Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

NoahFence said:
Your continued ignoring of someone proving you wrong has been noted, too.

Why challenge someone to do something, then ignore them when they do? What's the point?
Click to expand...


Trolling. I think
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for civility.
ergo just likes riling people up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheRedWorm said:
Trolling. I think
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited quote of modded post.
ergo just likes riling people up.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think he thinks he's posting for all the millions out there who read this forum but might not already know what they feel on this issue. This is a carefully thought through plan to appear highly confident.

The idea is to create doubt about how extreme the consensus is among appropriate experts. He'll rant and rave about how there's no agreement in the scientific literature and members here are just making it up that there is. If you were a 17-year-old kid who'd heard something about this in the lunch room, you might find the ranting to be convincing. It's mildly interesting to watch the way he uses rhetoric to handle this. In all honesty, what else could you do if you were trying to create a believable story around something ridiculous? If you try and stick to facts and data you're certain to become so technical it's hard to follow. And if you're not able to talk about technical data, the best thing to do is make up this idea about doubt in the scientific literature and yell and scream about it trying to chase away anyone who comes near.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ergo said:
Expert opinion, using exact statements, in their context, is not a "logical fallacy", slojoe.
Click to expand...
Except you do not have the context, you just have possible quotemines from Tarpley. Were they asked specific questions? What were these questions? Why is a Danish Military Academy officer an expert? Why is a former NATO general an expert?
 
Scott Sommers said:
I disagree. I think he thinks he's posting for all the millions out there who read this forum but might not already know what they feel on this issue. This is a carefully thought through plan to appear highly confident.

The idea is to create doubt about how extreme the consensus is among appropriate experts. He'll rant and rave about how there's no agreement in the scientific literature and members here are just making it up that there is. If you were a 17-year-old kid who'd heard something about this in the lunch room, you might find the ranting to be convincing. It's mildly interesting to watch the way he uses rhetoric to handle this. In all honesty, what else could you do if you were trying to create a believable story around something ridiculous? If you try and stick to facts and data you're certain to become so technical it's hard to follow. And if you're not able to talk about technical data, the best thing to do is make up this idea about doubt in the scientific literature and yell and scream about it trying to chase away anyone who comes near.
Click to expand...

It might just be believable too... if only he would figure out the differences between into and onto (which conveniently tripped him up over the siesmic data at the pentagon... you know concrete slabs that are placed ONTO a marshy surface vs the steel columns which had to be drilled INTO the bedrock... a small difference, but we know he doesn't understand it)....
essentially vs actually
center of mass vs debris field the "size of the moon."
about
exponentially
and the whole host of other massive gaps in his understanding/knowledge/education.

but when arguments from incredulity and ignorance are all you have....
 
TruthersLie said:
It might just be believable too... if only he would figure out the differences between into and onto (which conveniently tripped him up over the siesmic data at the pentagon... you know concrete slabs that are placed ONTO a marshy surface vs the steel columns which had to be drilled INTO the bedrock... a small difference, but we know he doesn't understand it)....
essentially vs actually
center of mass vs debris field the "size of the moon."
about
exponentially
and the whole host of other massive gaps in his understanding/knowledge/education.

but when arguments from incredulity and ignorance are all you have....
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to sound believable to you or me. In fact, he needs us to talk with him this way to get the kind of effect he's looking for. If you and I sounded reasonable and interested in him, and then he pulled the screaming ergo, he'd come across as unbalanced. Now it's hard to talk with the guy reasonably or be in the slightest bit interested in his babbling, so he can pull this off really easily. I am sure he even believes it. Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to continue on and on like this for months and years.

I suspect it's a style he's learned to perform because it gets him the results he wants - some naive people will listen to him. But it is very much a rhetorical device he has picked up. Although I suspect he thinks of it as a legitimate way to get his message across.
 
Scott Sommers said:
He doesn't have to sound believable to you or me. In fact, he needs us to talk with him this way to get the kind of effect he's looking for. If you and I sounded reasonable and interested in him, and then he pulled the screaming ergo, he'd come across as unbalanced. Now it's hard to talk with the guy reasonably or be in the slightest bit interested in his babbling, so he can pull this off really easily. I am sure he even believes it. Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to continue on and on like this for months and years.

I suspect it's a style he's learned to perform because it gets him the results he wants - some naive people will listen to him. But it is very much a rhetorical device he has picked up. Although I suspect he thinks of it as a legitimate way to get his message across.
Click to expand...

The funny part is that there are actually parts of the common narrative which are open to discussion, and that if "truthers" focused on (such as government incompetence, the issues of what was know, by who and when, and some other issues) it would actually matter.

Instead he handwaves footprint, into vs onto, datamines quotes out of context and then just shifts the goal posts. It is too bad.

But if mommy would just take him to the library, he could at least find and read your study.
 
ergo said:
:boggled:



If you read the testimonies the explosions reported by ff's were heard by ff's inside the buildings that were already being evacuated or they were heard outside, either preceding or during the collapses. So your focus on a bomb squad protocol here, when they would already be on site and obviously in communication with rescue personnel, is a red herring.
Click to expand...


