[not moderated] Bell's critical analysis of the truth movement

[Bell]

Well, I don't know all the facts and figures regarding 9/11, certainly not to a degree as many other members on this forum. But all the CT's I hear and read about seem unplausable to me.

This means that CT's are fundamently useless in determining who was responsible for 9/11 and what exactly happened that day (otherwise it would be just braindead acceptance of a government cover-up).

[PhantomWolf]

I'm sorry, your analysis is reject as you have actually bothered to read at least one page of CT junk rather then sticking to other people's biased critiques of it.

[Aqua323]

Well, I don't know all the facts and figures regarding 9/11, certainly not to a degree as many other members on this forum. But all the CT's I hear and read about seem unplausable to me.


Do you have anything other than this argument from incredulity?

[jhunter1163]

Well, I don't know all the facts and figures regarding 9/11, certainly not to a degree as many other members on this forum. But all the CT's I hear and read about seem unplausable to me.

This means that CT's are fundamently useless.

There you go. Just lopped off a few unnecessary words.

[Pardalis]

Have you not read the NIST report?

[Bell]

Wow! Slow down with the responses! I can't keep up!

[Bell]

Do you have anything other than this argument from incredulity?

As observed many times before, truthers don't know what humor is. Have we not been discussing Bofors' request just yet?

Jeez, why do I even have to explain this to you?

[beachnut]

Do you have anything other than this argument from incredulity?
Please share just one of the ideas of 9/11 truth that is correct and please back it up with facts and evidence. Do not use hearsay or junk from Hoffman who conclusions looks like he made them up while on speed, because they do not relate to the string of facts and evidence he has.

You could start a thread to present the real know correct conclusion of Hoffman to counter this thread. But this thread's OP is correct! You have to prove it is not, and so far you have failed..

Got Facts?

[jsfisher]

You really need to just ask questions.

[Bell]

You really need to just ask questions.

Why are you bringing up questions again?
You can't let it go, can you?

[Aqua323]

As observed many times before, truthers don't know what humor is. Have we not been discussing Bofors' request just yet?

Jeez, why do I even have to explain this to you?

We do take ourselves seriously.

I realised this was a parody of Bofors' thread. Thats why I gave a stereotypical JREF response.

[Pardalis]

We do take ourselves seriously.

That's the understatement of the year.

[Bell]

That's the understatement of the year.

But if it's true, it's rather sad :(

[Aqua323]

That's the understatement of the year.

Agreed.

[beachnut]

Agreed.
Did you find out if your junk posted was fraud? Why are you SPAMing threads with chit chat? (lack of facts?)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We do take ourselves seriously.

I realised this was a parody of Bofors' thread. Thats why I gave a stereotypical JREF response.
Which you still managed to get wrong. Bell's OP is actually a non sequitur.

P1: If CT's are plausible, then they are useful
P2: No CT's are plausible
C1: Therefore, they are not useful.

The plausibility does not necessary dictate the usefulness, ergo, non-sequitur.

What you suggested was that it was an argument from incredulity. That would take the form of

P1: X
P2: X does not seem plausible
C1: Therefore X, is false

[Aqua323]

Which you still managed to get wrong. Bell's OP is actually a non sequitur.

P1: If CT's are plausible, then they are useful
P2: No CT's are plausible
C1: Therefore, they are not useful.

The plausibility does not necessary dictate the usefulness, ergo, non-sequitur.

What you suggested was that it was an argument from incredulity. That would take the form of

P1: X
P2: X does not seem plausible
C1: Therefore X, is false


I bet your dinner parties are fun.

[Gravy]

I bet your dinner parties are fun.
Aren't you the guy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3105363#post3105363)
who said that people (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3105364#post3105364)
resort to insults (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3105931#post3105931)
when they've lost the argument? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3106644&postcount=362)

[LashL]

I bet your dinner parties are fun.

I would bet that your socks smell... really bad.

[Aqua323]

Aren't you the guy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3105363#post3105363)
who said that people (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3105364#post3105364)
resort to insults (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3105931#post3105931)
when they've lost the argument? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3106644&postcount=362)


Where was the insult in what i said?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't know which is more annoying about the "Truth" movement; their emo, angsty antics; or their weaselly word games.

[Drudgewire]

I bet your dinner parties are fun.
Oh you should hear the laughs when we serve pancakes. :p