IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Smrekar's Dialogue on Richard Gage AE911Truth, Split from WTC7 Oddity

Smrekar
post Oct 14 2008, 06:09 AM
Post #21





Group: Guest
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 3,929



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Oct 14 2008, 04:50 AM) *
This video should answer all of your questions with solid research and scientific methods:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15156


I have seen this before, but I don't recall it comparing the destruction of south tower with an ammunition dump explosion. This was the comparison made here, and that's all there is to it smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 14 2008, 04:41 PM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Smrekar @ Oct 11 2008, 08:33 AM) *
I certainly can't. Contrary to what you might assume, I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I'd just like an answer to a specific question, about a specific video, regarding a specific - and very important - topic.

So you are unable to answer either of my questions then Smrekar. Somehow with your already-demonstrated "grasp" of the Laws of Motion, I'm not surprised... [Lightpole thread near here]. Thanks for your time Smrekar.

BTW, Hi cheapchippy.

EDIT: For Smrekar's benefit:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compare

"2 a: to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences <compare your responses with the answers> b: to view in relation to <tall compared to me> <easy compared with the last test>"
--------------------------
Again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_qu..._out_of_context

"The practice of "quoting out of context", sometimes referred to as "contextomy," is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Quoting out of context is often a means to set up "straw man" arguments. Straw man arguments are arguments against a position which is not held by an opponent, but which may bear superficial similarity to the views of the opponent. [1]"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 14 2008, 06:49 PM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Taking count- post #3:
QUOTE (Smrekar @ Oct 11 2008, 08:33 AM) *
I certainly can't. Contrary to what you might assume, I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I'd just like an answer to a specific question, about a specific video, regarding a specific - and very important - topic.

Although, in regards to that post, the destruction of the south tower didn't look a lot like an ordnance blast. Furthermore, if there was a major blast, it would have certainly been obvious and, more importantly, heard.
Any controlled demolition within the WTC had to use either small charges, or non-explosive means of destruction (such as thermite).

post #7
QUOTE
I didn't claim there wasn't an explosive present in the WTC, however, just that comparing the start of demolition of the South tower to an explosion of an ammunition dump (or whatever) is categorically incorrect and not a little silly.

still post #7, again
QUOTE
I never denied any of those. I merely stated that the implication that the destruction of the South tower was similar to an ammunition dump blowing up based on a few stills was incorrect smile.gif
We have videos of both. Check those, you'll see it's hardly even similar.

Note that the above was unsourced- that will be a recurring theme with Smrekar.

Post #15
QUOTE
I didn't see all of them, but I doubt you can match a single one from the first set to a single one from the second. I am certain that a vast majority show a major differences, sufficient to conclude the two don't look similar at all.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned smile.gif

Hmmm... "case closed" on unseen evidence...

Post #22
QUOTE
I have seen this before, but I don't recall it comparing the destruction of south tower with an ammunition dump explosion. This was the comparison made here, and that's all there is to it smile.gif

-----------------------
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argum.../repetition.htm

[Fallacies]
Repetition

Description

The more X is repeated, the more true it becomes.

Repeating something, over and over and over (yes, I know, I know), makes it right, true and more certain.
--------------------
Anyone care to count Smrekar's repeated opinions [esp. those stated as "case closed" fact]?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smrekar
post Oct 17 2008, 10:18 AM
Post #24





Group: Guest
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 3,929



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 15 2008, 12:49 AM) *
Taking count- post #3:
Hmmm... "case closed" on unseen evidence...

Post #22

-----------------------
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argum.../repetition.htm

[Fallacies]
Repetition


This seems to describe you rather well, doesn't it. I gave you plentiful sources with whom you can prove yourself right. You refused to even look at it, and claim my evidence is false, because I haven't seen "all" of it, even though that's probably physically impossible, given our expected lifespan.
That's dishonest and unworthy of anyone over the age of six.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th December 2019 - 10:31 PM