I am currently listening to the fourth section of audio from the FDNY Manhattan dispatch.
(Found here and at 10:00 Brooklyn dispatch comes on and advises that the PD has a report of a bomb in the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. What is the first thing he says?

Stay the **** out.

Imagine that.
 
ergo said:
Huh. Scott Sommers is reduced to pulling Godwins now. Holy jebus.
Click to expand...

So are you claiming that well known members of the 911truth movement are not antisemites and nazi sympathizers?

oh wait... I forgot, you can't google the "leaders of 911 truth" which is why you don't know who korey dillon, bermas or others are...

It isn't a godwin if a % of your members are actually known antisemites...

Kind of like it isn't an appeal to authority logical fallacy if you are actually citing real EXPERTS and AUTHORITIES in the field.

Try to keep up.
 
I think the entire premise of the thread, even though it fails as a theory got lost in the noise of authority appeals, quote mining, and the like
 
Scott Sommers said:
I disagree. I think he thinks he's posting for all the millions out there who read this forum but might not already know what they feel on this issue. This is a carefully thought through plan to appear highly confident.

The idea is to create doubt about how extreme the consensus is among appropriate experts.
Click to expand...

I am more inclined to believe that he is simply a nut job and a psychologists wet dream.
 
TruthersLie said:
The funny part is that there are actually parts of the common narrative which are open to discussion, and that if "truthers" focused on (such as government incompetence, the issues of what was know, by who and when, and some other issues) it would actually matter.

Instead he handwaves footprint, into vs onto, datamines quotes out of context and then just shifts the goal posts. It is too bad.

But if mommy would just take him to the library, he could at least find and read your study.
Click to expand...

This is where the Truthers that come here create a very different picture about Truthing than you get from some other sources. Outside of this forum, 911 Truth is part of an incoherent political position that includes secret global government and depopulation agenda. The way that Truthing gets presented here, makes it appear as a technical argument. I don't know the position of any of our JREF Truther friends on the New World Order or chemtrails, but outside of JREF chemtrails for example are synonymous with 911 Truth.

As a result, our JREF Truther friends appear to be handwaving, data mining, etc. Or at least they're not just doing that thing. But in the bigger picture, it's much more than that.
 
Hey Ergo,

Why did you ignore my post? You know, the one about the FDNY telling everyone to stay out of Battery Tunnell because of a bomb?

Oh, yeah, that's right. Because it hurts your BS theory. Disregard.

(Listen to the audio of it. I sourced it too. Even told you the time to begin listening.)
 
ergo said:
Expert opinion, using exact statements, in their context, is not a "logical fallacy", slojoe.
Click to expand...


True enough ergo, but when you write

ergo said:
Half your links are to forum posts. These are not authoritative sources.
Click to expand...


it suggests to me you haven't quite mastered the concept, and the deficiencies of your source have already been noted.

As for

ergo said:
If you dislike appeals to authority so much you should stop using them yourself. 90% of bedunker arguments ("Because NIST/Dr. Bazant said so!") would have to find a new basis.



Your repetitive use of this quote has been noted. It has also already been noted that the seismic chart registered several different events on that day. There is a difference of opinion as to what part of the WTC timeline the waveforms refer to. There is also a difference of opinion as to the usefulness of the seismic record that day.

This is the last time I'm going to address your spamming of this quote from "Implosion World".
Click to expand...


Well ergo, you've never addressed this argument, and you don't now. It's not an appeal to authority, but rather a simple argument refuting the hypothesis that explosives were used to trigger the collapses of 9/11, and your response is as insufficient as expected, just your unsupported and vague assertions, less counter-argument than smokescreen for your ignominious retreat.

BTW. Your really have no reason to complain that I am spamming this quote when you specifically requested I do so:


ergo said:
It would work a lot better for you if you refuted something first, and then repeated it ad nauseum. Trying to do it the other way around is just bedunkery, of the kind we see here on the JREF forum. Good for spreading misinformation, but not for pointing out actual facts.
Click to expand...


Did you know a petard was an explosive device? :D
 
triforcharity said:
I am currently listening to the fourth section of audio from the FDNY Manhattan dispatch.
(Found here and at 10:00 Brooklyn dispatch comes on and advises that the PD has a report of a bomb in the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. What is the first thing he says?

Stay the **** out.

Imagine that.
Click to expand...

Hey Ergo,

Wanna try addressing this post? You seem to have ignored it.

If only I could venture a guess as to why.......:rolleyes:
 
triforcharity said:
Oh where oh where did our Ergo go.....

Humm......is his cryptonite facts?
Click to expand...


ergo sure seems to have exited this thread abruptly.

Are his arguments always this pitiful? He started out pushing the idea explosions might not have been heard, and ended up insisting witnesses had to have heard explosions.
 
Yes, that is SOP for ergo. You should see some of his WTC7 "footprint" arguments. It's in his sig line IIRC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom