Comments Posted By Frank IBC
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 100 Comments
9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL
Are you saying that trucks never ever spill fuel and catch fire when they crash into houses, CMM? And don't you think that this is relevant to your drawing an analogy between the crash of planes into the WTC, and a truck crashing into a house?
You are right Frank. Your government can do no evil, think no evil etc etc. Everything is rosey
Ah, a classic case of the fallacy of false alternatives (aka Excluded Middle, False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation)
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot.
In your (and also Ghosttown's) planet, you have assumed that only the two following alternatives:
1) Believing in the Troofer's idiotic "demolition & missiles" scenario
2) Believing that government "can do no evil", in ANY OTHER SITUATION.
Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 30.08.2007 @ 08:07
I was looking up the fallacy of "argument by scenario" and found a whole necklace of fallacies that apply to the troofers here:
Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 29.08.2007 @ 11:37Least Plausible Hypothesis:
ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
Argument By Scenario:
telling a story which ties together unrelated material, and then using the story as proof they are related.Affirming The Consequent:
logic reversal. A correct statement of the form "if P then Q" gets turned into "Q therefore P".
For example, "All people whose surname begins with Mac are of Scottish ancestry. Dougal is of Scottish ancestry. Therefore his surname begins with Mac." But actually his name is Campbell.Another example: "If space creatures were kidnapping people and examining them, the space creatures would probably hypnotically erase the memories of the people they examined. These people would thus suffer from amnesia. But in fact many people do suffer from amnesia. This tends to prove they were kidnapped and examined by space creatures." This is also a Least Plausible Hypothesis explanation.
Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):
if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.
This is related to Argument By Question. Asking questions is easy: it's answering them that's hard.It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an argument. For example, a person who takes Vitamin C might claim that it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not for the Vitamin C.
Appeal To Complexity:
if the arguer doesn't understand the topic, he concludes that nobody understands it. So, his opinions are as good as anybody's.
OK, but this is way too many posts in a row, but maybe the "architect" CMM can explain why 1-story houses are usually built of wood, but skyscrapers never are?
Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 29.08.2007 @ 11:25
Many witnesses described the sound of the collapse as "thunder".
Therefore the towers were destroyed by a thunderbolt from God, punishing the USA for its wicked ways.
Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 29.08.2007 @ 11:23
On the other hand, both a 1 story wood frame house and a 3 to 6 story masonry and wood townhouse would very quickly burn to the ground if diesel fuel from the truck spilled and ignited.
Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 29.08.2007 @ 11:21
If I drive a truck through one wall of your house it does not collapse the whole structure.
The typical house these days is a one story frame house The WTC was 110 stories. The weight of a 1-story frame house will not trigger collapse in the same way that it will happen in a high-rise. Also, the wooden structure will tend to flex and absorb some of the energy without shattering - although the structure will likely be horribly distorted afterwards. On the other hand, the typical 3 to 6 story masonry and wood urban townhouse would likely shatter and collapse as a result of being hit by a truck.
Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 29.08.2007 @ 11:17
If we know people will kill for so little why would we doubt they will do it for billions.
This same stupid argument has occured dozens of times throughout this thread. Saying "people are bad" or "leaders are power-hungry" is not the same as providing evidence to support the Troofers' wacky theories.
Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 29.08.2007 @ 11:06
If I drive a truck through one wall of your house it does not collapse the whole structure.
Once again, we're back to unwarranted assumptions.
Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 29.08.2007 @ 11:03
Stop been blind 2 da facts stop been hoodwinked! Wake up b4 it’s 2 late
Grow up already, and get an education.
Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 27.08.2007 @ 08:18
Isn't it amazing how they can ask the same questions, repeatedly, over the course of six years, and pretend like they've never even once been informed of the answers? Even on a thread such as this where they are answered MULTIPLE TIMES IN A SINGLE DAY?
Comment Posted By Frank IBC On 26.08.2007 @ 13:48
