Baraka,
Jesus, looks like I rubbed you the wrong way. If happen to be taking any of this personally, I suggest a long break from the computer. Sorry if I'm reading too much into your response, but the tone certainly communicates more than a little anger.
"He just loves em and often combines the two. Every time you try to put forth a logical, scientific argument (or question) that doubts the official 9/11 myth, he automatically bashes the source (as in Professor Steven Jones)"
Alright, let's put this to bed. First of all, who has made a scientific argument? I'd even say the claims of logic are dubious. From what I have seen, every 9/11 conspiracy theory has been based on broad assumption, strategic omission of critical information, gross oversimplifications (e.g. Silverstein's finances), and the most importantly coincidence. Very few of the presentations made are cogent or organized, and in return very few of the trenchant points and questions I raise are every addressed with mroe than a shrug. I'm turning into a broken record on this, but 90% of what I've seen are just talking points (hate that expression but it applies) from the conspiracy websites repeated ad nauseum.
Now, Steven Jones. I have already linked to a page full of information about him, but I ask again - why have no other academics with actual knowledge in the field stood up and supported his paper? Appeal to authority is not a logical error if the authority holds legitmacy in the argument.
For instance, you suspect you have a fatal disease because somebody you know, outside of the medical profession thinks they recognize a few symptoms. They've read about pathology, feel they have an okay grasp of the subject - but would you consider their opinion to be more valid than an experience and trained doctor's diagnosis? No, probably not. If we extend the scenario to Jones, his foraray into the subjects covered in his 9/11 paper was simply bad science - there is such a thing - and I doubt his colleagues would have taken a stand on the issue of there was nothing to contest in the paper. That's the thing about actual standards and carefully scrutinized information - it's held to a standard. When Jones' work was examined by his peers and those with the expertise to evaluate it, they found it to be patently incorrect in its methedology and assumptions, not to mention the fact that he was attempting to circumvent the normal procedures for peer review and evaluation. What's so hard ot understand about that?
So far as other sources, as I've said, anonymous evaluations from people that clearly don't have background or expertise in the field, that are also writing from an extremely biased position (attempting to find anything they can to support the conspiracy idea rather than objectively investigating the matter and evaluating evidence independently of their preexisting beliefs), and essentially hold themselves to no standards. The Screw Loose Change video, while far from the sort of document that I normally find myself trumpeting, does point out so many wild inconsistent features of the conspiracy argument and absolutly shoddy research on the part of conspiracists that I have a hard time taking many of the propositions seriously anymore. As the film points out, many of the primary pieces of information on which the controlled demolition and no planes theories are based on are just flat out, irrefutably incorrect.
"The only so-called "evidence" that he used to counter what I brought to the table, was a scientific paper authored on- wait for it- September 13th, 2001, just two days after the attacks. These experts had ZERO EVIDENCE and had never seen or heard of a modern skyscraper ever collapsing before (because it's never happened before or since 9/11),"
Well, I'd say you haven't been paying very close attention to the thread after all. Through the dozens of links I've provided, there are actually quite a few papers, peer-reviewed and closely scrutinized by experts in the field, that explain the exact mechanisms of the collapses. Is it really a poor tactic to point out that people with knowledge and expertise in the fields relating to large structural collapse universally disagree with conspiracists? It's a point that many don't seem to like to address. Frankly, I wouldn't even be swayed if there were more fringe researchers that fealt they could somehow scientifically explain that the collapses were demolition insitigated - even then the vast majority of engineers the world over would still disagree. As it stands, I haven't seen a paper written by a qualified person that can explain how the towers came down by way of demolition.
So far as no steel-framed buildings ever collapsing from fire, as I've mentioned, that's incorrect.
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
Read through that page, towards the lower half you'll find links to discussion of several other high rises that have collapsed soley from fires. See, classic example: conspiracy theory is perpetuated by bad information, lack of correct information, poor research, etc. Steel framed buildings do come down from fire, and to boot the trade centers had incredibly unique circumstances (major structural damage, jet fuel everywhere, unique steel-core construction, etc). Simply saying that steel-framed buildings can't be brought down from fire alone is A) wrong, they can and have, B) drastically oversimplifies the circumstances on 9/11. It's interesting to note that the men who designed and built the towers aren't exactly leaping forward to back up the conspiracists, and who would know better than them - but the conspiracy theory will neatly address that by suggesting that they're paid off, afraid, or in on the whole thing.
If you have the time, I suggest watching the loose change critique, or reading it (the guide is available in written form, which is actually much mroe detailed, just search "loose change guide"), or for a rather entertaining discussion on the matter, watch the interview with the creators of loose change and the creator of the guide, which can be found on google video or the front page here:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/ Should be on the lower left hand side.
" to have burned at a minimum of a sustained 800 degrees C to cause any of the collapses. Too bad that none of the 200+ pieces of steel not criminally destroyed- . . . "
Sorry, incorrect again. I love this whole thing about all the steel being "spirited away in the night" to avoid any damning evidence. So, uh, they got all those hundreds of millions of pounds of steel out of there without any investigators getting a look at anything eh? If you check the loose change guid or video, they're good enough to include quotes from the investigators refuting this, in which they say they were given full access and collected as many samples as they needed. So far as them not showing adequite temperature damage - it was my understanding from the final reports and everything I've read written by engineers that the steel was heated to a more than high temperature that it lost over 50% of its strength, allowing the bowing that finally intitiated collpase on the burning and damaged floors.
Here's a thought - and once again it's the much-loathed appeal to authority - but if there is a basic, glaring physical oversight in the official 9/11 collapse explanation, how did it pass muster with all the engineers that have read it since? Clearly this is something so simple that even a layman can easily recognize it, why no action, outcry, testimony? Are all the engineers that have every seen the NIST report or looked at the official explanation guilty of incompitence or cowardice?
Frankly, given the tendency of the 9/11 conspiracy theory to use really bad if not flat out wrong (remember the no building ever collpased from fire thing?), I find the claim about the temperature discrepency a little dubious, so I'll be looking into that for myself rather than taking your word for it at just this moment, no offense. My suspicion is that whatever source you're citing that from (not Steve Jones I hope) is nto correctly identifying the mechanism that ultimately lead to the universal collapse, or they're suggesting that the steel would actually need to mealt in order for collapse to occurr, which simply isn't the case (as I've said, it loses 50% of it's strength at a temperature far below melting point).
"This bs "scientific" paper is no different from a coroner's report proclaiming to know someone's cause of death simply by seeing a videotape of it."
Plenty of other papers written at later dates, as well as the continued deafening silence from engineers and demolitons experts. Not exactly a strong case that there's clear and undeniable evidence of demolition if you ask me . . .
"In his mind, there are two classes of citizens: credible experts and the rest of us. And the rest of us can just go to hell, no matter how logical, rational and scientifically valid our arguments are."
Very histrionic buddy, don't let me get to you, and while you're ati it, don't make assumptions or put words in my mouth. I never suggested that I'm a credible expert - do I discriminate against my own ideas?
It's like this on experts, er, actually, just read the doctor thing again. We have experts for the very reason that some things require special knowledge and exerpience to properly understand. That's why you'd be an idiot to defend yourself in a murder trial or to hire somebody that doesn't know a thing about cars to rebuild an engine for you. Are you with me? Something like the collapse of several massive buildings like the trade centers is a fairly complicated event, and I'm more likely to go with the opinions of professionals with significant knowledge about the subject who have conducted a sophisiticated analysis, rather than an often incoherent and dubiously supported argument proclaimed by anonymous individuals on the internet who have been shown to have no problem using bad science of flat out incorrect information time and again.
Also, your above statement once again suggests that the arguments are logical, scientific, etc. I'm curious what your definitions of those words are exactly - it's my contention that there isn't really a lot of strong logic (maybe internal, self-enforcing logic) or science in any of these arguments.
And since you seem interested in informal logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques, wouldn't you say that characterizing me as an elitist that autmotically discounts statements based on their souces is a bit hypocritical? I mean, after all you're suggesting that I portray people in a certain light, apparently in order to advance my own position, and yet you're turning around and doing the same thing. So not cool. Seriously, I'm really pissed. Furious.
" And if we doubt him, either we're paranoid schizophrenics, delusional, anti-Semitic, or just plain stupid."
Mmmm, I've avoided calling anybody stupid I think. I've suggested a non-objective appraoch, lack of wordly experience and formal education, critical thinking, open-mindedness, etc - don't think I've said stupid. Sorry if I did, slip of the toungue (type).
I never called anybody else those other things, you're putting words in my mouth again, once again so not cool. Nice populist appeal to the two or maybe even three people that are actually following this thread though. I'll be happy to be play the evil, name-calling establisHydromaxent guy - your argument becomes more scientific and logical by the moment.
And about anti-semitsm - my perception of that comes stright from looking at conspiracy forums and talking with people there, as well the fact that I can't seem to get too far on any of the conspiracy websites before I start hearing stuff about 'The Protocols of Zion' and other similarly awful ideas. I'm not accusing any body here of holding these beliefs, and my earlier crack about Stern was clearly a joke, but lets not pretend that there's a lot of discussion of Jews in the conspiracy world, and none of it is positive.
"If I ever comment in this thread again (doubtful)"
I hope you do, you seem like a smart guy, just take xanax or do something to relax first and try to take your own advice on debating.
"it's he who is being those very things that he claims others to be."
I've tried to keep an open mind, tried to see things from the other side. I can't think of any examples where I've been irrational, maybe you remember when this happened? Trust me, I'm not inflexible, but I mean no disrespect when I say that you guys have literally not shown me a single thing that holds up to any real scrutiny. I'm ready and waiting to ahve the bomb dropped on me, show me somthing undeniable. I'd even settle for something really questionable at this point.
"stridge: dude, you win."
If you don't want to look at the thread, then nobody is making you. Why do you care if I keep discussing it? I find it all interesting, especially as I learn more about the ominous future of microchips and superbankers. If it bothers you so much, don't read.
