evidence or reality.

Worse: you’ve provided absolutely no evidence and no actually specifics as to the conspiracy you claim exists either. At best you are just pointing out some peripheral problems that don’t make sense (but which do when you analyze the information).

Positive evidence for a conspiracy is important, nothing you mention here qualifies as that, as it doesn’t show malefeasance or wrong doing - without it your basically pushing a narrative without evidence and could be even less believable - and supported by even fewer facts that the problems you think there are with the one that is in place.

“Pure and vague assertion, and basing your entire argument on "but, but, muh Wikipedia" or a single, lonely .gov site is not an argument.”

You demand sources: then when sources are provided you reject the sources as being invalid - for no reason.

In addition: you don’t seem able to explain why of my claims are “vague” or “assertions”, I’ve provided links to sources that indicates my claims are true, and I’m being highly specific in almost everything I’m saying. 

Ironically: claiming the military could have or should have done something without saying, what, how, why and providing no evidence, that most assuredly is a pure and vague assumption.

“We see who is providing facts, and expert opinions and who is ignorantly asserting their entire argument. My arguments are well-sourced, with evidence, and yours are pure assertions, and opinions based on your opinions.”

Yes! Let’s! My arguments stand for themselves. If all you have left is generalized attacks like these, feel free to run with that if you want.

your posts are getting ironic enough that they’re almost beyond parody.

You’re detailed complaints list everything you’re doing so succinctly that it gives the appearance you’re projecting so hard that IMAX is going to start charging you royalties per post.

Erfs response to this post be like...

Erf response to that post be like:

Erfisflat

@Gooberry what was your response to the thousands of expert opinion about the impossibility of the destruction on the towers?

Erfisflat

I still have half a rebuttal to that in .docs now, it got boring, I'll try to finish it up tonight. You could reduce a LOT of space on the website if you got to your specific points, and stopped being so monotonous. 

Gooberry

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

The airspace is heavily guarded by radar, and agains foreign fighters and bombers attacking the country.

There are “plans” and policies, to deal with hijacked planes - requiring specific authorizations - shared information - etc: but the implication that NORAD was vigilantly scanning the skies for hijackings and thus the idea that it would be likely hijackings would not have gone through - is pure fiction.

Arguing that NORAD exists - or that there is a particular strategy in place to deal with hijackings is laughably irrelevant to support your contention.

Box cutters are an effective stabbing weapon. Multiple individuals with stabbing weapons could reasonably take over a plane of unarmed civilians - especially when they didn’t not necessarily think they were in immediate danger.

Your implication that it’s unreasonable to conclude that were possible - is made up as a result.

I’m not sure why you believe what was in TV at the time is relevant to refuting my argument, but it seems like a completely irrelevant red herring to the point I’m making.

In addition, you seem to not be paying much attention to the fact that the hijackers received training on Boeing flight simulators. The idea that they only received training on single engine planes, is a lie.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf

As I said, you don’t have to be a very good pilot if you don’t need to take off, land or fly particularly well: and the idea that these attackers had to be proven aviation experts to believe it possible for them to steer a plane into a building seems nonsensical.

Now finally, at the time: no one has hijacked planes and used them as weapons. This is factually correct - as I can find no other example of this hijacking was regularly. 

While there were warnings - this hadn’t translated to any substantial warnings at the civilian arc level, or the military interception level, or on matters of policy with regards to the people actually making the necessary decisions: when to inform the military, what to do, how to do it.

Quite frankly for the reasons above, nothing you’ve said backs up any of the insane conclusions you’ve drawn.

You’re making up wild conspiracies, based on drawing wild conclusions that the facts don’t implicitly support, cherry picking data and outright lies.

Especially when a counter explanation is provided just by a wikipedia search.

As I pointed out: this is not the way to go about coming up with a valid position.

Now: if you think ignoring all the facts and major flaws in your argument whilst inventing unsupported, unevidenced speculation to explain why your explanation doesn’t fit the facts, by all means go ahead and explain why. But we both know that’s retarded.

At this point, this is frankly absurd: I could say they sky is blue and you would go onto a ranting post about how I provide no evidence.

Frankly, I’m not sure what type of evidence I would need to provide to justify the claim “unsupported conjecture is not a good basis for a valid position”, nor what evidence you would have to provide in order to show otherwise.

Do I really have to present evidence that box cutters are sharp?

Do you want me to post citations that there were 22 hijackers?

Are you objecting to any of the times - based on an easily confirmable Wikipedia timeline?

This would be like me not answering any of your points: but asserting that you’ve provided no evidence that the twin towers even existed...

This is just a rhetorical tactic: you’re making vague and non specific objections about me not providing evidence because you know the facts are accurate and can’t really argue them.

If you were specific and said what you thought was false, and unsupported: then I could make you look like a dumba** by posting a basic Wikipedia page showing how obvious the fact is.

It seems you’re really good at rhetorical ploys, subject changing and tactical idiocy: not so great at the “logical argument” part.

I scanned it over to see if my guess was correct, and I was! 

"Let's of course continue to ignore the fact that thousands of qualified experts in the field say that the manner that these building collapsed is impossible."

Wait, 

So you ignore what I pointed out about:

• the complexity of the operation being less than you imply.
• That boxcutters are pretty effective stabbing weapons, and as such the hijack is believable.
• That what was on TV has no bearing on the above.
• That hijackers were trained for hours on Boeing flight simulators - despite your claims otherwise.
• That the defense apparatus is set up to defend the nation - but not from hijacks. And neither Norads existence, nor having a basic policy in place for dealing with hijackings change that. 
• That pundits pointing quickly to the fbis most wanted - who previously attacked the WTC and organized suicide strikes, is not a big leap
• That your claims about how long jets were “unimpeded” were grossly understated and - in reality - were actually mostly very short from when the military were informed to the jet was crashed.
• That just because administrations were warned about a particular type of attack a does not mean the individuals involved in the decision making anticipated or were trained for this eventuality.
• That there is a general lack of believability of conspiracy due to the size and complexity of the conspiracy, together with the fact that anyone who wanted to achieve similar aims could have conducted a much smaller and much different attack.
• That the number of points of failure for your claimed conspiracy are so substantial to be a clearly terrible plan for a smart Uber-group
• That you’re mostly using “no evidence” as a rhetorical ploy where you can pretend you’ve argued against a fact that is actually obviously supported - without actually pointing out.
• That most conspiracy theorist throw out inaccurate claims, and unsubstantiated conjecture to explain the major flaws in their position.

You ignore all of those points: and through some weird logic, because I didn’t explicitly respond yet another clagim which a) you offer no support for, b) is essentially both an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity...

you claim “I am the one ignoring things?”

As I said, logic doesn’t appear to be your strong point.

Kinda covered that in this reply - after the bullets.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

The airspace is heavily guarded by radar, and agains foreign fighters and bombers attacking the country.

There are “plans” and policies, to deal with hijacked planes - requiring specific authorizations - shared information - etc: but the implication that NORAD was vigilantly scanning the skies for hijackings and thus the idea that it would be likely hijackings would not have gone through - is pure fiction.

Arguing that NORAD exists - or that there is a particular strategy in place to deal with hijackings is laughably irrelevant to support your contention.

Box cutters are an effective stabbing weapon. Multiple individuals with stabbing weapons could reasonably take over a plane of unarmed civilians - especially when they didn’t not necessarily think they were in immediate danger.

Your implication that it’s unreasonable to conclude that were possible - is made up as a result.

I’m not sure why you believe what was in TV at the time is relevant to refuting my argument, but it seems like a completely irrelevant red herring to the point I’m making.

In addition, you seem to not be paying much attention to the fact that the hijackers received training on Boeing flight simulators. The idea that they only received training on single engine planes, is a lie.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf

As I said, you don’t have to be a very good pilot if you don’t need to take off, land or fly particularly well: and the idea that these attackers had to be proven aviation experts to believe it possible for them to steer a plane into a building seems nonsensical.

Now finally, at the time: no one has hijacked planes and used them as weapons. This is factually correct - as I can find no other example of this hijacking was regularly. 

While there were warnings - this hadn’t translated to any substantial warnings at the civilian arc level, or the military interception level, or on matters of policy with regards to the people actually making the necessary decisions: when to inform the military, what to do, how to do it.

Quite frankly for the reasons above, nothing you’ve said backs up any of the insane conclusions you’ve drawn.

You’re making up wild conspiracies, based on drawing wild conclusions that the facts don’t implicitly support, cherry picking data and outright lies.

Especially when a counter explanation is provided just by a wikipedia search.

As I pointed out: this is not the way to go about coming up with a valid position.

Now: if you think ignoring all the facts and major flaws in your argument whilst inventing unsupported, unevidenced speculation to explain why your explanation doesn’t fit the facts, by all means go ahead and explain why. But we both know that’s retarded.

At this point, this is frankly absurd: I could say they sky is blue and you would go onto a ranting post about how I provide no evidence.

Frankly, I’m not sure what type of evidence I would need to provide to justify the claim “unsupported conjecture is not a good basis for a valid position”, nor what evidence you would have to provide in order to show otherwise.

Do I really have to present evidence that box cutters are sharp?

Do you want me to post citations that there were 22 hijackers?

Are you objecting to any of the times - based on an easily confirmable Wikipedia timeline?

This would be like me not answering any of your points: but asserting that you’ve provided no evidence that the twin towers even existed...

This is just a rhetorical tactic: you’re making vague and non specific objections about me not providing evidence because you know the facts are accurate and can’t really argue them.

If you were specific and said what you thought was false, and unsupported: then I could make you look like a dumba** by posting a basic Wikipedia page showing how obvious the fact is.

It seems you’re really good at rhetorical ploys, subject changing and tactical idiocy: not so great at the “logical argument” part.

I scanned it over to see if my guess was correct, and I was! 

"Let's of course continue to ignore the fact that thousands of qualified experts in the field say that the manner that these building collapsed is impossible."

Wait, 

So you ignore what I pointed out about:

• the complexity of the operation being less than you imply.
• That boxcutters are pretty effective stabbing weapons, and as such the hijack is believable.
• That what was on TV has no bearing on the above.
• That hijackers were trained for hours on Boeing flight simulators - despite your claims otherwise.
• That the defense apparatus is set up to defend the nation - but not from hijacks. And neither Norads existence, nor having a basic policy in place for dealing with hijackings change that. 
• That pundits pointing quickly to the fbis most wanted - who previously attacked the WTC and organized suicide strikes, is not a big leap
• That your claims about how long jets were “unimpeded” were grossly understated and - in reality - were actually mostly very short from when the military were informed to the jet was crashed.
• That just because administrations were warned about a particular type of attack a does not mean the individuals involved in the decision making anticipated or were trained for this eventuality.
• That there is a general lack of believability of conspiracy due to the size and complexity of the conspiracy, together with the fact that anyone who wanted to achieve similar aims could have conducted a much smaller and much different attack.
• That the number of points of failure for your claimed conspiracy are so substantial to be a clearly terrible plan for a smart Uber-group
• That you’re mostly using “no evidence” as a rhetorical ploy where you can pretend you’ve argued against a fact that is actually obviously supported - without actually pointing out.
• That most conspiracy theorist throw out inaccurate claims, and unsubstantiated conjecture to explain the major flaws in their position.

You ignore all of those points: and through some weird logic, because I didn’t explicitly respond yet another clagim which a) you offer no support for, b) is essentially both an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity...

you claim “I am the one ignoring things?”

As I said, logic doesn’t appear to be your strong point.

Kinda covered that in this reply - after the bullets.

A fallacy misidentification! Gotcha, did you quote my response?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

@Erfisflat

The airspace is heavily guarded by radar, and agains foreign fighters and bombers attacking the country.

There are “plans” and policies, to deal with hijacked planes - requiring specific authorizations - shared information - etc: but the implication that NORAD was vigilantly scanning the skies for hijackings and thus the idea that it would be likely hijackings would not have gone through - is pure fiction.

Arguing that NORAD exists - or that there is a particular strategy in place to deal with hijackings is laughably irrelevant to support your contention.

Box cutters are an effective stabbing weapon. Multiple individuals with stabbing weapons could reasonably take over a plane of unarmed civilians - especially when they didn’t not necessarily think they were in immediate danger.

Your implication that it’s unreasonable to conclude that were possible - is made up as a result.

I’m not sure why you believe what was in TV at the time is relevant to refuting my argument, but it seems like a completely irrelevant red herring to the point I’m making.

In addition, you seem to not be paying much attention to the fact that the hijackers received training on Boeing flight simulators. The idea that they only received training on single engine planes, is a lie.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf

As I said, you don’t have to be a very good pilot if you don’t need to take off, land or fly particularly well: and the idea that these attackers had to be proven aviation experts to believe it possible for them to steer a plane into a building seems nonsensical.

Now finally, at the time: no one has hijacked planes and used them as weapons. This is factually correct - as I can find no other example of this hijacking was regularly. 

While there were warnings - this hadn’t translated to any substantial warnings at the civilian arc level, or the military interception level, or on matters of policy with regards to the people actually making the necessary decisions: when to inform the military, what to do, how to do it.

Quite frankly for the reasons above, nothing you’ve said backs up any of the insane conclusions you’ve drawn.

You’re making up wild conspiracies, based on drawing wild conclusions that the facts don’t implicitly support, cherry picking data and outright lies.

Especially when a counter explanation is provided just by a wikipedia search.

As I pointed out: this is not the way to go about coming up with a valid position.

Now: if you think ignoring all the facts and major flaws in your argument whilst inventing unsupported, unevidenced speculation to explain why your explanation doesn’t fit the facts, by all means go ahead and explain why. But we both know that’s retarded.

At this point, this is frankly absurd: I could say they sky is blue and you would go onto a ranting post about how I provide no evidence.

Frankly, I’m not sure what type of evidence I would need to provide to justify the claim “unsupported conjecture is not a good basis for a valid position”, nor what evidence you would have to provide in order to show otherwise.

Do I really have to present evidence that box cutters are sharp?

Do you want me to post citations that there were 22 hijackers?

Are you objecting to any of the times - based on an easily confirmable Wikipedia timeline?

This would be like me not answering any of your points: but asserting that you’ve provided no evidence that the twin towers even existed...

This is just a rhetorical tactic: you’re making vague and non specific objections about me not providing evidence because you know the facts are accurate and can’t really argue them.

If you were specific and said what you thought was false, and unsupported: then I could make you look like a dumba** by posting a basic Wikipedia page showing how obvious the fact is.

It seems you’re really good at rhetorical ploys, subject changing and tactical idiocy: not so great at the “logical argument” part.

I scanned it over to see if my guess was correct, and I was! 

"Let's of course continue to ignore the fact that thousands of qualified experts in the field say that the manner that these building collapsed is impossible."

Wait, 

So you ignore what I pointed out about:

• the complexity of the operation being less than you imply.
• That boxcutters are pretty effective stabbing weapons, and as such the hijack is believable.
• That what was on TV has no bearing on the above.
• That hijackers were trained for hours on Boeing flight simulators - despite your claims otherwise.
• That the defense apparatus is set up to defend the nation - but not from hijacks. And neither Norads existence, nor having a basic policy in place for dealing with hijackings change that. 
• That pundits pointing quickly to the fbis most wanted - who previously attacked the WTC and organized suicide strikes, is not a big leap
• That your claims about how long jets were “unimpeded” were grossly understated and - in reality - were actually mostly very short from when the military were informed to the jet was crashed.
• That just because administrations were warned about a particular type of attack a does not mean the individuals involved in the decision making anticipated or were trained for this eventuality.
• That there is a general lack of believability of conspiracy due to the size and complexity of the conspiracy, together with the fact that anyone who wanted to achieve similar aims could have conducted a much smaller and much different attack.
• That the number of points of failure for your claimed conspiracy are so substantial to be a clearly terrible plan for a smart Uber-group
• That you’re mostly using “no evidence” as a rhetorical ploy where you can pretend you’ve argued against a fact that is actually obviously supported - without actually pointing out.
• That most conspiracy theorist throw out inaccurate claims, and unsubstantiated conjecture to explain the major flaws in their position.

You ignore all of those points: and through some weird logic, because I didn’t explicitly respond yet another clagim which a) you offer no support for, b) is essentially both an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity...

you claim “I am the one ignoring things?”

As I said, logic doesn’t appear to be your strong point.

Kinda covered that in this reply - after the bullets.

A fallacy misidentification! Gotcha, did you quote my response?

... he brashley asserts without providing any argument or jusficarion... as he does in every reply


You offered no support for you claim.  - That part is true.

You are arguing that experts in the field (and there’s are not thousands - this is just you’re typical repeated overstatement and massive embellishment) say it’s impossible, therefore I should trust their opinion and believe it is impossible - without using any arguments or detail beyond that - that is an argument from authority - you are using their authority as an argument - so that wasnt a misidentification.

you are arguing volume of people supporting a position as an inherent supporting argument your position - by sedition an argument from popularity.


So no, you petulant cretin: spending three lazy words rocks assert someone is wrong, doesn't mean it’s true. You need to spend more time providing reasoned and logical argument, rather then spending 95% of your posts stamping your feet and telling us all how right you are, and 0% explaining why.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

@Gooberry what was your response to the thousands of expert opinion about the impossibility of the destruction on the towers?

I’ll also ask.

I can link thousands if not tens of thousands of experts that will say the earth is a sphere.

Given this argument you make here: you will concede your flat earth nonsense is illogical nonsense, right?

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

@Gooberry what was your response to the thousands of expert opinion about the impossibility of the destruction on the towers?

I’ll also ask.

I can link thousands if not tens of thousands of experts that will say the earth is a sphere.

Given this argument you make here: you will concede your flat earth nonsense is illogical nonsense, right?

Great deflection, but where are they with their actual arguments?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

@Gooberry what was your response to the thousands of expert opinion about the impossibility of the destruction on the towers?

I’ll also ask.

I can link thousands if not tens of thousands of experts that will say the earth is a sphere.

Given this argument you make here: you will concede your flat earth nonsense is illogical nonsense, right?

Great deflection, but where are they with their actual arguments?

Well, there’s the meterologists and atmospheric scientists that write the papers you’ve cited, and the team of university scientists that have created a webpage you’ve cited a few times that have come up with refraction simulations around a spherical earth: then there’s All the NASA scientists, thousands of astronomers, and the like around the globe who mostly rely on the earth being a sphere.

All of these are far less imaginary than the thousands of
experts you keep claiming exist, but haven’t ever bothered to show.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

@Gooberry what was your response to the thousands of expert opinion about the impossibility of the destruction on the towers?

I’ll also ask.

I can link thousands if not tens of thousands of experts that will say the earth is a sphere.

Given this argument you make here: you will concede your flat earth nonsense is illogical nonsense, right?

Great deflection, but where are they with their actual arguments?

Well, there’s the meterologists and atmospheric scientists that write the papers you’ve cited, and the team of university scientists that have created a webpage you’ve cited a few times that have come up with refraction simulations around a spherical earth: then there’s All the NASA scientists, thousands of astronomers, and the like around the globe who mostly rely on the earth being a sphere.

All of these are far less imaginary than the thousands of
experts you keep claiming exist, but haven’t ever bothered to show.

Oh, maybe you "overlooked" that. Honest mistake. It wasn't directed at you specifically.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/29829/#Comment_29829


https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/29407/#Comment_29407

In the second website you will find a page where over 100 PHD's question the 9/11 commission report. Hundreds of books, essays, and documentaries with sourced and detailed information.

https://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911

There is also a link to over 3,000 architects and engineers, experts in this specific field of science, stating, in general and collectively, that the destruction of the towers and Pentagon broke the laws of physics.

https://www.ae911truth.org

KATHY MCGRADE

B.S. Metallurgical Engineering

“In an office fire, you cannot generate enough heat to melt steel. And yet we have evidence of molten iron in the rubble pile.”

Hundreds of arguments put forth. I am actually using some of these well researched and supported arguments in my rebuttal. Plenty to pick from.

Now, as for the appeal to authority fallacy claim.

An appeal to authority fallacy is where an expert is cited as to having support for a claim, therefore it is probably true, without argument or evidence.

Even worse, generally stating, as you did, that "thousands if not tens of thousands of experts that will say the earth is a sphere.", where nothing is claimed except some unknown scientists in probably largely unrelated fields are in support of an argument, also without argument or evidence, therefore it is probably true.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

Erfisflat

@Gooberry

"So no, you petulant cretin: spending three lazy words rocks assert someone is wrong, doesn't mean it’s true. You need to spend more time providing reasoned and logical argument, rather then spending 95% of your posts stamping your feet and telling us all how right you are, and 0% explaining why."

This makes you look like this:

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

Ahh yes, I guess I overlooked the one post you made to a different person in a different thread, or the one post with a link to a different person that didn’t contain any specific reference to what it contained . Shame on me, right?

My favourite thing about your reply here: is that you state with a straight that this links contain proof about all your experts.

Then.. the first link is written by:

David Ray Griffin, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Claremont School of Theology.

The first ten people on the “list” of professors you provide also contain.

1.) A PhD in computer science

2.) a professor of politics and international affairs

3.) Geoscience

4.) political science

5.) Physics

6.) Theology

There aren’t even 3000 architects m, structural and mechanical engineers- the list is full of electrical engineers, computer science, chemical engineers, students, interns landscape architects, etc. I’ve found maybe 3-4 that even have experience in steel framed buildings... so It doesn’t strike me as a good vetted list of “experts”

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t consider electrical engineers and architect interns or students “experts”.

A whole tonne of the people on the list don’t even mention that they think it’s impossible that the building couldn’t have collapsed the way claim - and many say they just want a different and independent investigation - so not only is it not a good list of experts - it doesn’t even seem to be a list of experts that all agree with you.

But even then, you’ve ignored the primary issue I’ve raised with your argument  - that it is an argument from authority, and an argument from popularity.

Not only do you not bother to defend this at all: you even make my argument for me.

In your reply you’ve just stated that merely citing thousands of experts is an appeal to authority: and it’s dishonest to produce lists of people in unrelated fields.

You have objectively done both these things, and are literally refuting your own position.

Of course, you’ve also made up a claim that thousands of astronomers, nasa physicists, space related engineers, and atmospheric scientists - and others that use the fact the earth is a sphere for their work every day - are all working in “unrelated fields”. 

Erfisflat

@Gooberry, if you recently posted something, I can't see it, the previous poster bugged the forum.

Gooberry

Well it seems like the interwebs wasn’t successfully broken for me at least!

Erfisflat

Ahh yes, I guess I overlooked the one post you made to a different person in a different thread, or the one post with a link to a different person that didn’t contain any specific reference to what it contained . Shame on me, right?

My favourite thing about your reply here: is that you state with a straight that this links contain proof about all your experts."

That's ridiculous. A blatant lie even. I state with straight (face) that there are thousands of architects and engineers and an additional 100+ college professors that disagree with the official story, and the majority, most having some high understandings of physics, say it was physically impossible for a plane to knock down the twin towers at all, much less looking exactly like a controlled demolition.

"Then.. the first link is written by:

David Ray Griffin, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Claremont School of Theology." No argument there, the fact remains that this man holds a valid PHD, and is a professor at an accredited college, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

"The first ten people on the “list” of professors you provide also contain."

Haha, you're desperate! What's with the quotation marks? Does this not qualify for a list in your world?

"1.) A PhD in computer science"

Actually, the theologist was first.

"2.) a professor of politics and international affairs"

Actually, second on the professors list is: "Joel S. Hirschhorn, MS (Metallurgical Engineering), PhD (Materials Engineering) – Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978. Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 - 1990. Testified over 50 times before Congress on technology, science, and environmental issues. Author of seven books and over 150 papers, articles, and book chapters on environmental science and technology."

"3.) Geoscience"

A. K. Dewdney, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Department of Computer Science, University of Western Ontario. Author of Scientific American's"Computer Recreations" and "Mathematical Recreations" section, 1984 - 1993. Author of over 80 scientific papers on mathematics, computer science, engineering, astronomy and biology. Author of numerous books, including: Beyond Reason: Eight Great Problems That Reveal the Limits of Science (2004), A Mathematical Mystery Tour: Discovering the Truth and Beauty of the Cosmos (2001), Yes, We Have No Neutrons: (1997), 200% of Nothing: An Eye Opening Tour Through the Twists and Turns of Math Abuse and Innumeracy (1996), The New Turing Omnibus: Sixty-Six Excursions in Computer Science (1993).

"4.) political science"

Richard Falk, JSD – Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University. In 2001 he served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo. He is the author or coauthor of numerous books, including Religion and Humane Global Governance; Human Rights Horizons; On Humane Governance: Toward a New Global Politics; and Human Rights and State Sovereignty. Honorary Vice president of the American Society of International Law.

The Doctor of the Science of Law (JSD) is the Law School's most advanced law degree, and is considered a doctorate equivalent to a Ph.D. It is designed for those interested in becoming scholars and teachers of law and social sciences. ... Admission to the JSD program is on a highly selective basis.

"5.) Physics"

Robert M. Korol, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University. Elected Fellow of the Engineering Institute of Canada for exceptional contributions to engineering in Canada. Fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. Well known for research on steel structures; the plastic theory of metal structures, inelastic buckling, limit analysis, environmental assessment and life cycle analysis methodologies. Hamilton-Wentworth's 1998 "Engineer of the Year."

"6.) Theology"

Lynn Margulis, PhD – Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Former Chair, National Academy of Science's Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. Recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement. Dr. Margulis is best known for contributions to evolution, especially the theory of symbiogenesis. She is the author of over 130 scientific works and numerous books.

Are we even looking at the same list?

"There aren’t even 3000 architects m, structural and mechanical engineers- the list is full of electrical engineers, computer science, chemical engineers, students, interns landscape architects, etc. I’ve found maybe 3-4 that even have experience in steel framed buildings... so It doesn’t strike me as a good vetted list of “experts”"

Anyone here can follow the link to see for themselves this is a blatant lie. If this were the case, surely we would see some reference to anyone in particular. I haven't checked each of the 3,000 signatures and bios, but every one I have checked is a valid architect or engineer, and such, has a fundamental understandings of basic physics, something you seemingly lack. Do demonstrate your blatant lying, I will list 5 architects of that have experience in steel framed buildings.

Richard Gage

AIA, Architect

B Arch

Lafayette CA, US

I've been a practicing Architect for 20 years and have designed numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. More recently I've performed construction administration services for a new $120M high school campus including a $10M steel-framed gymnasium; managing construction documentation of a mixed use urban project with 1.2M sq. ft. of retail and 320,000 sq.ft. of high-rise office space - altogether about 1,200 tons of steel framing.

Sven Alstrom

AIA, NCARB

BGS University of Kansas

Lawrence KS, US

licensed architect since 1982 in original state of NCARB professional exam Kansas. AIA member since licensure. Experience includes work on 23 story Tabor Center Westin Hotel in Denver, concrete frame with steel composite deck top story. Steel frame building experience up to 3 story.

Stephen Barasch

AIA, APA, NCARB

B Arch, Univ of AZ; M Arch, Rice Univ

San Luis Obispo CA, US

I have been a practicing architect/urban designer and management consultant with over 40 years experience and the founder and president of Barasch Architects & Associates, Inc., a multidisciplined architecture/engineering corporation. I have had broad experience in the planning, design & engineering of multi-story, braced-frame and moment-resisting steel frame structures including office towers and large scale institutional complexes.

Patrick Lee

AIA

B Arch, Virginia Tech

Denver CO, US

20 years design experience with low-rise steel and concrete frame buildings.

Alan Anderson Jr

Architect

Arch, Cal Poly SLO

Fair Oaks CA, US

I am an architect who retired in 2010 from the State of California Department of Transportation, Division of Engineering Services, after having worked a combined 29 years in Transportation Architecture and Project Management. Buildings I designed include numerous maintenance stations, an equipment shop, roadside rest areas, a tunnel ventilation building, and light rail transit stations. Many of these buildings were steel frame, all were in California. Before coming to Caltrans, I worked for Liske, Lionakis, Beaumont, & Engberg Architects and Engineers, where I designed the Pacific Telephone Administrative Complex in Rohnert Park, CA, which is also a steel frame building.

"I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t consider electrical engineers and architect interns or students “experts”."

Your desperate attempted dismissal of the thousands of expert opinions is weak and dishonest. This is why I try my best to avoid you. Did you not think anyone would Investigate your allegations and call you out?

"A whole tonne of the people on the list don’t even mention that they think it’s impossible that the building couldn’t have collapsed the way claim - and many say they just want a different and independent investigation - so not only is it not a good list of experts - it doesn’t even seem to be a list of experts that all agree with you."

That is false. Note we don't even get an example of the very "many" examples you reference. Testimony to your dishonest cognitive bias.

"But even then, you’ve ignored the primary issue I’ve raised with your argument  - that it is an argument from authority, and an argument from popularity.

I didn't ignore it, that's what, 5 lies in one post? Let me post it again, as you repeatedly ignore many points on multiple topics.

"An appeal to authority fallacy is where an expert is cited as to having support for a claim, therefore it is probably true, without argument or evidence. 

Even worse, generally stating, as you did, that "thousands if not tens of thousands of experts that will say the earth is a sphere.", where nothing is claimed except some unknown scientists in probably largely unrelated fields are in support of an argument, also without argument or evidence, therefore it is probably true.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority"

"Not only do you not bother to defend this at all: you even make my argument for me.

"In your reply you’ve just stated that merely citing thousands of experts is an appeal to authority: and it’s dishonest to produce lists of people in unrelated fields."

Wait, are you now referencing the argument that I supposedly never made? This is great stuff. 

"You have objectively done both these things, and are literally refuting your own position.

Of course, you’ve also made up a claim that thousands of astronomers, nasa physicists, space related engineers, and atmospheric scientists - and others that use the fact the earth is a sphere for their work every day - are all working in “unrelated fields”."

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

Oh I’m to blame on a bug in the system ,any excuse to save you facing @Gooberry

Joeseph

@Gooberry

He really is doing everything in his power  to avoid you

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

Oh dear @Erisflat is appealing to “authority “ now i

Argument from authority

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.

 What a desperate attempt to bail out his sinking boat , unfortunately a college degree does not guarantee one should be let loose in public , Griffin can be seen is action on you tube and not surprisingly is a religious loony demonstrating unfortunately the damage religious indoctrination does to Flathead and others .

Just a quick look through your list and I’ve chosen three of your most prominent poster boys for the “movement “ , this is too easy it’s like shooting fish in a barrel mate 

David Ray Griffin ......

The first  and most famous work of trutherism is The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Naturally, it's a book-length just asking questions session (indeed, he never explains how the conspiracy would work in toto, but merely attempts to poke holes in the "official account" like most other conspiracy theorists), replete with the standard post hoc cui bono reasoning and citations of other cranks as "experts." All the old truther chestnuts are there as well, including WTC7, the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile, the PNAC, and a number of the other greatest hits.

He has also written some material shoehorning Christian theology into trutherism (namely, Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and

Richard Falk 

Poor old Falk is a spineless dog who cannot even stick by his claims when confronted , this loony is typical 9 /11 truther 

Richard Falk: I’m not a 911 conspiracy theorist

Richard Falk, the U.N. rights researcher who provoked fury from the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki moon for saying the U.S. government and media had apparently covered up evidence challenging the official U.S. claim that the terrorist group Al Qaeda carried out the 911 terror attacks, says he was misunderstood. "I wish to be absolutely ...

BY COLUM LYNCH | JANUARY 28, 2011, 7:16 PM

Richard Falk, the U.N. rights researcher who provoked fury from the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki moon for saying the U.S. government and media had apparently covered up evidence challenging the official U.S. claim that the terrorist group Al Qaeda carried out the 911 terror attacks, says he was misunderstood.

"I wish to be absolutely clear," Falk said in a statement. "I do not endorse the theory that the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. What I did do, in my personal blog, in which I was discussing the differing perceptions that develop after political assassinations and deeply tragic events, including the murder of Olaf Palme, the 9/11 attacks and the recent killing in Arizona, was argue that investigations must be seen to be, transparent, exhaustive and honest.

The dispute arose over Falk’s blog post on 911 on government’s propensity for secrecy in the face of awkward truths. Here’s the passage that got Falk into hot water:

The arguments swirling around the 9/11 attacks are emblematic of these issues. What fuels suspicions of conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations that David Ray Griffin(and other devoted scholars of high integrity) have been documenting in book after book ever since his authoritative The New Pearl Harbor in 2004 (updated in 2008). What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials. Is this silence a manifestation of fear or cooption, or part of an equally disturbing filter of self-censorship? Whatever it is, the result is the withering away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. The forms persist, but the content is missing.

After the post, Hillel C. Neuer, the executive director of U.N. Wacth, sent a letter to Ban Ki moon condemning the remarks, and calling for Falk’s removal. "As he did again this month, Mr. Falk has repeatedly called into question the fact that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were indeed terrorist attacks," Neuer said in prepared testimony before the House Foreign Relations Committee Monday. "Instead he calls for exploring the possibility that 9/11 was an "inside job"carried out by the U.S. government."

Ban quickly condemned Falk’s blog posting. Addressing the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva Monday, Ban said:  " I condemn this sort of inflammatory rhetoric. It is preposterous — an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic attack."

Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called for Falk’s removal. "Mr. Falk endorses the slurs of conspiracy theorists who allege that the September, 2001, terrorists attack were perpetrated and then covered up by the U.S. government and media," she said."In my view, Mr. Falk’s latest commentary is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position on behalf of the UN."

Falk, who serves as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestininian Territories Occupied Since 1967, claimed "the pro-Israel group, UN Watch..deliberately distorted comment I made my personal capacity, on my blog," to have him fired from his unpaid job. In a blog post Thursday, he accused Neuer of "publicly attacking me in consistently irresponsible and untruthful ways, presumably with the intention of diverting attention from my criticisms of Israel’s occupation policies in the Palestinian territories."

In response, U.N. Watch issued a statement saying "Mr. Falk’s ad hominem attacks on UN Watch are a pathetic attempt to divert attention from his own action…By attempting to justify his despicable denial of Al Qaeda’s carrying-out of the 9/11 attacks as a mere call for “investigations,” Mr. Falk resorts to the same transparent tactics used by Iran’s Ahmadinejad and other hate-mongers who seek to deny other great atrocities of history, each with their own hateful political agenda."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

Colum Lynch is Foreign Policy’s award-winning U.N.-based senior diplomatic reporter. 

Richard Gage 

Gage is rightly ignored and shunned by the American Institute of Architects and is rightly see as a fruitcake ....... 

Architects Shy From Trutherism

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

By JEREMY STAHL

The boardroom at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Institute of Architects is an impressive place: Beautiful concentric wooden desks, with microphones in front of every seat, encircle a small central dais, offering the impression that important discussions are had here. “It feels like the United Nations,” a guest recently commented.

This room recently served as a peculiar venue for the 23rd stop on the 30-city “world premiere tour” of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition.

Since 2006, Gage has been traveling all over the world under the banner of his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth—an organization that has no affiliation with the AIA, express or otherwise—to preach the theory that the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were actually brought down by explosives on September 11, 2001, and not the impact of two hijacked jetliners and the resulting fires and debris.

What was even more surreal than the late June screening location for his latest presentation of this argument, though, was hearing the types of speeches that accompany such an absurd event be given in such an austere room. 

  

“I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into believing that our government and the Israeli government, the Israeli Mossad, could be responsible for the Twin Towers demolition,” one member of the DC chapter of 911truth.org declared from the AIA-emblazoned podium.

“At least three firefighters in New York at Ground Zero who came upon a large store of gold at the Twin Towers were executed by FBI… every official story turns out to be a lie,” another local activist said to applause.

Gage feigned to distance his organization, the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, from these remarks, calling the gold story “related” to his work but less “helpful” to its mission than his “irrefutable scientific evidence” that the skyscrapers were brought down by explosives.

The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,” Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told me.

The former employee of the Walnut Creek, Calif.-based architectural firm Akol & Yoshii is a full-time 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but Gage tries to maintain a façade of being a scientist asking scientific questions. He does his best to avoid the murkier political questions of who could have orchestrated a conspiracy theory and cover-up of the size and scope that the 9/11 conspiracy movement alleges, but his technical views are actually quite mainstream within the Truth movement.

Your appeal to authority is another epic fail mate ......

Argument from authority

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

You see to have confirmed that 7 of the top 10 in your “list of PhDs”, don’t have a valid civil engineering or architectures background. The list of PhD fields I specified is accurate - though the numbers did not reflect their position in the list.

So let’s refer back to what you said in another argument:




As you rightly point out with your previous post, what you are doing is an appeal to authority. I have been pointing out that it is also a DISHONEST appeal to authority where “nothing is claimed other than a scientist in probably largely unrelated fields are in support of an argument”.

You should listen to yourself.


The same goes for the second list. It’s an appeal to authority and popularity.

Now, as I pointed out that too is a dishonest appeal to authority as it includes unrelated fields, students and interns.





AND it’s full of people who don’t make any specific claims to agree with your nutjobbery, but just want an independent investigation:



Perhaps you could walk me through the logic of how you think copy pasting 6 or so architects from the list proves that the other 2994 are all legit and believe your craziness. This is an obvious and hilarious transparent attempt at cherry picking.

In fact your whole response is doing that. Remember, your argument was that there were “thousands of experts”.

How many of those experts on were referring to were chemical engineers, computer scientists or PhDs in philosophy?

But still, as you have pointed out. Even if it were all valid, it’s still both an appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.

Erfisflat

You guys are beyond desperate, and it appears you are suffering from extreme biases.

Cherry picking through a list of thousands of experts in their field to try and dismiss the whole. 

You've completely ignored the few experts I've pointed at in particular. Even using @Joeseph's unsourced definition of appeal to authority, that is in itself a valid argument. Take for example:

Antonio Arthay

P.E.

MS Structural Engineering, Illinois

West Palm Beach FL, US

Licensed Structural Engineer with 15+ years of experience in building design.

"Buildings collapsed all by controlled demolition methods. Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise."

Exactly as I said, this structural engineer, all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context, states that the collapse of the towers broke the laws of physics.

You guys seem to be bent on a few sources, although it stands that they are experts in their feild, and ignoring their arguments.

Yes, you will find engineers and architects that only want an independent investigation, but with even an ounce of logic, and of course without unwarranted bias, it should be obviously apparent why. Though it would appear that both logic and reasoning exceed you both.

Your arguments seem to be that because a few of the experts (there are several more than either of you alludes to) don't meet your standards of what can be considered an engineer or architectual expert, that we can safely conclude that all of the experts, for some reason, can be dismissed with a simple nay.

Gooberry

You claimed there were 1000s of experts in relevant fields.

For the 1048291th time, that is an argument from authority

If you state how many people agree with you as evidence that you’re correct: that is also an appeal to popularity.

Please don’t claim that we’re desperate, when you have gone maybe a dozen posts trying to avoid that fact.

Even you agree:




Now, as pointed out: 70% of You’re top ten “PhD” experts don’t have a relevant degree - and I found multiple hundreds of examples of irrelevant qualifications and non experts in the second list - which I posted an example of to prove I wasn’t making it up.

I also provided examples and evidence of those on that list who don’t seem to believe you: and simply want an independent investigation.



Calling us desperate, refusing to address any of the problems with your arguments, nor deal with any of the credibility issues, is not an argument: nor is your response: which is simply to deny anything that’s all been said for no reason and without any justification.


And either way did I mention - it still doesn’t change the fact that you’re still making an argument from authority.



Frankly, if the only argument you have left is haggling over how many false entries there are in a list - you’ve pretty much conceded how wrong you are by default.



 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

You guys are beyond desperate, and it appears you are suffering from extreme biases.

Cherry picking through a list of thousands of experts in their field to try and dismiss the whole. 

You've completely ignored the few experts I've pointed at in particular. Even using @Joeseph's unsourced definition of appeal to authority, that is in itself a valid argument. Take for example:

Antonio Arthay

P.E.

MS Structural Engineering, Illinois

West Palm Beach FL, US

Licensed Structural Engineer with 15+ years of experience in building design.

"Buildings collapsed all by controlled demolition methods. Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise."

Exactly as I said, this structural engineer, all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context, states that the collapse of the towers broke the laws of physics.

You guys seem to be bent on a few sources, although it stands that they are experts in their feild, and ignoring their arguments.

Yes, you will find engineers and architects that only want an independent investigation, but with even an ounce of logic, and of course without unwarranted bias, it should be obviously apparent why. Though it would appear that both logic and reasoning exceed you both.

Your arguments seem to be that because a few of the experts (there are several more than either of you alludes to) don't meet your standards of what can be considered an engineer or architectual expert, that we can safely conclude that all of the experts, for some reason, can be dismissed with a simple nay.

Also, it’s odd that you don’t understand the argument I’m making: as I have said it constantly in this exchange:

1.) You’re making an appeal to authority.
2.) You’re making an appeal to popularity.

3.) Its not even a good one, because the lists you’ve cited as evidence of “thousands of experts in the field”, contain many, many, many people that aren’t experts in the field - and the level of support is therefore overstated - and The level of real support could be MUCH lower.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

You guys are beyond desperate, and it appears you are suffering from extreme biases.

Cherry picking through a list of thousands of experts in their field to try and dismiss the whole. 

You've completely ignored the few experts I've pointed at in particular. Even using @Joeseph's unsourced definition of appeal to authority, that is in itself a valid argument. Take for example:

Antonio Arthay

P.E.

MS Structural Engineering, Illinois

West Palm Beach FL, US

Licensed Structural Engineer with 15+ years of experience in building design.

"Buildings collapsed all by controlled demolition methods. Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise."

Exactly as I said, this structural engineer, all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context, states that the collapse of the towers broke the laws of physics.

You guys seem to be bent on a few sources, although it stands that they are experts in their feild, and ignoring their arguments.

Yes, you will find engineers and architects that only want an independent investigation, but with even an ounce of logic, and of course without unwarranted bias, it should be obviously apparent why. Though it would appear that both logic and reasoning exceed you both.

Your arguments seem to be that because a few of the experts (there are several more than either of you alludes to) don't meet your standards of what can be considered an engineer or architectual expert, that we can safely conclude that all of the experts, for some reason, can be dismissed with a simple nay.

Also, it’s odd that you don’t understand the argument I’m making: as I have said it constantly in this exchange:

1.) You’re making an appeal to authority.
2.) You’re making an appeal to popularity.

3.) Its not even a good one, because the lists you’ve cited as evidence of “thousands of experts in the field”, contain many, many, many people that aren’t experts in the field - and the level of support is therefore overstated - and The level of real support could be MUCH lower.

No, I don't understand how you can just wave your hands and proclaim that this very large number of authorities on the subject are wrong, and you are right, without even an inkling of a counter argument.

An appeal to authority is a valid argument if 

1. Both parties agree that there are a great number of relevant experts, as I pointed out and you ignore. You think that because some experts in other fields, or a few experts aren't as qualified as others, then we can dismiss the entire argument. This is a sign of extreme bias and sheer stupidity.

2. Over at thoughtcocom, we find this statement, which should clarify to any rational human being with any competent faculty of thinking.

"The only time such an argument won't be fallacious is when the consensus is one of individual authorities and thus the argument meets the same basic standards required of the general Argument from Authority. For example, an argument about the nature of lung cancer based upon the published opinions of most cancer researchers would carry real weight and would not be fallacious."

https://www.thoughtco.com/argumentum-ad-populum-250340

The vague assertion that "many (many, many)" of these experts aren't actually experts at all is irrelevant, so far we have a handful of experts that don't meet your own qualifications as such, while you ignore ore the ones that obviously do agree with me.

The fact that you continue to baselessly claim that the argument is invalid is a testament to your poor debating skills, and your repeated failed recognition of fallacies, and how they are used.

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say ...... while you ignore ore the ones that obviously do agree with me.

My reply ..... I took three off the list after a quick glance  and proved one was a bible thumping looney , another was an “ architect “ which his own society disowned for his embarringly video on 9/11 and a third one rowed back on his precious claims when challenged ,so again your appeal to authority is an epic fail 

Erfisflat

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat

You say ...... while you ignore ore the ones that obviously do agree with me.

My reply ..... I took three off the list after a quick glance  and proved one was a bible thumping looney , another was an “ architect “ which his own society disowned for his embarringly video on 9/11 and a third one rowed back on his precious claims when challenged ,so again your appeal to authority is an epic fail 

Three huh? One because he has a different belief system than yours? We can all look at his credentials and see he is a highly educated person, but you presume he is wrong in every sense. 

So that's three "down" and 2,997 to go. Good luck!

Gooberry

@Erfisflat ;

Are you just dismissing everything because you have no argument? Or because you’re not reading what I’m saying?

You’ve asserted - and asking us all to take your word - that this list is a list of relevant experts - and there are thousands.

I have shown, that there is serious doubt as to whether your word on this can be trusted - as I have found likely multiple hundreds of individuals on that list that do not seem to be experts, or in the relevant field. - with just a basic google search.

As there is valid reason to believe that this list is not as credible as you say - the burden is now on you to show that this list is valid.

Asserting that it is valid, and dismissing the issues, just shows that you don’t appear to be able to deal with this argument and are just trying to make it go away.

Now: if given I’ve cast doubt on the list, If you can’t provide evidence as to how many on that list are experts, rather than chemical or electrical engineers, or interns - or students - then this list is rather useless in supporting your contentions.

Now - you’re really now shifting the burden of proof, as you do regularly - trying to make me prove every single last individual. It’s you’re job to scrutinize the validity of your sources, and if you can’t do that: you shouldn’t use them. If the credibility is questioned with evidence, that’s again - your problem. If fake names are found in a petition in which the quantity of names is found - it calls into question how many names are really on that petition.

Again - that burden is on you - but you’re lazy and won’t bother actually defending the claims and so I suspect will just assert that everyone else is wrong.

Now: this is an argument from authority. 

I know this, because that’s what you claimed about scientist believing in a spherical earth - even though the overwhelming majority support spherical earth.

If you dismiss that as an argument from authority - then unless your being a hypocritical who is being incoherent - you must reject it in this case too.

Saying that:

104,000 architects in the US

https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/registered-architects-in-the-us-increased-over-the-past-year-annual-ncarb-survey-says_o

305,000 civil engineers

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/mobile/civil-engineers.htm

290,000 mechanical engineers 

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172141.htm

Adding up to just shy of 700,000 engineers, meaning your list even if you assume EVERY member on your list is in one of these groups AND believes you - that’s still less than 0.5% of the registered professionals in the field.

Hardly a consensus. So yes - still an argument from authority.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat

You say ...... while you ignore ore the ones that obviously do agree with me.

My reply ..... I took three off the list after a quick glance  and proved one was a bible thumping looney , another was an “ architect “ which his own society disowned for his embarringly video on 9/11 and a third one rowed back on his precious claims when challenged ,so again your appeal to authority is an epic fail 

Three huh? One because he has a different belief system than yours? We can all look at his credentials and see he is a highly educated person, but you presume he is wrong in every sense. 

So that's three "down" and 2,997 to go. Good luck!

This was a list used to back up you claim of “thousands of experts” in the relevant fields that agree with you.

If literally 7 our of the first 10 in one list are not experts in the relevant field, and that multiple individuals are not experts, nor in the relevant field, nor agree with you: it shows the validity of the list - which you have simply asserted - is questionable.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat

You say ...... while you ignore ore the ones that obviously do agree with me.

My reply ..... I took three off the list after a quick glance  and proved one was a bible thumping looney , another was an “ architect “ which his own society disowned for his embarringly video on 9/11 and a third one rowed back on his precious claims when challenged ,so again your appeal to authority is an epic fail 

Three huh? One because he has a different belief system than yours? We can all look at his credentials and see he is a highly educated person, but you presume he is wrong in every sense. 

So that's three "down" and 2,997 to go. Good luck!

This was a list used to back up you claim of “thousands of experts” in the relevant fields that agree with you.

If literally 7 our of the first 10 in one list are not experts in the relevant field, and that multiple individuals are not experts, nor in the relevant field, nor agree with you: it shows the validity of the list - which you have simply asserted - is questionable.

Your implication that even with the tremendous amount of credentials therein, that none of them are valid is- ignorant.

This red herring has persisted long enough. Your persistent denial of expert opinions is unwarranted, and fallacious cherry picking, at best, at worst blatant denial of the physics involved.

On to an actual argument.

Building 7 was not hit by any plane. It collapsed in the same manner that the other buildings did, against the laws of physics, pulverized into it's own footprint. "Office fires" seems to be the excuse for this.

Any rebuttal to this?

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat

You say ...... while you ignore ore the ones that obviously do agree with me.

My reply ..... I took three off the list after a quick glance  and proved one was a bible thumping looney , another was an “ architect “ which his own society disowned for his embarringly video on 9/11 and a third one rowed back on his precious claims when challenged ,so again your appeal to authority is an epic fail 

Three huh? One because he has a different belief system than yours? We can all look at his credentials and see he is a highly educated person, but you presume he is wrong in every sense. 

So that's three "down" and 2,997 to go. Good luck!

This was a list used to back up you claim of “thousands of experts” in the relevant fields that agree with you.

If literally 7 our of the first 10 in one list are not experts in the relevant field, and that multiple individuals are not experts, nor in the relevant field, nor agree with you: it shows the validity of the list - which you have simply asserted - is questionable.

Your implication that even with the tremendous amount of credentials therein, that none of them are valid is- ignorant.

This red herring has persisted long enough. Your persistent denial of expert opinions is unwarranted, and fallacious cherry picking, at best, at worst blatant denial of the physics involved.

On to an actual argument.

Building 7 was not hit by any plane. It collapsed in the same manner that the other buildings did, against the laws of physics, pulverized into it's own footprint. "Office fires" seems to be the excuse for this.

Any rebuttal to this?

No I’m sorry, I would like you to actually address the points being raised - rather than simply saying they don’t count.

again: 

1.) This list represents less than 0.5% of the profession - making your argument an argument from authority. Repeatedly asserting how much authority there is doesnt make it not an argument from authority.

2.) You have asserted, without justification or argument - that these list is accurate and valid. I have shown credibile information that this list is not accurate, and your assertions that it should be accepted at face value is therefore false. If half the members of the list are not experts in relevant fields, and don’t agree with your claims, as all you’ve done is claim expert quantity and quality - it erodes your argument.

3.) If I provided evidence that 100% of astronomers and atmospheric scientists believed the earth was a sphere - you would - and have rejected it as an argument from popularity and an argument from authority. So if you are expecting me to swallow this as a great argument - you have to accept the earth is a sphere. You can’t have it both ways.

4.) Despite pointing all of this out, your only arguments seems to be to make the same argument that the 3 items above alrwad effectively refuted; and brazen attempts to shift the burden of proof.


So, while you’re busy not providing any rebuttal - I will point out that if this is a red herring - it’s a red herring that you brought up, in order to deflect and not answer from a detailed rebuttal I provided that you still haven’t bothered to reply to.

It’s like you can’t or won’t defend anything you say: and are simply trying to continually shift the burden and change the subject in order to make people forget you haven’t provided any reasonable justification at any point.

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

Your appeal to authority are getting more desperate by the minute , regards tower 7 come on that been debunked as many times as your flat earth nonsense ......Wiki is your friend ......The damaged Verizon Building can be seen left of WTC 7's ruins.

World Trade Center controlled demolition theories contend that the collapse of the World Trade Center was not solely caused by the airliner crash damage that occurred as part of the September 11 attacks, and the resulting fire damage, but by explosives installed in the buildings in advance.[1]Controlled demolition theories make up a major component of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Early advocates such as physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, theologianDavid Ray Griffin, and Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko, argued that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate a catastrophic collapse, and that the buildings would not have collapsed completely, nor at the speeds that they did, without additional energy involved to weaken their structures.[2]

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the magazine Popular Mechanicsexamined and rejected these theories. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineeringaccept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[3][4][5] NIST "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001."[6

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say ......Three huh?

My reply ..... Yes three of the big hitters for your ”campaign” so I guess as we work down the list we will gradually get nuttier and nuttier truthers

You say  ......One because he has a different belief system than yours?

My reply ..... No it’s not that at all why not go and look at the nut job on You Tube ? Oh but you know about this already don’t you ? 

 You say ......We can all look at his credentials and see he is a highly educated person, but you presume he is wrong in every
sense. 


My reply ..... He may be educated but he’s a laughing stock amongst rational beings 



You say .......So that's three "down" and 2,997 to go. Good luck!

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat

You say ...... while you ignore ore the ones that obviously do agree with me.

My reply ..... I took three off the list after a quick glance  and proved one was a bible thumping looney , another was an “ architect “ which his own society disowned for his embarringly video on 9/11 and a third one rowed back on his precious claims when challenged ,so again your appeal to authority is an epic fail 

Three huh? One because he has a different belief system than yours? We can all look at his credentials and see he is a highly educated person, but you presume he is wrong in every sense. 

So that's three "down" and 2,997 to go. Good luck!

This was a list used to back up you claim of “thousands of experts” in the relevant fields that agree with you.

If literally 7 our of the first 10 in one list are not experts in the relevant field, and that multiple individuals are not experts, nor in the relevant field, nor agree with you: it shows the validity of the list - which you have simply asserted - is questionable.

Your implication that even with the tremendous amount of credentials therein, that none of them are valid is- ignorant.

This red herring has persisted long enough. Your persistent denial of expert opinions is unwarranted, and fallacious cherry picking, at best, at worst blatant denial of the physics involved.

On to an actual argument.

Building 7 was not hit by any plane. It collapsed in the same manner that the other buildings did, against the laws of physics, pulverized into it's own footprint. "Office fires" seems to be the excuse for this.

Any rebuttal to this?

http://aiablueridge.org/2017/news/a17-update

“Over 16,000 architects and allied professionals spent the last few days in Orlando, Florida to discuss and celebrate the profession of architecture...”

Resolution 17-5: Investigation of the Total Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, sponsored by Daniel Barnum, FAIA, and 50 Members of the Institute, failed with 4113 votes against and 182 votes in favor (with 179 abstentions). The resolution’s sponsors questioned the conclusions offered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2008 about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. They argued that the Institute should support “a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC7.”

Last time I checked, 4113 > 3000.

Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

@Gooberry what was your response to the thousands of expert opinion about the impossibility of the destruction on the towers?

I’ll also ask.

I can link thousands if not tens of thousands of experts that will say the earth is a sphere.

Given this argument you make here: you will concede your flat earth nonsense is illogical nonsense, right?

Great deflection, but where are they with their actual arguments?

Well, there’s the meterologists and atmospheric scientists that write the papers you’ve cited, and the team of university scientists that have created a webpage you’ve cited a few times that have come up with refraction simulations around a spherical earth: then there’s All the NASA scientists, thousands of astronomers, and the like around the globe who mostly rely on the earth being a sphere.

All of these are far less imaginary than the thousands of
experts you keep claiming exist, but haven’t ever bothered to show.

Oh, maybe you "overlooked" that. Honest mistake. It wasn't directed at you specifically.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/29829/#Comment_29829


https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/29407/#Comment_29407

In the second website you will find a page where over 100 PHD's question the 9/11 commission report. Hundreds of books, essays, and documentaries with sourced and detailed information.

https://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911

There is also a link to over 3,000 architects and engineers, experts in this specific field of science, stating, in general and collectively, that the destruction of the towers and Pentagon broke the laws of physics.

https://www.ae911truth.org

KATHY MCGRADE

B.S. Metallurgical Engineering

“In an office fire, you cannot generate enough heat to melt steel. And yet we have evidence of molten iron in the rubble pile.”

Hundreds of arguments put forth. I am actually using some of these well researched and supported arguments in my rebuttal. Plenty to pick from.

Now, as for the appeal to authority fallacy claim.

An appeal to authority fallacy is where an expert is cited as to having support for a claim, therefore it is probably true, without argument or evidence.

Even worse, generally stating, as you did, that "thousands if not tens of thousands of experts that will say the earth is a sphere.", where nothing is claimed except some unknown scientists in probably largely unrelated fields are in support of an argument, also without argument or evidence, therefore it is probably true.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

"No I’m sorry, I would like you to actually address the points being raised - rather than simply saying they don’t count."

Was it not a point raised? What about the 2.3 trillion dollars being investigated? These all seem to be very pertinent arguments that you don't want to talk about. If you can't be honest, there's no point in posting anything. I will point it out every time. Your tangents have been played out.

Have you repeatedly and blatantly ignoring arguments because you can't address an actual argument, and are stuck on this fallacy?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/geneticgain: ;

"1.) This list represents less than 0.5% of the profession - making your argument an argument from authority. Repeatedly asserting how much authority there is doesnt make it not an argument from authority."

I love how you worded that. Before, your implications were that my argument is fallacious. I even explained what the fallacious appeal to authority was, and how it was dinstictly different, your pointing out that it was an appeal to authority does not mean that it is fallaciousness. It remains a valid argument. 

https://www.thoughtco.com/argumentum-ad-populum-250340

"2.) You have asserted, without justification or argument - that these list is accurate and valid."

I could link you at the very least, 3 instances where I provided both justification and argument- that the list is accurate and valid. Just so that we're clear, are you saying these people and or their credentials-don't exist? That would be desperate indeed. Anyone can look these people up.



" I have shown credibile information that this list is not accurate, and your assertions that it should be accepted at face value is therefore false. If half the members of the list are not experts in relevant fields, and don’t agree with your claims, as all you’ve done is claim expert quantity and quality - it erodes your argument."

That's actually shifting the burden. I've also shown credible information that the list is accurate. For you to assert that I should prove to you that every person on the list is an actual person and they are actually accredited experts is by definition shifting the burden.

I've provided the information, you made the claim that requires justification. 

"3.) If I provided evidence that 100% of astronomers and atmospheric scientists believed the earth was a sphere - you would - and have rejected it as an argument from popularity and an argument from authority. So if you are expecting me to swallow this as a great argument - you have to accept the earth is a sphere. You can’t have it both ways."

Irrelevant, and I've yet to see that evidence anyway. You want to get off on yet another red herring now?

https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/

"4.) Despite pointing all of this out, your only arguments seems to be to make the same argument that the 3 items above alrwad effectively refuted; and brazen attempts to shift the burden of proof."

Actually, there are several arguments I have made that you seem to be avoiding.


"So, while you’re busy not providing any rebuttal - I will point out that if this is a red herring - it’s a red herring that you brought up, in order to deflect and not answer from a detailed rebuttal I provided that you still haven’t bothered to reply to."

Not exactly. The burden has is now being shifted to me, to provide you evidence that each of the 3,000 signatures are accurate and valid! You repeatedly ignore the arguments put forth by the expert, and instead call attention to irrelevant details, often fallacious, ie. Half a dozen posts about your unsourced accusations of a fallacy, or the credibility of the experts, based on a handful that you deemed unworthy of even the attention of their arguments as a whole.

"It’s like you can’t or won’t defend anything you say: and are simply trying to continually shift the burden and change the subject in order to make people forget you haven’t provided any reasonable justification at any point."

Actually what I am doing is called trying to get this discussion on topic. 

Do you agree that another investigation is warranted?

Erfisflat

"You say ......Three huh?

My reply ..... Yes three of the big hitters for your ”campaign” so I guess as we work down the list we will gradually get nuttier and nuttier truther "

This is nothing but your opinion.

"You say  ......One because he has a different belief system than yours?

My reply ..... No it’s not that at all why not go and look at the nut job on You Tube ? Oh but you know about this already don’t you ? "

So your reason that we shouldn't take an expert opinion as a valid one is... because he has a YouTube channel? That doesn't seem logical.

 "You say ......We can all look at his credentials and see he is a highly educated person, but you presume he is wrong in every 
sense. 


My reply ..... He may be educated but he’s a laughing stock amongst rational beings "

Like, you and Goober? You can't just assert this, you have to justify this claim. 


@Joeseph

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat

You say ...... while you ignore ore the ones that obviously do agree with me.

My reply ..... I took three off the list after a quick glance  and proved one was a bible thumping looney , another was an “ architect “ which his own society disowned for his embarringly video on 9/11 and a third one rowed back on his precious claims when challenged ,so again your appeal to authority is an epic fail 

Three huh? One because he has a different belief system than yours? We can all look at his credentials and see he is a highly educated person, but you presume he is wrong in every sense. 

So that's three "down" and 2,997 to go. Good luck!

This was a list used to back up you claim of “thousands of experts” in the relevant fields that agree with you.

If literally 7 our of the first 10 in one list are not experts in the relevant field, and that multiple individuals are not experts, nor in the relevant field, nor agree with you: it shows the validity of the list - which you have simply asserted - is questionable.

Your implication that even with the tremendous amount of credentials therein, that none of them are valid is- ignorant.

This red herring has persisted long enough. Your persistent denial of expert opinions is unwarranted, and fallacious cherry picking, at best, at worst blatant denial of the physics involved.

On to an actual argument.

Building 7 was not hit by any plane. It collapsed in the same manner that the other buildings did, against the laws of physics, pulverized into it's own footprint. "Office fires" seems to be the excuse for this.

Any rebuttal to this?

http://aiablueridge.org/2017/news/a17-update

“Over 16,000 architects and allied professionals spent the last few days in Orlando, Florida to discuss and celebrate the profession of architecture...”

Resolution 17-5: Investigation of the Total Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, sponsored by Daniel Barnum, FAIA, and 50 Members of the Institute, failed with 4113 votes against and 182 votes in favor (with 179 abstentions). The resolution’s sponsors questioned the conclusions offered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2008 about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. They argued that the Institute should support “a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC7.”

Last time I checked, 4113 > 3000.

Thank you for demonstrating the two main fallacies in our conversation perfectly.

You just actually asserted that an actual popular vote should be considered, as evidence, without argument or evidence.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

“Have you repeatedly and blatantly ignoring arguments because you can't address an actual argument, and are stuck on this fallacy?”

He asserts without justification.

Your whole argument was made to evade a massive rebuttal you are still yet to answer.

“Before, your implications were that my argument is fallacious. I even explained what the fallacious appeal to authority was, and how it was dinstictly different, your pointing out that it was an appeal to authority does not mean that it is fallaciousness. It remains a valid argument.”

... he asserts again.

Your argument is fallacious. That’s my whole point.

As you stated - for it to be non fallacious, it has to be a large consensus. 0.5% is not a large consensus.

And yet he dances over that point, and ignores it!

“I could link you at the very least, 3 instances where I provided both justification and argument- that the list is accurate and valid. Just so that we're clear, are you saying these people and or their credentials-don't exist? That would be desperate indeed. Anyone can look these people up.”

Erm. No. Justification and argument would involve you providing valid reasons why this is an honest list of experts in the field - despite it demonstrably having multiple non experts.

What you did - is copy paste a handful of links from the one there are three times.

Now - you presented this “list” as a list of 3000 experts in the field: ignoring that you tried to pass of a professor of theology as an expert in civil engineering. 

I have demonstrated explained - and given examples of how this list is full of non experts. 

Cherry picking 10 experts, shows there’s at least 10 experts in that list. That leaves 2990 left. A quick scan shows at least 180 of the remaining are electrical engineers - that’s like 6% of the entire list are part of a single unrelated profession.

How many of these are actually AIA affiliated? I counted around 180 AIA architects in that list - the experts. Out of those how many agree with you? And how many simply want a new investigation? There are multiplex

But sure - by all means post another ten names in the list and tell me that this proves the list is correct and full of experts 

No: you have provided no basis for that statement - and cherry picking ten people’s name doesn’t count as a basis for showing all 3000 are valid.

But still - I have 4113 architects. So even on that count you still lose.

“That's actually shifting the burden. I've also shown credible information that the list is accurate. For you to assert that I should prove to you that every person on the list is an actual person and they are actually accredited experts is by definition shifting the burden.”

Erm no. It’s my burden of proof to show your claims about the list are not true. You claimed it is full of experts in relevant fields - I showed that was not true.

As a result - we cannot take your word for it that all 3000 individuals on that list are all relevant experts. Saying that we must assume, for no reason, that all individuals are relevancy experts until proven otherwise - when I have shown that there are non experts - is shifting the burden of proof: your source has been shown to be faulty, it’s up to you to defend it.

“Irrelevant, and I've yet to see that evidence anyway. You want to get off on yet another red herring now?”

No. It’s not irrelevant. It’s using an alternative example to show that your position is incoherent and hypocritical.

Your position is that this is not an appeal to authority - yet state an identical and more complete list of scientists that could be presented for spherical earth would be an appeal to authority shows that you’re position is incoherent.

“Actually, there are several arguments I have made that you seem to be avoiding.”

Actually no.

Your argument has involved.

• telling us all how valid the list is - by posting ten name and ignoring the non experts
• Telling us all how this is definitely not an argument from authority when it clearly is a vast minority of some architects you are deciding to cite as if relevant.

I have addressed every point you’ve made - you may not like that the majority of your argument involves simply repeating that you are correct, but that’s mostly what it is.

I am quite happy to point out where I have replies to any point you think I’ve ignored.

“Not exactly. The burden has is now being shifted to me, to provide you evidence that each of the 3,000 signatures are accurate and valid!”

I’m asking you to show how many valid and relevant experts in the field there are on that list - as it has been shown that there are hundreds - and possibly thousands of non experts - and only 180 AIA members.

The alternative is to assume the list is accurate even when it has been proven not to be.

You’re source is faulty - and prove faulty - and thus it is your burden to defend the source.

“You repeatedly ignore the arguments put forth by the expert”

No. Actually. I’m forcing you to defend your argument before you derail and

Change the subject for a second time after dropping at least two major arguments I’ve made

“and instead call attention to irrelevant details, often fallacious”

He asserts. I’ve shown how everything is rwlevant

“Half a dozen posts about your unsourced accusations of a fallacy”

You’re making an argument from authority - I cited a source - you for what that means and how it applies

You’ve agreed it’s an argument from authority - and I’ve explained why it’s fallacies above

“or the credibility of the experts, based on a handful that you deemed unworthy of even the attention of their arguments as a whole.”

No - I’m saying a theology processor isn’t an architect. An electrical engineer isn’t an architect. An Aeronautic engineer isn’t

An architect. 

You seem t be confusing the point.

As well as this, have 4113 architects that disagree with your 180 architects. So you’re wrong either way.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat

You say ...... while you ignore ore the ones that obviously do agree with me.

My reply ..... I took three off the list after a quick glance  and proved one was a bible thumping looney , another was an “ architect “ which his own society disowned for his embarringly video on 9/11 and a third one rowed back on his precious claims when challenged ,so again your appeal to authority is an epic fail 

Three huh? One because he has a different belief system than yours? We can all look at his credentials and see he is a highly educated person, but you presume he is wrong in every sense. 

So that's three "down" and 2,997 to go. Good luck!

This was a list used to back up you claim of “thousands of experts” in the relevant fields that agree with you.

If literally 7 our of the first 10 in one list are not experts in the relevant field, and that multiple individuals are not experts, nor in the relevant field, nor agree with you: it shows the validity of the list - which you have simply asserted - is questionable.

Your implication that even with the tremendous amount of credentials therein, that none of them are valid is- ignorant.

This red herring has persisted long enough. Your persistent denial of expert opinions is unwarranted, and fallacious cherry picking, at best, at worst blatant denial of the physics involved.

On to an actual argument.

Building 7 was not hit by any plane. It collapsed in the same manner that the other buildings did, against the laws of physics, pulverized into it's own footprint. "Office fires" seems to be the excuse for this.

Any rebuttal to this?

http://aiablueridge.org/2017/news/a17-update

“Over 16,000 architects and allied professionals spent the last few days in Orlando, Florida to discuss and celebrate the profession of architecture...”

Resolution 17-5: Investigation of the Total Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, sponsored by Daniel Barnum, FAIA, and 50 Members of the Institute, failed with 4113 votes against and 182 votes in favor (with 179 abstentions). The resolution’s sponsors questioned the conclusions offered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2008 about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. They argued that the Institute should support “a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC7.”

Last time I checked, 4113 > 3000.

Thank you for demonstrating the two main fallacies in our conversation perfectly.

You just actually asserted that an actual popular vote should be considered, as evidence, without argument or evidence.

Actually. I think you misunderstood.


You wave around 3000 (182) experts in the field - and use that as an argument for why’ve their argument should be treated as if it has merit.

That is an argument from authority

I am pointing out that 4113 architects - experts, one 20 times the number of AIAs do not agree that with this argument - and think the NIST study is sufficient.

Now: you have two options.

One: concede that numbers are irrelevent unless a majority of experts in the field support a particular position. Thus conceding you’re entire “1000s of experts argument”.

Two: concede that numbers are relevant: and thus concede that the theories being put forward are not compelling.



Its a binary choice - with no third option. You can’t argue that 1000s of experts making a statement is compelling except when 1000s occurs experts make a statement.

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat

You say ...... while you ignore ore the ones that obviously do agree with me.

My reply ..... I took three off the list after a quick glance  and proved one was a bible thumping looney , another was an “ architect “ which his own society disowned for his embarringly video on 9/11 and a third one rowed back on his precious claims when challenged ,so again your appeal to authority is an epic fail 

Three huh? One because he has a different belief system than yours? We can all look at his credentials and see he is a highly educated person, but you presume he is wrong in every sense. 

So that's three "down" and 2,997 to go. Good luck!

This was a list used to back up you claim of “thousands of experts” in the relevant fields that agree with you.

If literally 7 our of the first 10 in one list are not experts in the relevant field, and that multiple individuals are not experts, nor in the relevant field, nor agree with you: it shows the validity of the list - which you have simply asserted - is questionable.

Your implication that even with the tremendous amount of credentials therein, that none of them are valid is- ignorant.

This red herring has persisted long enough. Your persistent denial of expert opinions is unwarranted, and fallacious cherry picking, at best, at worst blatant denial of the physics involved.

On to an actual argument.

Building 7 was not hit by any plane. It collapsed in the same manner that the other buildings did, against the laws of physics, pulverized into it's own footprint. "Office fires" seems to be the excuse for this.

Any rebuttal to this?

http://aiablueridge.org/2017/news/a17-update

“Over 16,000 architects and allied professionals spent the last few days in Orlando, Florida to discuss and celebrate the profession of architecture...”

Resolution 17-5: Investigation of the Total Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, sponsored by Daniel Barnum, FAIA, and 50 Members of the Institute, failed with 4113 votes against and 182 votes in favor (with 179 abstentions). The resolution’s sponsors questioned the conclusions offered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2008 about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. They argued that the Institute should support “a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC7.”

Last time I checked, 4113 > 3000.

Thank you for demonstrating the two main fallacies in our conversation perfectly.

You just actually asserted that an actual popular vote should be considered, as evidence, without argument or evidence.

Actually. I think you misunderstood.


You wave around 3000 (182) experts in the field - and use that as an argument for why’ve their argument should be treated as if it has merit.

That is an argument from authority

I am pointing out that 4113 architects - experts, one 20 times the number of AIAs do not agree that with this argument - and think the NIST study is sufficient.

Now: you have two options.

One: concede that numbers are irrelevent unless a majority of experts in the field support a particular position. Thus conceding you’re entire “1000s of experts argument”.

Two: concede that numbers are relevant: and thus concede that the theories being put forward are not compelling.



Its a binary choice - with no third option. You can’t argue that 1000s of experts making a statement is compelling except when 1000s occurs experts make a statement.

Nope, I understand it pretty well. My claim is that my position (as always) involves an actual argument, that is supported by throusands of experts, their arguments can be reviewed, their credentials and important information is easily available. 

Your rebuttal is that there are more random, unknown, practically unverifiable architects that oppose the idea of contributing support to an investigation into a "conspiracy theory" for.... reasons. That is not a valid argument.

Erfisflat

Three hour seminar on the destruction of WTC7 just in case you want to stop ignoring it.

https://www.ae911truth.org/continuing-ed/ae911-aag-l

AIA approved.

@Gooberry

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Three hour seminar on the destruction of WTC7 just in case you want to stop ignoring it.

https://www.ae911truth.org/continuing-ed/ae911-aag-l

AIA approved.

@Gooberry

And yet the AIA rejected the claims on a 4113-182 vote.

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You’re  doing your usual dance as in when every one of your arguments is debunked you rely on another appeal to authority and then you shamefully attempt to lie  realizing you’ve backed yourself into another corner .

You use figures gleaned from truth org an organization mired in deceit , deception and dishonesty , your list yesterday was destroyed as you put forward a collection of assorted nuts in an attempt to make your case and yet here you go again posting up more nonsense let me put another nail in your coffin by clueing you in on the actual position regarding the A I A .......


Not one member of the A I A attended the screening of Truth orgs golden boy Gages presentation on 9/11 only 80 people showed up which possibly was you and your extended family .

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of a thermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

What is more interesting than these bizarre and debunked conspiracy theoriesis the way that Gage places his AIA membership front and center in his presentations. He seems to be attempting to cloak his organization in the officialdom of the venerable 155-year-old professional institution, even as AIA wants nothing to do with his organization. At the start of his latest film, he explains that he is “a licensed architect of over 20 years and member of the American Institute of Architects.”

Gage often seems to wield his AIA status in promoting his conspiracy theories. In making his case, he also regularly cites that more than 100 AIA members and at least six AIA Fellows have signed his petition calling for a new investigation. In total, Gage says that more than 1,700 of the petition’s roughly 16,000 signatures are from architects and engineers.

During the screening, Gage was at the very least intimating that his organization had been invited to AIA officially.

“I can’t tell you how grateful we were to have been accepted to be here in the boardroom at the national headquarters,” Gage said. “We hope this is the beginning of a very productive relationship.”

Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.

At least if you make another appeal to authority try and find an actual reliable authority 

Erfisflat

“Have you repeatedly and blatantly ignoring arguments because you can't address an actual argument, and are stuck on this fallacy?”

He asserts without justification.

You quote mined the justification right out of my post. 

"Your whole argument was made to evade a massive rebuttal you are still yet to answer."

Yes, I remember, the 

“Before, your implications were that my argument is fallacious. I even explained what the fallacious appeal to authority was, and how it was dinstictly different, your pointing out that it was an appeal to authority does not mean that it is fallaciousness. It remains a valid argument.”

... he asserts again.

Again, if you're going to quote me, don't take it out of context.

"Your argument is fallacious. That’s my whole point."

So you are now just going to assert a general, unspecific fallacy... for reasons... 

"As you stated - for it to be non fallacious, it has to be a large consensus. 0.5% is not a large consensus."

When did I ever state this? What exactly is this red herring popping up now?

"And yet he dances over that point, and ignores it!"

Ok, you're just starting to get annoying now.

“I could link you at the very least, 3 instances where I provided both justification and argument- that the list is accurate and valid. Just so that we're clear, are you saying these people and or their credentials-don't exist? That would be desperate indeed. Anyone can look these people up.”

"Erm. No. Justification and argument would involve you providing valid reasons why this is an honest list of experts in the field - despite it demonstrably having multiple non experts."

Oh the desperation. It's hilarious really. The idea that you would ignore argument and evidence from even one architect, engineer or professor is a sign that you are protecting a belief system. The fact that I repeatedly point out that your repeated distractions from the arguments, you cherry pick, quote of context, ignorantly assert various fallacies, and even lie to get out of examining any evidence. 

What's ironic is that you act as if you've done something impressive!

"What you did - is copy paste a handful of links from the one there are three times."

It is an incoherent sentence. Lot of typos this time around, goob. This isn't like you.

"Now - you presented this “list” as a list of 3000 experts in the field: ignoring that you tried to pass of a professor of theology as an expert in civil engineering."

That is a blatant lie. Or you seem to have the two, separate sites confused. The claim was, once again, there are 3,000 architects and engineers (true) and over 100 professors with Phd or equivalent (true) that half the same position I do, that there needs to be a new and independent investigation into 9/11. The fact that you can't tell the difference between two lists is your fault.

"I have demonstrated explained - and given examples of how this list is full of non experts. "

No you didn't. You claimed that some experts weren't experts in a relevant field of study. There are many aspects involved with the fracical 9/11 commission, including, but not limited to: basic physics, materials science, manufacturing techniques, basic chemistry, etc. all very relevant to the 9/11 story. Ie. Can an office fire pulverize a steel framed building, according to the laws of physics, etc.

"Cherry picking 10 experts, shows there’s at least 10 experts in that list. That leaves 2990 left. A quick scan shows at least 180 of the remaining are electrical engineers - that’s like 6% of the entire list are part of a single unrelated profession."

Wow, a whole 6% do not meet your opinionated expert standards, huh? I'm impressed with your control+f skills boy.

"How many of these are actually AIA affiliated? I counted around 180 AIA architects in that list - the experts. Out of those how many agree with you? And how many simply want a new investigation? There are multiplex"

Wait, so you are personally validating this list, one by one it seems, and you still refuse to hear or recognize the arguments? And all of them agree with me. There should be an independent investigation into the biggest attack on American soil.

"But sure - by all means post another ten names in the list and tell me that this proves the list is correct and full of experts "

No need, you see the list. Here are 50 senior government officials that question the 9/11 commission:

https://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

Here are 250 pilots and aviation professionals that question 9/11.

 http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

"No: you have provided no basis for that statement - and cherry picking ten people’s name doesn’t count as a basis for showing all 3000 are valid."

I repeat: the idea that you refuse to acknowledge even 1 expert in any of the many relevant fields is cherry picking.

"But still - I have 4113 architects. So even on that count you still lose."

...you have 4113 architects that do or say what? Vote on some proposition we don't even have the details of from over a year ago? Yeah, that's a valid argument...

“That's actually shifting the burden. I've also shown credible information that the list is accurate. For you to assert that I should prove to you that every person on the list is an actual person and they are actually accredited experts is by definition shifting the burden.”

Erm no. It’s my burden of proof to show your claims about the list are not true. You claimed it is full of experts in relevant fields - I showed that was not true."

No, you showed that not all of them were architects. The list, and I specifically stated there were engineers also involved in the petition. This field of study, regardless of what specific branch is entirely relevant to some aspects of the entire 9/11 commission.

"As a result - we cannot take your word for it that all 3000 individuals on that list are all relevant experts. Saying that we must assume, for no reason, that all individuals are relevancy experts until proven otherwise - when I have shown that there are non experts - is shifting the burden of proof: your source has been shown to be faulty, it’s up to you to defend it."

You can assume such, and you don't have to take my word for it. The links, names and even liscense numbers are easily found with simple Google searches. Out of you 4113, can you say this for any? How many are experienced with steel framed buildings? Can you apply any of the nonsensical stipulations that you impose upon me on your number? That's all we have from you right now. A number, presumably architects, voted on a vague proposition, which, as I pointed out, seems to have since been passed.

“Irrelevant, and I've yet to see that evidence anyway. You want to get off on yet another red herring now?”

No. It’s not irrelevant. It’s using an alternative example to show that your position is incoherent and hypocritical.

"Your position is that this is not an appeal to authority - yet state an identical and more complete list of scientists that could be presented for spherical earth would be an appeal to authority shows that you’re position is incoherent."

A third time now. I've never seen this list, their credentials or their arguments.

“Actually, there are several arguments I have made that you seem to be avoiding.”

"Actually no.

Your argument has involved.

• telling us all how valid the list is - by posting ten name and ignoring the non experts
• Telling us all how this is definitely not an argument from authority when it clearly is a vast minority of some architects you are deciding to cite as if relevant."

One argument you actually admitted that you wouldn't acknowledge:

Erfisflat said:

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat

You say ...... while you ignore ore the ones that obviously do agree with me.

My reply ..... I took three off the list after a quick glance  and proved one was a bible thumping looney , another was an “ architect “ which his own society disowned for his embarringly video on 9/11 and a third one rowed back on his precious claims when challenged ,so again your appeal to authority is an epic fail 

Three huh? One because he has a different belief system than yours? We can all look at his credentials and see he is a highly educated person, but you presume he is wrong in every sense. 

So that's three "down" and 2,997 to go. Good luck!

This was a list used to back up you claim of “thousands of experts” in the relevant fields that agree with you.

If literally 7 our of the first 10 in one list are not experts in the relevant field, and that multiple individuals are not experts, nor in the relevant field, nor agree with you: it shows the validity of the list - which you have simply asserted - is questionable.

Your implication that even with the tremendous amount of credentials therein, that none of them are valid is- ignorant.

This red herring has persisted long enough. Your persistent denial of expert opinions is unwarranted, and fallacious cherry picking, at best, at worst blatant denial of the physics involved.

On to an actual argument.

Building 7 was not hit by any plane. It collapsed in the same manner that the other buildings did, against the laws of physics, pulverized into it's own footprint. "Office fires" seems to be the excuse for this.

Any rebuttal to this?

That was about 4-5 posts up.

I can also cite a motive, which you ignore.

I have addressed every point you’ve made - you may not like that the majority of your argument involves simply repeating that you are correct, but that’s mostly what it is."

You are stuck on this generic fallacy. 

"I am quite happy to point out where I have replies to any point you think I’ve ignored."

Please do. Two are listed above.

“Not exactly. The burden has is now being shifted to me, to provide you evidence that each of the 3,000 signatures are accurate and valid!”

"I’m asking you to show how many valid and relevant experts in the field there are on that list - as it has been shown that there are hundreds - and possibly thousands of non experts - and only 180 AIA members."

Why would an engineer be an AIA member? You now assert that only AIA members can be considered valid experts relevant to this topic. That is really deesperately grasping at straws.

"The alternative is to assume the list is accurate even when it has been proven not to be."

Now you claimed you "proven" the entire list inaccurate... 

It is clear that you have no counter-argument, so you are left with vague assertions and blatant fallacies...

You’re source is faulty - and prove faulty - and thus it is your burden to defend the source.

Fallacy of composition.

“You repeatedly ignore the arguments put forth by the expert”

"No. Actually. I’m forcing you to defend your argument before you derail and

Change the subject for a second time after dropping at least two major arguments I’ve made"

No, you are in an unwarranted state of denial, refusing to examine evidence and apply any amount of scrutiny to your belief system, plain and simple. I can repeatedly point it out until you acknowledge it, and allow you to further red herring this post until you eventually, as always, post a 5,000 character rhetorical Gish gallop about things you dishonestly claim you've done, or that I have or haven't, effectively derailing the topic into oblivion, similar to this post.

“and instead call attention to irrelevant details, often fallacious”

"He asserts. I’ve shown how everything is rwlevant"

Like that...

“Half a dozen posts about your unsourced accusations of a fallacy”

"You’re making an argument from authority - I cited a source - you for what that means and how it applies"

Which is a valid argument.

"You’ve agreed it’s an argument from authority - and I’ve explained why it’s fallacies above"

... Here we go...

“or the credibility of the experts, based on a handful that you deemed unworthy of even the attention of their arguments as a whole.”

"No - I’m saying a theology processor isn’t an architect. An electrical engineer isn’t an architect. An Aeronautic engineer isn’t

An architect. "

Blatant strawman. I never claimed he was. I said he was a professor with a valid PHD. You don't have to be an architect to be an expert in a related field, as I explained above.

"You seem t be confusing the point.

As well as this, have 4113 architects that disagree with your 180 architects. So you’re wrong either way."

You have gone full retard.

Erfisflat

Proof of your hypothesis:


Proof of my theory.



Edit: feel free to mark that as irrelevant, it was an accidental. I removed any tags to ensure no trolls enter the conversation.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat ;

This is ridiculous.

You claimed the list was a fully accurate list of experts that agreed with you in relevant fields. I have definitively proven that it’s not what you claimed it was.

I’ve gone further - and counted the AIA architects in that list and there are 180. If only 20% agree with you - and are experts in skyscrapers, it’s arguable that it could be only 36 people in that list that out of 3000 are what you claim. That’s 1.2%.

The list is not what you claimed it was: and there is reason to believe your claim of “1000”s of experts agree with you - is invented hyperbolic rhetoric to make your position sound stronger.

When doubt is cast on a sources validity - it’s the person who uses the source who has the burden of proof to show its valid again.

You can’t just post any old nonsense without any supporting argument - and demand that eveyone else refutes every last piece of it. That’s not how arguments work.

Your rhetoric about how wrong I am, and the dismissive rant you just posted that seemed to be regurgitating - again - the same claims I’ve already posted continue to miss these points, so I’m going to spell it out until you actually decide to deal with it.

1.) Telling me how many thousands of experts agree with you - is an argument from authority, and popularity’s. You are using the quantity and the expertise as your point -  not the specific argument.

2.) Your list contains multiple non experts, and few AIA architects - this refutes your argument that this list supports your claim of thousand relevant experts in the field. As your claim is refuted, you have the burden of proof

3.) even if 100% of that list were experts, it’s 0.5% of relevant professionals - and more architects (4113) disagree than are on that list. Still making it an appeal to authority.

These are all undeniable and unassailable facts. You can’t argue with any of them - hence why your ranting line by line reply appears to a combination of non argument, and deflection. But by all means, vaguely tell me that 4 or 5 posts ago you refuted my position without any details:

I’m going to tell you exactly what you need to do.

• Explain why 0.5% of relevant professional represents any sort of “consensus”.
• Define what you mean by “Relevant experts in relevant fields” and explain how you calculated how many of the individuals on that list meet that criteria.
• Provide a justification why 4113 architects voting against a resolution stating the NIST report was flawed and a new investigation is needed, is somehow less authoritative, than a list of 3000 (of which 182 were AIA architects).

Until then, we can all see your fancy rhetorical dance where you use whatever technique you can to not provided a defense of your position.

Erfisflat

"1)Telling me how many thousands of experts agree with you - is an argument from authority, and popularity’s. You are using the quantity and the expertise as your point -  not the specific argument."

I stated their, and my arguments quite specifically, several times now, even posted videos plainly demonstrating the point. If words and plain English exceeds your comprehension, I thought some viuals and images might help. This was openly ignored, upon multiple requests. I could state it a 4th time, if you would like. Something tells me you will just keep ignoring it, and pretending it is irrelevant, a red herring, to quote you. Once more for the logically impaired:

"2.) Your list contains multiple non experts, and few AIA architects - this refutes your argument that this list supports your claim of thousand relevant experts in the field. As your claim is refuted, you have the burden of proof"

Non experts? Architects with AIA are only applicable experts here? Tired, refuted arguments, blatant composition fallacy to draw attention for the actual argument.

"3.) even if 100% of that list were experts, it’s 0.5% of relevant professionals - and more architects (4113) disagree than are on that list. Still making it an appeal to authority."

 You are leaving out the thousands of engineers, professors with the highest degrees of education, airline pilots, active and inactive public representatives and officials. Even if you could somehow prove that they agreed fully with the negative premise. You're prescribing a number (4113) to your position with zero justification. Where are these 4113 experts, where are their evidences and arguments, so that we can examine their arguments, since you repeatedly deflect arguments from my position?