It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
World's first wooden satellite built by Japanese researchers
The world's first wooden satellite has been built by Japanese researchers who said their tiny cuboid craft is scheduled to be carried into space on a SpaceX rocket in...
Arguments
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.02  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.88  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
you havent?
thats literally what you did the post I was replying to.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.22  
  Sources: 21  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.24  
  Sources: 23  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
... 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.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 55%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
All of these are far less imaginary than the thousands of
experts you keep claiming exist, but haven’t ever bothered to show.
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/29829/#Comment_29829
http://dev1.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
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.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.56  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
"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:
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.9  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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”.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 43%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.92  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
BS 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.
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."
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.24  
  Sources: 14  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh I’m to blame on a bug in the system ,any excuse to save you facing @Gooberry
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
He really is doing everything in his power to avoid you
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 28%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.54  
  Sources: 20  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.52  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
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."
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.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 50%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.68  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.38  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 28%  
  Learn More About Debra
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 stupid 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
  Considerate: 34%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
So that's three "down" and 2,997 to go. Good luck!
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 45%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
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 idiot 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.
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.64  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.76  
  Sources: 21  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
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!
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.52  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 64%  
  Learn More About Debra
"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?
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.28  
  Sources: 9  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
You just actually asserted that an actual popular vote should be considered, as evidence, without argument or evidence.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.54  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
“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.
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.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 46%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 51%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.ae911truth.org/continuing-ed/ae911-aag-l
AIA approved.
@Gooberry
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.2  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.6  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.84  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
“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![](http://dev1.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/43/6ez0xg2fqztj.jpg)
“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.
One argument you actually admitted that you wouldn't acknowledge:
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.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.62  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 50%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.9  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 45%  
  Learn More About Debra
"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?
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.98  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra