-119 votes

Truthers continue to see what they want to see.

Let me give you an example, and then I will go off on my rant.

Regarding the passport: You guys only see what you want to see. Why don't you list every item that survived? Drivers licenses survived, entire arms and other limbs, clothes, etc. Tons of things survived, but you frame the argument like only the passport survived. They already had flight manifests. They knew who was on those flights. There was no reason at all to plant a passport. The fact of the matter is that tons of things survived, not just a passport, and planting a passport would have been useless. It only seems like it matters to you guys because you want it to matter. If it was a conspiracy, don't you think the real cover up would have been about how they faked the flight manifest?

You people just continue to see what you want to see, regardless of how ridiculous it is. You take every bit of flimsy evidence and force it to support your conspiracy. Check that, I shouldn't even call it "evidence' because it isn't. It is a lack of evidence that you have. You invent questions about the incident and when you can't wrap your brain around reason and logic, you take every stupid thing any witness ever said and cling to it as if it were straight from God's mouth to your ears. You twist logic to fit your own narrative so you can feed your feable need to feel important on a national scale, like somehow the nation is reading your posts.

I remember when this sight was about liberty and free market capitalism. I remember when people here discussed topics related to the ideas Ron Paul was bringing up every day. You all have driven those fine people away with your own ignorant lack of critical thinking. I enjoyed those people. We shared information and learned together. I don't enjoy you people. You spread fallacy through verbosity. You post every tiny scrap of psuedo-evidence no matter how easily refutable, rendering the rest of us simply too tired to continue to address your never ending pile of fiction.

And worst of all, you continue to move the goal post, to the point that no amount of debunking will ever satisfy you because you will simply wait for the next bit of psuedo-evidence to come out, and if that evidence isn't readily available, you resort back to the old time honored defense of "All I know is that I don't believe the official story". And that only creates another fallacy you all love, the false dillema, where you try to shoot holes in the official story thinking that it somehow proves your story is true, only you don't even have a coherent story to back up. If I point out all the inconsistency in the Bible, does that somehow prove that Thor is real? You need evidence in support of your story, not lack of evidence in support of their's. You people don't have evidence. You don't have a story. What you do have unfortunately, and in abundance, is a never ending supply of fallacies.

As a middle school teacher, part of my curriculum is teaching fallacies, so when I claim you are using them in abundance, I'm not speaking generally. You are using them in abundance and it is killing your argument. The sad part, is that even if you all were right, your constant use of fallacy and lack of logical skills has driven away countless people who might have actually cared.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You've got it backwards

"You people don't have evidence. You don't have a story."

you've got that backwards. the burden of proving WHO did it is the government's. The burden of providing a sensible story is the government's. What is that proof and what is that sensible story?

absence of that, no conviction.

but if it were just a contest of plausibility, truthers would win on circumstantial evidence alone.

Question for all smarter than I

In the WTC 1 and 2 videos we all have seen over and over the plane clearly penetrating into the building wings and all.

So what happened at the Pentagon shouldn't we have the same type of damage with at least some of the wings penetrating? It just seems the government or someone is trying to have it both ways. Then think about this giant plane flying 10 to 20 feet off the ground 400 MPH at full power. Is this even possible? Then where are the videos from all the surveillance cameras? If the government has nothing to hide they should be happy to make it all public?

I argued with my sister over this for over a year, but after seeing some of the documentaries on this I can no longer defend my old position.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

TOP SECRET!

We will, never know, since I am pretty sure that the site was immediately, declared "top secret". Thus, no one has any pictures, except the governemnt. One would think that they would show us the pictures, to shut the nay say-ers up. It all could just be another agenda to keep us like mushrooms---feed us dung and keep us in the dark! Oh, and they might be doing it to keep our eyes on this, instead of something important, they want us to ignore! But, why distrust the governemnt? Are you a seditionist?! LOL!!

This fallacy is called....

...appeal to ignorance, by which you assume that a lack of information somehow indcates a particular hyothesis. In truth, the information you don't have could very well be the information that proves you wrong, however you will not know because you don't have the info.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Are you doing the same?

ie, falling into the same fallacy scenario.
Based on your post below “Yes I’m an atheist.” You maintain OJ was guilty. You have referred to this crime in several posts. Based on what evidence do you make your assumption?

Private investigator William Dear shoots plenty of holes in your view that OJ did the crime. The likelihood of two people at the crime scene, the violation of standard police procedures and contamination of evidence by the LAPD and new research and discoveries argue another strong possibility that the guilty party is OJ’s son Jason; he had a history of violence (attack on girlfriend), alcohol and drug abuse, suicide attempts, and rage disorder. I am not 100% sure upon what assumptions you base your view of OJ’s guilt (other than basing it on corrupted evidence), but the mistake of doing that countermands your using the Fuhrman analogy reflecting back on your tendency to fall into the same trap of assuming things that aren’t based on fact or evidence.
BBC - OJ Simpson the Untold Story
This program is an in depth investigation into new evidence that has been found surrounding the murder trial of O.J. Simpson.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG5CPhGoT3M

Don't get ahead of me.

I'm not going to go on record sayin I know OJ is guilty. My references to that particular case are simply an analogy. I could have made a reference to a random nameless murder trial, but I though the OJ case would be more entertaining. You are correct in that I don't know if OJ was guilty, however my use of that case was to show the illogical nature of other arguments by comparing them to the OJ trial. For instance, just because Mark Fuhrman may have lied, or been a bad witness, doesn't mean Mark Fuhrman was the murderer. Doesn't that mean OJ was just because Mark Furhrman can't be proven to be the real killer? No it doesn't. But I'm not trying to get into the evidence of whether or not OJ did it. I'm simply using that as an analogy.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Didn't sound that way

You stated “OJ did it.” I think you are back pedaling. You didn’t frame it as a possibility but that he did it.

“The prosecution in the OJ trial made many errors, and at times, called witnesses who straight up lied, however that doesn't change the fact that OJ did it.”

I’m not convinced, otherwise you would have stated …”that doesn’t change the fact that OJ might have done it.”
Big difference.

then let me restate

That doesn't change who did it.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

That's a big leap

from saying “OJ did it.” To assume he did it without adequate information is analogous to assuming 19 so-called hijackers did 9/11 also without adequate information. Without that information, you cannot be certain who is right or wrong and making negative proclamations and judgments about people (or their motives or MO) who, in fact, are seeking the truth, denigrates the due diligence we all seek, the same as William Dear did with respect to the OJ's innocence. I rest my case.

Then let it be stricken from the record.

I am not invested enough in any OJ conspiracies to look further into it. I thought I was using a simple analogy, and you are right, I'm assuming OJ did it based off the fact that I just don't care enough to look further into it. If I was on the OJ jury, I'd care more. I retract all my OJ comments and promise not to attempt to claim that I know whether OJ did or didn't do it. I was using an analogy which wasn't up to par with you, and for the sake of argument, I will retract those analogies so as not to be seen as one attempting to pass off bad fallacies as good information.
In place of those analogies, lets not use a real case, instead, I will simply replace them with a random fictional case in which a man kills his former wife and her lover and then tries to go free based on various bits of evidence. In this story, lets assume the defendant was actually guilty.
There, now that we have that in place, go back and read my comments concerning OJ, and just replace that incident with the fictional one in which you know the accused to be guilty.
After you do that, then address the points I was making.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Replacing analogies

does not address your judgment about the process of seeking the truth which point you glossed over. The point I was making is that without adequate information, no one has the right to judge anyone else for their efforts to seek the truth. Your main post does just that and I feel it diminishes efforts to seek the truth. The exercise of back tracking from “OJ did it” to “who did it” illustrates that the fallacy and appeal to ignorance you speak of can only be overcome when people do not overstate the facts or make faulty assumptions (as I was led to believe you did from your OJ did it comment). I do, however, respect your desire to rectify a shaky premise.

SteveMT's picture

Why is the government withholding evidence a fallacy?

The government has this information in the videos. They are the ones that won't ever make it available to study. We bring up this "fact" and provide reasons/theories about why they will not. Then you label it all a "fallacy" and an "appeal to ignorance." You want us to just shut-up not question this deliberate secrecy. Do you really work for the "Ministry of Truth?"

Bro, hear me out.

For all we know, the videos you want could very well prove your case. However, just because you don't have them doesn't mean that your case is automatically proven. I'm not insulting the issue, that is just the textbook defintion of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. If we don't know how the universe was created, God must have done it,right? That is the classical example. Maybe God did do it, maybe not, but just because you don't have the information to counter the argument that God made the unvierse, doens't mean you can logically say that you know God did it. Truth comes from evidence, not lack of evidence.
Another example. If I don't remember where I was the night Nicole Brown Simpson was killed, does that mean I killed her? No. It just means I have a lack of evidence to support my defense. However, the prosecution still has a lack of evidence to support the case that I did it. They need evidence to support their case against me. They can't logically convict me based on my lack of an aliby. Billions of people on the plant don't have an aliby for where they were when Nicole Brown Simpson was killed, just as billions don't have an aliby proving they weren't involved in 9/11. The burden of proof is on those making the accusation and that proof needs to be evidence, not a lack of evidence to the contrary.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

SteveMT's picture

Then people who are known to have evidence are subpenaed.

The Watergate tapes, the Lewinsky tapes, Daniel Elsberg/Pentagon Papers, etc. They are compelled to come forward, and tell what they know or be held in contempt of court.

A government that repeatedly blocks investigations like JFK, 9/11, Fast and Furious, etc. establishes a trend. That government is complicit until proven otherwise without evidence. The evidence IS the government's refusal to provide facts already in their possession. They are complicit.

This fallacy is called....

...The Fallacy of Four Terms, or Equivocation. "The government" is not on constant thing. You can't say they have established a trend by using JFK as an example seeing as how the majority of people in our current government were not alive, or were just kids when that government was in office. To claim that the government has a history, even though it is made up of different people during each event, is to incorrectly define the word "government". If the government covered up the Gulf on Tonkin, or the JFK assasination, that doesn't imply that they were involved with something which happened 35 years later. "The government" is comprised nearly entirely of differnet people from decade to decade. If my family owned slaves in 1820, would you be able to label me a slave owner because I am a current member of my family? No you would not. Because being part of the "Snakepit22 family" means something different when each generation of individuals in that category changes.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

SteveMT's picture

If you still owned slaves, you would.

That is the correct analogy, not your incomplete one. If different people years later are doing the same thing as their predecessors have done, then that IS the same thing.

This fallacy is called...

....circular reasoning. We haven't established the guilt of the current government so how can you use that guilt as evidence to establish a trend? You assumed the truth of the conclusion and put that conclusion in the premise. In order to establish the trend of government corruption, you need to prove the guilt of the government in all those incidents. You were trying to use the trend of the government corruption as evidence of their current guilt, but how can you use that trend when you haven't established the current guilt yet?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

SteveMT's picture

Your arguments are circular. You don't want to find the truth.

In essence you are an enabler. You are a government apologist that enables the same tyranny to continue.

Your face is circular. You don't want to find the truth.

I'm just kidding, that was lame. I just like "your face" jokes!

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Glass vs Concrete I guess

Glass vs Concrete I guess

Damage depends

on kind of impact and structure in place. WTC was steel columns and lightweight steel girders. High temperature from the fire weakened connection between columns and girders and columns were left "unbraced." So they buckled. The inertia from the upper floors was so huge that nothing could stop the fall.

Pentagon building has a different type of construction and was reinforced/repaired not long before the impact.

How many planes hit building 7?

Where are the videotapes of the plane hitting the pentagon?

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

WTC7

Inner columns did not have their own foundations. They sat on two huge trusses. When one truss support yielded from fire, you got free fall. Our consipracy folks and their "engineers" never talk about the real facts.

NIST

NIST finally admitted that building 7 fell at free fall speed which is tantamount to admitting simultaneous destruction of support columns on numerous floors which could ONLY occur if demolition charges destroyed them all at once.

Deal with that.

PS: I have a university degree in mechanical engineering, a rich background in metallurgy and structural design and am a member of A&E for 911 Truth. And the author's credentials are a middle school teacher.

SteveMT's picture

mbennett , your expertise is again sought.

The question concerns the word "redundancy." Would a 47-story building be allowed to be constructed in which there was none? In other words, would an entire building fall symmetrically, synchronously, and progressively if just one core column was compromised?

Thanks so much for any information about this.

If Hitler said 2+2=4, he is still correct.

I'm super excited about your credentials, but those don't change the facts. If there were a middle school teacher who agreed with you on everything you've said, would you insult his profession as well?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

SteveMT's picture

Tell me your "facts" about WCT7, please.

What are these facts of YOURS?

Again....

...you guys are the ones trying to prove that it was an inside job. So you guys need to be the ones providing the facts to support that theory. The facts I'm providing are the descriptions of the fallacious arguments you guys keep using. My being a middle school teacher doesn't change the "fact" that the argument you guys use don't hold up, and don't implicate anyone.
Let me give you an obsurd example, but one that illustrates the standing you guys are trying to establish. Lets say you all are correct about explosives being used. Prove to me that it was an inside job. Prove to me that the explosives weren't simply the back up plan used by the middle easterners just incase the planes didn't have the effect they wanted?
I realize how obsurd that sounds, but the truth is, even if you guys were right about explosives being used, it still doesn't implicate anyone on the inside, like our government, etc. It would be like finding a murder victim who's body was mutilated. Some of the evidence points to them being shot, some points to them being stabbed. You believe they were stabbed but most people believe the prosecutors story which is that they were shot. The murderer could have done both, but just because you disagree on how it was done, that doesn't automatically implicate the prosecutor as the perpetrator does it?
Just because you think the buildings were also wired with explosives, that alone isn't evidence of an inside job. You need evidence pointing to someone, not just evidence of additional methods used.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

SteveMT's picture

You are treating the government as if they are an individual.

You are giving the government the same rights as a person. The government is essentially and repeatedly pleading the 5th Amendment. They are involved in crime scene after scene and you say this is just coincidental. You say that is O.K. I guess you agreed with the recent SCOTUS decision about corporations are same as individuals. The government is not a person. It exists because of the people.

This is like saying...

...that lawyers must be murdering people because they are involved in every murder trial. Who were you going to get to investigate 9/11, Walmart?
In addition, if the government isn't a person, and doesn't have rights, then who do you subpeona? When the spokesperson for the government is called into court, he doesn't have a 5th ammendment right?
You want information that you think exists and because the government hasn't bent over backwards to prove you wrong, you assume they are guilty. That is why the 5th ammendment exists, because people are illogical and have made up their minds before they even step into the court.
Not revealing everything, or not speaking in court of to the cops, or to the news, doesn't mean you are guilty.
I can't think of anything of the top of my head that I'm guilty of, but I wouldn't talk to the cops or the news or someone accusing me of 9/11.
Here is why;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).