Pat has already touched on this, but I figured I would add to it. There are certain patterns to the way the Loose Change boys, and conspiracy theorists in general, make their arguments, they don't come up with their theories through random chance, but through willful dishonesty and manipulation, this is why I created my "Rules of Conspracy Theories".
These are the most common logical fallacies they use in an attempt to disinform their audience.
1. Quote mining:This is defined in Wikipedia as "... used pejoratively to accuse the "quote miner" of cherry picking and misquotation, where favorable positions are amplified or falsely suggested, and unfavorable positions in the same text are excluded or otherwise obscured." this technique is used so often in Loose Change that we have dedicated an entire series of posts to it. You can browse through some of them from here.
2. False pretense of authority: This is where you get an "expert" to back up your viewpoint, who... isn't really as expert as you would like. My favorite is of course, "Karl Schwarz, President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-nets Security Systems". The reports that he is so ridiculous that even the Loose Change boys are going to remove him from the next edition are very disturbing. Come on boys, stick with Karl! Other examples are Kevin Ryan, waterboy, and of course the entire "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth"
3. "All witnesses are the same" fallacy: As everyone knows, in any event you will get slightly different versions of what happened. What Loose Change does though, is ignore the overwhelming majority of the reports, and grab on to the one outlier. If 100 people saw a large commercial jetliner, and one person thought it was a smaller commuter plane, then it simply becomes "some people" saw one, and "some people" saw the other, as if they were equal in weight.
4. Ignore evidence that contradicts you: This is the one that drives me nuts. In this case, the Loosers do things like look at one picture, in which the hole in the side of the Pentagon is obscured by smoke and the firefighters, and proclaim it is only 16 feet wide, while ignoring other pictures which clearly show it is much larger.
5. Unexplained tainted evidence: If some piece of evidence contradicts your theory, then just make some vague comment about how there must be something wrong with it. You don't have to explain what it is, or how it got there, just make it sound ominous. For example, the light poles. Apparently they do believe in the light pole fairies.
6. If you make enough accusations eventually one of them will stick (otherwise known as the "we are just asking questions fallacy"): It was a commuter plane, no it was an A-3 Skyhawk, no it was a C-130, no it was a cruise missile. No, it doesn't matter because we are just asking questions.
7. The "implied connection" fallacy: If you mention two completely unrelated items in sequence, eventually people will make the connection. For example, say that Marvin Bush was on the board of directors for a company that managed some security at the WTC, then say that bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the WTC (not really but for simplicity's sake let's assume they were), therefore Marvin Bush ordered the bomb sniffing dogs removed.
8. The unexplained sinister assertion: The most hilarious example of this is when Controlled Demolitions Inc. blew up some storage tanks months before 9/11. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything, it just sounds ominous.
9. The presence of a technology proves its use: The fact that something can be done, proves that it was done. It is possible to control a plane remotely, therefore that must have happened on 9/11. Someone came up with the idea of faking a plane shootdown in Operation Northwood, therefore that must be what they did 40 years later.
Go ahead and add your own logical fallacies, there are more out there!
Huh? Please list one example of quote mining that any of us on this blog has ever used.
ReplyDeleteThe 72 virgins thing has nothing to do with quote mining, it is merely talking about the motivations of Islamic terrorists.
There are literally entire books (the Koran among them) written on jihad and martyrdom, this is not something that is derived from taking one quote out of context.
how many times were you told that the 19 hijackers did it to get 72 virgins in paradise but where did that come from? Nobody left a note saying "We're doing this to get 72 virgins in paradise."
ReplyDeleteThat's been a staple of Islam pretty much since its inception. Fanatic soldiers walk into curtains of Greek Fire at the seige of Malta nearly 500 years ago 'knowing' that they would go to paradise. That's just one example, but flying a plane into a building is a piece of cake by comparison.
And talk about ignoring the evidence that contradicts you!!! Building 7! Building 7! Building 7!
Building 7 has been covered so many time from so many locations it isn't even funny to claim its being ignored. 911myths has a whole section devoted to it. There's no mystery here: Fire can bring down buildings, especially if it is not fought by firefighters.
"You could go through the official version and the media coverage and find lots of such deductive reasoning that could be total baloney. "
ReplyDeleteReally Joan? Then by all means, please, go pick up the official government report, and show me an example of this "baloney" you speak of.
The media version you're absolutely correct about. But then again, the media has a tendancy to publish "news" based on anonymous sources, which later turns out to be totaly incorrect. Look at some of the crap they've been writing about the US soldiers in Iraq. If they're willing to report some villiage rumours which a goat-hearder told them, why is it surprising that they got many of the facts behind 9/11 wrong?
Lave the media out of it. Go get yourself a copy of the official report and educate yourself a bit. If you can find any logical falacies in that report, I'd be more than happy to look at them. I certainly didn't see any.
That's been a staple of Islam pretty much since its inception.
ReplyDeleteI always felt this was either Zionist propaganda or quotes taken out of context from the Islamic holy book. Either way, the "virgins in heaven" is a fairy tale not supported in reality. Atta and company attended strip clubs, got high and always caused a scene wherever they went. That's hardly the mark of an "Islamic fundamentalists" and brings into question the whole notion that if they were fanatical enough to die for their cause, they wouldn't be living it up days before 9/11.
Also, there are a lot of quotes from the Talmud that makes Jews out to be psychopathic killers of Christians. Many hate groups have been caught taking passages from the Talmud to justify their hatred of the Jews. I assume the same methodology can be applied to Islam by those who hate them most, namely, the ZIONISTS!
And my Lord, talk about "quote mining," how many times were you told that the 19 hijackers did it to get 72 virgins in paradise but where did that come from?
ReplyDeleteYou know nothing of Islam, am I right here?
In the Quran, those who destroy the infidels are promised Paradise stocked with virgins (although I'd rather have women who knew what they were doing).
Building 7! Building 7! Building 7!
No, hun, you ignore the evidence.
what "must have" happened as opposed to proof that only those mechanisms could have caused the collapses
Hmm planes hit them and then fires raged which comprimised structural integrity? Oh, it must be a controlled demolition.
I always felt this was either Zionist propaganda or quotes taken out of context from the Islamic holy book.
READ THE QURAN YOU MORON. There's your word shielding you from anti-semitism again. IT's not propoganda it's what the book says.
Also, there are a lot of quotes from the Talmud that makes Jews out to be psychopathic killers of Christians. Many hate groups have been caught taking passages from the Talmud to justify their hatred of the Jews. I assume the same methodology can be applied to Islam by those who hate them most, namely, the ZIONISTS!
First, quote. Second, no Jews currently follow those tenants (if they exist at all). There are large groups of Muslims today who take the Quran to be the inerrant word of God, and that they can still go to paradise and be rewarded with virgins. Never seen a suicide bomber's tape? (Oh, is that 'Zionist' [read: Jewish] propaganda, too, moron?)
I've never run into a group of people so consistently wrong who continue arguing.
Nesnyc, all's you do is "feel". Stop using your heart, pal, and use that (up till now) useless chunk of grey matter the good Lord gave you.
ReplyDeleteFalse pretense of authority
ReplyDeleteThat one is just 'appeal to authority'.
(False pretense is a redunant phrase, as well. A pretense, by definition, is false. Sorry, just one of my biggest pet peeves.)
"How did the Commission deal with this apparent contradiction? Like just about every other piece of testimony that conflicted with the official story, Griffin avers, they ignored it."
ReplyDeleteYou do realize it's perfectly alright to ignore something when it's pointless, right?
A building Spain burned for many more hours unchallenged, as greater temps, and it didn't collapsed.
ReplyDeleteThe steel portion did collapse. No major structural damage before the fire broke out. This logical fallacy is called "false analogy". You're comparing two completely different structures under different ciscumstances.
So let's look at One Meridian Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
ReplyDeleteYes, let's.
1) Its a completely different structural design (concrete over steel. Which gave its structure much greater fire resistance.
2) Firefighters fought the fire for 11 hours internally, and when they gave up internal firefighting they still had a firehose spray the fire from the outisde. By comparison, WTC7 had no firefighting efforts at all.
3) Meridian started from a pile of oily rags and spread. WTC's fire was started most likely from falling debris and likely started in mulitple locations.
4) WTC7 had obvious structural damage from falling debris. Meridian had none.
5) Meridian had a sprinkler system on its higher floors, WTC7's firefighting systems failed from the collpase of the twin towers.
Even with these massive differences betwen the two buildings, ones often hand-waved away by CTs this was the fate of Meridian:
1) Internal firefighting efforts were abandoned because of the fear of pancake collapse, as
2) Once the fire ended, the building was reenforced, covered with a massive sleeve, and had acess extremely limited.
3) Meridian was eventually brought down by a slow mechanical process. Steps were constantly taken during the process to ensure that collapse did not result from the unbuilding process.
Meridian did not collapse, but it came damn close. It had several major advantages over WTC7 and those likely made the difference. Comparing the two is nonsense, they are apples and oranges.
The CIA planted the apples! And blew up the oranges!
ReplyDeleteSo jack answers a false analogy with a false analogy...brilliant.
ReplyDeleteIt's deffinitely time to ban this cocksucker.
ReplyDeleteInside, you can post opinions, but quit the spamming.
ReplyDeletethe general response seems to be to simply say "that's already been debunked," without giving any evidence to back up this claim.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have to continue to debunk the same points over and over again. It's your job to go and read all the posts before you jump in.
Joan, you're ridiculous, James B., can i marry you please? you're amazing.
ReplyDelete