9/11 - What convinced you?

[jimmifli]

You're doing the exact same thing that Shiva does.

Maybe you could learn something from that. Or point out where I have made an error?

I said IF he got his source from a truther site, then he wasn't being fair.

How does that make it better? To me it just makes you look chicken****.

He likes to discredit anything and everything that wasn't seen firsthand because everyone has an agenda except for him.

That's quite a claim.

Want more proof? He uses sites like 911review.com for evidence.

http://www.buffalorange.com/showthread.php?201151-Demolition-Access-To-The-WTC-Towers

911 review is ok. Anything other than first hand eyewitness is not.

Gotcha.

Here is what he posted:

I've posted this before, but of course the braying idiots keep asking how the WTC could be rigged for demolition.

So, here it is again, a 4 part series by Kevin Ryan - (he makes JREF heads explode) explaining it.

Read it or STFU. I'm tired of having to repeat myself.

How exactly does that support your claim that "He likes to discredit anything and everything that wasn't seen firsthand because everyone has an agenda except for him."? Or was that to provide evidence that he weighs evidence with bias? If so how does what you posted support the claim?

[YardRat]

BushCo and his minions had Evil Captain Kirk, Scotty, Mr Spock and Sulu beamed aboard four jet-liners, phaser-stunned the crews, skillfully maneuvered them toward their intended targets and beamed back aboard the Enterprise just prior to impact.

Agent's Kay and Jay flashed the mind-eraser thingies in the White House, and aboard the Enterprise, so nobody involved actually remembers anything.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

It's not an "abstract question" nor is it demanding a "concrete answer". It's a legitimate question about your understanding of human behavior and assessment of character. Here's another name. Eric Prince. Think he's capable?

The Blackwater founder? I don't know enough about him to say either way.

I did not claim they were struck by remote-controlled planes in post 6 in that thread (post the text if you wish) and I have never "pushed" the pre-wiring claim, I have only questioned the truth of the claim they couldn't have been pre-wired.

What? You've been claiming the buildings were packed with explosives, up to and including post 218 in this thread. In this thread about Thermate (http://www.buffalorange.com/showthre...=1#post3122199) you claimed that it was "blindingly obvious what happened." Now, unless you are going to claim the bombs/thermate were planted while the building was on fire, it would have been done beforehand. Before = pre. Pre-wired.

This is silly anti-induction sophistry that tries to equate something with a high probablity of being true with something with a low probability of being true. Most of what we know and most of the decisions we're required to make every day rely on what we've been told. However, not everything we have been told is true. That is what our brain is for. To use reason and logic to make judgments about whether the things we've been told are true or not. If you're still shaky on the concepts, the wikipedia pages on inductive logic and circumstantial evidence are good places to start.

And which part are you claiming has "a low probability of being true"? That Burlingame was on the plane that hit the Pentagon?

And the US gov't itself claimed Osama's statement was true.

I'll admit, I have not been able to find any reference to this statement. Do you have a source? You've previously claimed that he said it to al-Zawahiri in a private conversation (http://www.buffalorange.com/showthre...=1#post3122199)

Now, assuming for the sake of argument that OBL made this statement, how do you know it was accurate? If al-Qaeda, of which both OBL and Zawahiri were members, was an ongoing CIA operation as you've claimed (http://www.buffalorange.com/showthre...l-Qaeda-is-CIA), why would the US government confirm it? If OBL was not a CIA asset, then how would he have knowledge about what happened on Flight 93? I've never seen anything suggesting he was in communication with the hijackers, and his own statements suggest he was not - that he learned about the success of the attacks from the radio (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/res...ranscript.html)

So, that brings us back to my original question.

Do you think that all ruthless profiteers, and especially those ruthless profiteers whose fortunes depend on death and destruction, would shrink from a little engineered carnage to pump up the bottom line and make the world safe for free-market capitalism?

That bears little resemblance to your original question. Nonetheless, it still depends. Urinal cake guy is a profiteer, but I certainly wouldn't think him capable of that act. Repressive government regime (I'm thinking China/North Korea types here)? Sure.

Why America has wound up with so much blood on it's hands

Because we've built a country with a lifestyle that cannot be sustained on our own output. Cheap food, big houses, huge cars, etc. And so we go out in the world and exploit the 3rd world to sustain that lifestyle, by propping up regimes that give us what we want and toppling those who don't.

and why, if it does, do you find it so unbelievable there is 9/11 blood on it's hands too?

"Its" = "America's"? I don't think "America" committed 9/11, and if I understand you correctly then neither do you. BushCo is a small group that did it for their own personal gain, right?

[jdaltroy5]

Maybe you could learn something from that. Or point out where I have made an error?

I'm not interested in arguing about the argument. My time is more valuable than that.

How does that make it better? To me it just makes you look chicken****.

Because I didn't know where he got source from and I wasn't prepared to wade through hundreds of pages to find. Sure, it's kind of chicken ****, but it would've been much worse had I blatantly lied.

That's quite a claim.

Slightly hyperbolic, but still realistic. He's actually asking if GB was there to draw the DNA and if he wasn't, then he can't be sure people aren't lying.

Here is what he posted:

How exactly does that support your claim that "He likes to discredit anything and everything that wasn't seen firsthand because everyone has an agenda except for him."? Or was that to provide evidence that he weighs evidence with bias? If so how does what you posted support the claim?

The WHOLE thing is from a truther site. By the way, I don't mean truther in an offensive way. It's just easier to type out than, "Someone that doesn't believe the official story." I don't mean any offense by it. Truthers obviously have an agenda as well, yet their sources are considered to be reliable? It shouldn't work that way.

[jimmifli]

Slightly hyperbolic, but still realistic. He's actually asking if GB was there to draw the DNA and if he wasn't, then he can't be sure people aren't lying.

No he's not.

He's asking Gameboy how he can assure us. Gameboy made an unsupported claim, shiva asked him to support it. Just like you ask him to support his claims.

The WHOLE thing is from a truther site. By the way, I don't mean truther in an offensive way. It's just easier to type out than, "Someone that doesn't believe the official story." I don't mean any offense by it. Truthers obviously have an agenda as well, yet their sources are considered to be reliable? It shouldn't work that way.

So how does that support your claim that he uses bias when evaluating sources?

[jdaltroy5]

No he's not.

He's asking Gameboy how he can assure us.

Yes he is. It's the same thing. He's basically telling him that the only way that he can assure him that it was the same DNA was if he collected it and tested it himself. That's a ridiculous burden of proof.

Gameboy made an unsupported claim, shiva asked him to support it. Just like you ask him to support his claims.

Except it wasn't unsupported. It was unsupported according to Shiva.

So how does that support your claim that he uses bias when evaluating sources?

Because that's a ridiculous burden of proof. He can spout off theories about remote control planes, dexpan, thermate and anything he wants with absolutely NO proof. If he's questioned on it or told that his scenario is impossible, then he just reverts back to the ol' "I don't need to prove how the elephant disappears."

[jimmifli]

Yes he is. It's the same thing. He's basically telling him that the only way that he can assure him that it was the same DNA was if he collected it and tested it himself. That's a ridiculous burden of proof.

Except it wasn't unsupported.

I missed where he supported his claim. Can you post it?

[Jinglefoot]

LOL! You didn't even read the thread, cuz if you did you would have read Berger-boy (JREF member and guy who invited his friends over) admit that I kicked their ass.

They ran back to their odious site with their tails between their legs.

You rang? Yes, you did kick their ass. Just like Saddam did, and not at all different than any creationist does in their "debates." You accept Fluff so well, you must be Wonderbread.

[jdaltroy5]

I missed where he supported his claim. Can you post it?

I know that family members were asked to submit DNA samples, unless they were lying at the two memorial services that I attended.

Then he used this link to verify it.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_DNA_profiles

Now, I know what you're going to say. This site can't be used to verify it because it is not a reliable source and that's where we get into the whole circular logic of what's verifiable and what's not.

[jimmifli]

Then he used this link to verify it.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_DNA_profiles

Now, I know what you're going to say. This site can't be used to verify it because it is not a reliable source and that's where we get into the whole circular logic of what's verifiable and what's not.

So, if we go back to your original claim that shiva applies different standards to evidence that supports his case than he does for evidence that contradicts its, lets look at this evidence again:

Impartial construction workers find bone shards, the DNA is processed with full public disclosure, it was reported in numerous reputable media outlets.
An anonymous message board poster assures us that family submitted DNA and he attended the funerals. No information about test results or procedure was provided.

To me it seems like shiva applied reasonable judgement when weighing the value of these pieces of evidence.

Your emotions are getting the better of you and you're making silly arguments because of it. You say you want to argue facts, but your posts in this thread prove otherwise.

[jdaltroy5]

[QUOTE=jimmifli;3708741]

So, if we go back to your original claim that shiva applies different standards to evidence that supports his case than he does for evidence that contradicts its, lets look at this evidence again:

Impartial construction workers find bone shards, the DNA is processed with full public disclosure, it was reported in numerous reputable media outlets.
An anonymous message board poster assures us that family submitted DNA and he attended the funerals. No information about test results or procedure was provided.

Sure, maybe if the anonymous message board poster was the ONLY one that assured us about the DNA. Numerous reputable media outlets reported that the victims from the Pentagon were identified.
Here's one:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/17/attack/main519033.shtml

Are media outlets trusted or not?

Your emotions are getting the better of you and you're making silly arguments because of it. You say you want to argue facts, but your posts in this thread prove otherwise.

Silly arguments? You may just be joining now, but I have dozens of pages of facts from how the towers were constructed, to the forces that would be applied to the building, and so on. Long, well thought out posts that were either ignored or lazily responded to with no technical data that could refute my claims.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

So, if we go back to your original claim that shiva applies different standards to evidence that supports his case than he does for evidence that contradicts its, lets look at this evidence again:

Impartial construction workers find bone shards, the DNA is processed with full public disclosure, it was reported in numerous reputable media outlets.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never read that Shiva thinks the identity of the bone shards is the issue. From what I understand of his point, the location where they were found is the point, having be discovered supposedly in places they only could have reached had they been projected laterally from the tower by the explosions of the CD.

Is that a correct summation? If so, what relevance is the DNA?

An anonymous message board poster assures us that family submitted DNA and he attended the funerals. No information about test results or procedure was provided.

If we're being strict here, Shiva didn't provide the link either. You did, on his behalf.

FWIW, http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories...t_351973.shtml

Families of the airplanes' passengers and crews and those who died within the Pentagon provided DNA samples, typically on toothbrushes or hairbrushes, to aid with identification. The remains that didn't match any of those samples were ruled to be the terrorists, said Chris Kelly, spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which did the DNA work. The nine sets of remains matched the number of hijackers believed to be on the two planes.
Without reference samples from the hijackers' personal effects or from their immediate families to compare with the recovered DNA, the remains could not be matched to an individual.

To me it seems like shiva applied reasonable judgement when weighing the value of these pieces of evidence.

He rejected the DNA evidence from the Pentagon in Post #208 because it was tested by the government, who supposedly has a motive to cover it up. Of course, now we're back to arguing that "the government" is involved in the conspiracy and every piece of evidence they touched is now tainted by association.

[jimmifli]

[QUOTE=jdaltroy5;3708753]

Sure, maybe if the anonymous message board poster was the ONLY one that assured us about the DNA. Numerous reputable media outlets reported that the victims from the Pentagon were identified.
Here's one:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/17/attack/main519033.shtml

See now you're getting it, this strengthens your argument. Much better than changing the subject and declaring that it doesn't matter anyway.
So now the only thing missing is how the DNA was processed and the results verified. If that could be provided you would make a really strong case that shiva does indeed use bias when weighing evidence, since the evidence would have equal weight and he dismisses one while relying on the other. I have no idea if that information exists.

Silly arguments?

Yes. The argument you made in this thread was silly.

You may just be joining now, but I have dozens of pages of facts from how the towers were constructed, to the forces that would be applied to the building, and so on. Long, well thought out posts that were either ignored or lazily responded to with no technical data that could refute my claims.

I've read them, and don't remember calling them silly. Am I only allowed to comment on the totality of your contributions and not a single post? I wasn't aware of that rule.

[jimmifli]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never read that Shiva thinks the identity of the bone shards is the issue. From what I understand of his point, the location where they were found is the point, having be discovered supposedly in places they only could have reached had they been projected laterally from the tower by the explosions of the CD.

Is that a correct summation? If so, what relevance is the DNA?

jdaltroy claimed that shiva is biased in how he weighs the information because he asked gameboy how he could assure us about Pentagon DNA while he takes the word of truther websites about bone shard DNA.

It was a silly argument since the evidence has vastly different characteristics and no reasonable person would consider them equivalently trust worthy.

Whether the bone shards are actually evidence of explosion would be an interesting discussion.

If we're being strict here, Shiva didn't provide the link either. You did, on his behalf.

He made a statement that was true and didn't require a link until it was challenged by jdaltroy. I was online and in 30 seconds of googling managed to find an article to add to the thread. I've never known shiva to lie or not provide links for facts that he claims. You may disagree with his analysis or conclusions, but I don't think you would ever call him a liar.

He rejected the DNA evidence from the Pentagon in Post #208 because it was tested by the government

He didn't reject it. his quote was:

So, in my estimation, the probability of the reporting of the human remains being true is high and the probability of the reporting of the Pentagon DNA less so.

Which is an entirely logical conclusion.

[jdaltroy5]

See now you're getting it, this strengthens your argument. Much better than changing the subject and declaring that it doesn't matter anyway.
So now the only thing missing is how the DNA was processed and the results verified. If that could be provided you would make a really strong case that shiva does indeed use bias when weighing evidence, since the evidence would have equal weight and he dismisses one while relying on the other. I have no idea if that information exists.

Realistically, most of the evidence when it comes to testing is going to either be done or released by the government. Therefore, either all DNA testing is not allowed or all of it is allowed. You can't just allow the DNA testing from the bone shards and then not allow the DNA testing from the crash site. That was my point about not playing fair. Unless of course there is a separate, independent source that is testing the DNA that I'm not aware of.

Yes. The argument you made in this thread was silly.

But it turned out to be valid?

I've read them, and don't remember calling them silly. Am I only allowed to comment on the totality of your contributions and not a single post? I wasn't aware of that rule.

No, you can comment on whatever you'd like.

[jimmifli]

But it turned out to be valid?

No there remains real differences in the evidence and his conclusion:

So, in my estimation, the probability of the reporting of the human remains being true is high and the probability of the reporting of the Pentagon DNA less so.

is logically sound.

Now, if you were to criticize his judgement based on how different he thinks those probabilities are, you might be able to make a valid argument. But it's entirely reasonable to trust the bone shard evidence more than the Pentagon evidence, which doesn't support your claim of bias.

[jdaltroy5]

No there remains real differences in the evidence and his conclusion:

is logically sound.

Now, if you were to criticize his judgement based on how different he thinks those probabilities are, you might be able to make a valid argument. But it's entirely reasonable to trust the bone shard evidence more than the Pentagon evidence, which doesn't support your claim of bias.

But who's doing the testing? Did an independent source do the testing on the bone shards at the WTC?

If they were both done by the same agency, then you can't pick and choose which one you want to believe.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

jdaltroy claimed that shiva is biased in how he weighs the information because he asked gameboy how he could assure us about Pentagon DNA while he takes the word of truther websites about bone shard DNA.

It was a silly argument since the evidence has vastly different characteristics and no reasonable person would consider them equivalently trust worthy.

Whether the bone shards are actually evidence of explosion would be an interesting discussion.

It would be, and jdaltroy made his point upthread (Post 214).

He made a statement that was true and didn't require a link until it was challenged by jdaltroy.

You consider the location of the recovered bone shards to be self-demonstrating and not require a link, while the identification of the Pentagon remains does? What's the standard here?

I've never known shiva to lie or not provide links for facts that he claims. You may disagree with his analysis or conclusions, but I don't think you would ever call him a liar.

Have you read this thread? He flagrantly misquoted the Zarqawi report and I called him on it. In the past he's significantly misrepresented the maneuvering of Flight 77, to suggest that the hijacker couldn't have accomplished them. Either he's lying or his command of the facts is not nearly as strong as he claims.

He didn't reject it. his quote was:

Which is an entirely logical conclusion.

He ascribes it a lower probability of being true just because the testing was done by "the government." That only works if you include the premise that all government employees share the motive to lie and participate in the cover-up, which is a dubious statement at best.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

But who's doing the testing? Did an independent source do the testing on the bone shards at the WTC?

If they were both done by the same agency, then you can't pick and choose which one you want to believe.

According to this, it was the New york City medical examiner (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...nd_on_ny_roof/)

The fragments, fewer than 10 and none measuring more than 2 inches, were turned over to the city's medical examiner's office, where they were being tested yesterday to determine whether they are human remains.

''If they are determined absolutely to be human, then we will try to extract DNA to try to make an identification," Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the medical examiner said. She said the results might be ready next week

[jimmifli]

But who's doing the testing? Did an independent source do the testing on the bone shards at the WTC?

If they were both done by the same agency, then you can't pick and choose which one you want to believe.

That was provided in the article posted. The bone shards were collected by construction workers and processed by the NY medical examiners office. The pentagon DNA was handled by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

I'm a little surprised that you're asking that at this point in the argument. You make an accusation of bias without even knowing the basic facts that shiva presented. What would make you come to such a hasty conclusion?