Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
Seife wrote:Hey, this is my first post, I enjoy the quality of discussion around here, so congratulations to everybody!
The video posted by peterene1 has been removed from youtube, I presume it discussed this video here?
Downward Acceleration of the North Tower
peterene1 wrote:Thus the video meets a definition of a joke. I'll try to find it somewhere.
Skepticism reflects an attitude of doubt towards the veracity of a certain concept. With reference to the paranormal, skeptics make up a significant portion of those who express interest in such phenomena. Skepticism does not refer to those who refuse to believe in the paranormal. Rather, it applies to people who remain unconvinced until presented with adequate proof. Thus, the skeptic’s position is perhaps best summed up by author Carl Sagan who stated, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Some paranormal skeptics have taken on the official role of “debunkers.” These researchers focus specifically on disproving paranormal claims. Rather than conduct objective inquiries, debunkers seek only to expose fallacies within the phenomena they study. Due to their passionate disapproval, debunkers frequently cause debate and controversy. In extreme cases, debunkers neglect to accept evidence which contradicts their beliefs. Such persons are referred to as “pseudoskeptics” and generally meet with disapproval from the greater skeptic community.
Barry Jennings wrote:“When I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion. That’s what forced us back to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing. Keep in mind, I told you the fire department came and ran. They came twice. Why? Because Building Tower One fell, then Tower Two fell.“
Barry Jennings wrote:I had to be inside on the 23rd floor when the second plane hit.
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987
Alienentity!! lol Oh you should see his hilarious video debunking of Barry Jennings!!
Let this be your guide and I can guarantee you that JREFers pseudo skeptical arguments fail miserably because they will always employ one of these tactics, this is why most of them do not do debate outside of their own forum!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests