Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (202516)	9/11/2006 9:22:42 AM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Carl, If you care to back up your claims that any of the estimates are off by enough to completely eliminate all of the over 12 times discrepency between energy required to produce the effects and energy available in a gravity-only collapse, by all means, supply the data. If not, your statements have no value. Simply making statements without anything behind them just doesn't fly. Also, thinking that since "the guy" showed that there was much more than only the minimum of explosives necessary to simply bring the building down must mean there's a problem with his calculations is a straw man argument. That straw man argument asserts that ONLY the amount necessary to just bring them down is the only conclusion there might be available to find. In essence, you're saying it can only be either one of two things when there are obviously more than two options to choose from. Arbitrarily limiting the options for the conclusion is a common straw man tactic. My own opinion about attempts to use straw man arguments is that the person building the straw man is, from the very start of the argument, being disingenuous at a minimum. Their credibility starts off as suspect.