See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"
Source:
opednews.com
URL Source: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7524
Published: Jun 2, 2008
Author: Diary Entry by George Washington
Post Date: 2008-06-02 22:50:01 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: 911, "Impossible", "Violates the Law of Physics”
Views: 1910
Comments: 117
May 27, 2008 at 15:08:49 Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics” Diary Entry by George Washington Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics" :::::::: Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including: A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this) Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here) Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: "Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition" Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust." Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?" Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!" Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points out: "The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn't the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?" David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues: "Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ." Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states "I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures. Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse. For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures." Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes: "We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below. We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top. The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?" David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this) Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired) Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College See this website and this website for further additions. There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government's account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-77) not displayed.
.
.
.
#78. To: Original_Intent (#73)
LMAO! I don't see any of his trollisms at all and I'm laffing my ass off at him! Too funny! He started out thinking of himself as a really clever gadfly, and now he's desperately crying out for someone, ANYONE to read and reply point by point to his frantic dewdie! We got him right where we want him now, boys.
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
Any moment now he's/she's going to start stamping their feet and threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue. "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
LMAO! It amazes me how people who believe themselves to be intelligent and witty can make the same stupid mistake again and again. They seem to think that they can come here and plop their dumb asses down in the middle of friends and acquaintances and anonymously screw with people without our consent! Would they walk into our campfire and demand a green stick and a marshmallow to roast? "Oh yeah, Mister Trolly Boy, you're just too clever by half!" I'm gonna try not bust out laffing so I can write this. He thinks that the sheer, crushing weight of his intellect is all the invitation he needs! BWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHH!
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return Interesting that you claim converts can't use 'the law of return,' as it states otherwise.
I did not assert that converts could not use "the law of return" what I asserted is that some Jews, per recent discussions in Israel - particularly among the more Orthodox, do not and will not recognize converts as true Jews. Search on it, there has been some degree of controversy, some of it from senior Israeli Rabbis, militating toward not recognizing converts and some discussion of no longer accepting converts, or at least some converts, under "the law of return". Rabbinical Court Puts Thousands of Converts in Legal Limbo "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Thanks for the links, and clarification of your post's meaning.
They seem to think that they can come here and plop their dumb asses down in the middle of friends and acquaintances and anonymously screw with people without our consent! Could it be that they are not as witty or intelligent as they think they are? Someone who comes in swinging and talking trash is, on any forum, going to find that the reception is less than cordial. Besides you don't have to use profanity to pin someone's ears back - I'm not impressed, just the opposite really, by someone who as to rely on gutter terms and personal insults to assert their questionable manhood. It just tells me that they have no class and likely no brains. I am not averse to having a new kid on the block, but some of em' need to be larned' a few manners.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
No problemo. Thank you for the gentlemanly reply. As an aside, despite our disagreements and the needling I have given you on Oh'Bummer, I do like and respect you. Just wanted you to know that.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
You've just gotten the O_I logical fallacy smoke screen. I think this is a cut and paste.
Let's just call it, and the clever animated gifs, what they are: SPAM in the service of BS.
For the people who matter, anything but the most accurate, and peer-reviewed of criticisms, will simply be dismissed as another type of disinformation. It seems that you're just asking for clarification.
Explain which comments you were referring to and justify your criticism.
It is called posting a reference. I long ago ceased wasting time doing a point by point refutation for people who insist upon using fallacious reasoning. I stated an opinion and observation and got a snide attack upon it. I responded by disecting the attack. Nothing unusual in that. My intolerance of your apparent friend extends prior to this thread and thus my short fuse. If my stated opinion is incorrect then correct it with sound logic and support of your reasoning. Otherwise I will treat it as an unsupported assertion, a logical fallacy, and if couched in insulting or uncivil language such as an implied attack and/or accusation will treat it as an attack and respond appropriately to the originator.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
I'm familiar with n's posting style. He's not going to go out of his way to make you feel welcome.
I don't know buckeye from a hole in the ground. Your alleged dissecting of my remarks consists entirely of self-serving insulting characterizations, not that I care what you think.
Your comment #5 which you began with " I don't want to be critical here" and then proceeded to be critical. If you have a difference state it forthrightly in a civil manner - citing your complete thought. You might then find that even if someone disagrees they will not mistake what you are saying for sniping.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
More of what I am talking about. I declined to respond to a whole series of your sophomoric sniping and yet you continued it until I decided to take notice again. If you want to scream for attention stop whining when you get it.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
So? I'd rather the person had made more sense, hence my regret. My criticism is valid, and you haven't bothered to discuss it on the merits except to throw insults at me for making it. My criticism is not a character assault, as with you calling all the people quoted "yellow-bellied." Face it, you're a truly proud hypocrite. Learn to live with the consequences.
How do you supposedly know this? Many are building engineers, they may have learned what they know about thermite from Jones. They are supposed to weigh in on a BYU personel issue involving a WTC chemical analysis/thermate hypothesis? How? How do they even know that the question of whether Jones is right or not was truly at issue there? Maybe he was dismissed entirely for accusing the 'wrong' people of doing something those people actually did, in which case these people would be wasting their time.
You are free to disagree with my opinion. That is certainly your right, but when you make an assertion implying malice when it was simply pique that more people have not had the guts to state the obvious i.e., that the Official 911 Fairy Tale is so full of holes and inconsistencies that anyone who is intellectually honest, and looks at the data, cannot but conclude that the Official Fairy Tale is wildly inconsistent with the observed data. Too many people follow the herd and will acquiesce to evil rather than be seen to be out of step with the herd. My comment was intended as much praise for those who had the courage to stand up despite personal risk and state that "the emperor has no clothes" in the face of withering assaults and attacks upon their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor (ring any bells). And I still stand by my comment that the flood of new converts is a relatively recent phenomenon because I was arguing the case against the Bushbots and other sundry shills two years ago (and several years before) and it was very hard to find much in the way of professionals who were willing to be courageous enough to stand up and be counted - something the shills took great delight in pointing out over and over. It is a result of the trail blazed by those courageous few that these "Johnny-come-latelies" now, at this late date, have found the intestinal fortitude to stand up and state the obvious "the emperor has no clothes" and 911 WAS an INSIDE JOB. What the evidence supports is controlled demolition, and has since very early on, not "19ARABSWHOHATEUSCUZWE'REFREE" crashing airplanes into buildings. The Aircraft were the diversion for the the slight of hand i.e., the apparent cause that was not the cause of the building collapses.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Look, have I been notably unfair with you here, especially considering the context I'm having to operate within? You're better off ignoring me as opposed to trying the skunk-blast routine.
There is NO doubt that it WAS controlled demolition. The "official story" is a joke.
The "official story" is a joke. Here is the VIDEO ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Step by Step Demolition of The Kingdome in Seattle as detailed by Controlled Demoltion, INC on their website. See also their coffee table book on "how to" for building demolitions. (Research) Here is the VIDEO The evidence was in the public domain before it was made acceptable by Dr. Jones. He simply took it to a higher level of rigor. There were multiple excellent analyses on the Web already - one that stands out was the Stochiometric analysis done by the poster "Mad Max" which went through point by point and established with mathematical rigor that there was insufficient fuel on the aircraft to generate enough heat to weaken the structures. The same poster did several other analyses but that one in particular was ironclad and has never been refuted by any of the varied shills and bots I've debated. It was available online at least by 2003 if not before (I don't recall when I first ran into it but it was posted very widely). No, the evidence accumulated by Dr. Jones was noted and commented on before Dr. Jones published his monograph. Others could have just as easily done the same work, but did not. Dr. Jones lost his Professorship as a result, but stands vindicated as NO ONE has been able to refute his work. However, and again, he was not the first just the most prominent to speak up.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Gee, I wish I had said that!
"...and somewhere out there is the entire 141st NVA regiment..."__PLATOON
I do not believe that the accuracy of Jones' scientific analysis was even at issue there, nor was the question of whether there was or wasn't (as the cliche goes) a 'controlled demolition.' Someone encouraged Jones to make an accusation and it was videotaped, IIRC. I believe it was something such as that which got the ball rolling at BYU. That's when the two-faced corporate-mind political heat had an excuse to make itself felt, AFAICT. FWIW, he made a highly logical inference in assigning blame, however it was viewed in a politically-savvy (regrettable euphemism) manner as lacking proof beyond a reasonable doubt, at least that is my best guess of the ultimate issue. You're grasping.
The "official story" is a joke. Agreed. 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
This is why they have to attack the messenger.
Exactly. When his analysis is ignored and the attacks are delivered against Dr. Jones the man rather than to refute his work - then you know his analysis is damn near bullet proof.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Thanks. It's all my Mom's fault - she instilled a love of language in her first born (and gardening and cooking too).
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
You're grasping. Dr. Jones first drew attention with publication of his original monograph and was only later drawn out to state his opinion that it implied that it had to have been prepared in advance. He got handed his golden walking papers because he was tenured and they couldn't really fire him, and his monograph could not be refuted, so he was forced out the door with a buttload of money to keep him from suing the University. By all appearances it was outside political pressure. BYU receives a lot of grants from da Feds and threatening those grants applied pressure to the University Administration which lacked the guts to tell the Feds to take their dirty money and stick it where the sun don't shine (that is inference clearly labeled as such). So, he was given a lot of money to go away. I suspect the calculation was that his being relieved of his Professorship would shut him up and destroy his credibility. Neither occurred as it was obvious to the astute as to what was really going on and a lot of people made it a point to say as much. Play Again?
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
His problems started after a talk-show guy encouraged him to blame the government while he was on a radio show, IIRC. I think it was also videotaped, FWIW. Is there a credible article somewhere that sourcedly agrees with what you say about why Jones was let go (i.e that BYU disagreed with his scientific analysis for lack of support from people such as in the building trade)?
Just logic my good young man. Jones was a tenured Professor with a sound scientific reputation. No University is going to mess with somebody like that, even if they don't like what he is saying, because of Academic Freedom and that Tenure means he cannot be fired except for cause - and the causes are very few - buggering the Bursar in the Commons might qualify. As well a goodly number of his colleagues stood up for him when the Administration tried to shut him up. When he came out of the office, with his Lawyer, the day that he left BYU, while his comments were a bit cryptic (no doubt one of the conditions of the settlement was his remaining silent on the "arrangement") he was obviously pleased and said so - thus one can reasonably infer he left with a "Golden Handshake". If you want to do the research feel free, but I am not going to be your Research Librarian.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
"In the paper, Jones does not make specific accusations about who brought about the towers' collapse and avoids the casual finger-pointing that characterizes much of the movement. But when pressed, he cautiously blames the supposed demolition on Bush administration officials eager to sow war in the Middle East. Besides worries about his accusations, Carri Jenkins, a spokesman for the university, said BYU was also concerned that Jones's work on September 11 had not been published in credible peer-reviewed journals. Jones edits the Journal of 9/11 Studies, an online collection of articles that has included his work." www.us news.com/usnews/new...s/060911/11conspiracy.htm The peer review issue's a politically-motivated attack posing as scientific reason. In any event, there's nothing there for these people to write their opinions to BYU about, is there? He blamed Bush and that's where the SHTF, these people were irrelevant. It was pure politics. He failed to disprove the notion that Bush is too incredibly stupid to have had anything to do with it. So what's your reason for saying they're all "yellow-bellied" now?
Your quote is fine, if one wants to grant U.S. Snooze World Distorts credibility it doesn't deserve, but your reasoning is non-sequitur.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Support your allegation that the testimony of these people could reasonably have been expected to have had some influence in the BYU hearing, else admit your attack on all of these peoples' characters was entirely subjective, lacking a definite rational basis.
Your Strawman is getting a bit threadbare. "The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Support your assertions, or drop them and the complaints predicated upon them made against the characters of all the people quoted.
#79. To: HOUNDDAWG (#78)
#80. To: Original_Intent (#79)
Any moment now he's/she's going to start stamping their feet and threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue.
#81. To: Original_Intent (#42)
Those who are eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return are immediately granted citizenship. Controversy has arisen as to whether all those claiming citizenship rights under the Law of Return should be registered as "Jewish" citizens for census purposes. Jewish status is traditionally granted according to the halakhic definition of being Jewish-- if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish as well or if you convert to Judaism (though conversions to Reform and Conservative Judaism streams are generally not recognized by many people in Israel). However, any Jew regardless of affiliation may return and claim citizenship in Israel.
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#82. To: Ferret Mike (#81)
Interesting that you claim converts can't use 'the law of return,' as it states otherwise.
#83. To: Original_Intent (#82)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#84. To: HOUNDDAWG (#80)
It amazes me how people who believe themselves to be intelligent and witty can make the same stupid mistake again and again.
#85. To: Ferret Mike (#83)
#86. To: nobody, Original_Intent (#50)
#87. To: buckeye (#86)
O_I logical fallacy smoke screen. I think this is a cut and paste.
#88. To: nobody (#87)
#89. To: Original_Intent (#7)
We never mistake snide comments for mere criticism.
#90. To: buckeye, HOUNDDAWG, TwentyTwelve, nobody (#86)
You've just gotten the O_I logical fallacy smoke screen. I think this is a cut and paste.
#91. To: Original_Intent (#90)
#92. To: Original_Intent (#90)
My intolerance of your apparent friend extends prior to this thread
#93. To: nobody (#89)
#94. To: nobody (#92)
#95. To: Original_Intent (#93)
(Edited)
you began with " I don't want to be critical here" and then proceeded to be critical
#96. To: Original_Intent (#11)
They were certainly nowhere to be found when Dr. Stephen Jones was forced out of his Professorship and pushed out the door at BYU and that was less than 2 years ago.
#97. To: nobody (#95)
#98. To: Original_Intent (#97)
(Edited)
You are free to disagree with my opinion.
#99. To: Original_Intent, nobody, all (#97)
...What the evidence supports is controlled demolition, and has since very early on...
#100. To: Original_Intent, nobody (#99)
There is NO doubt that it WAS controlled demolition.
Step by Step Demolition of The Kingdome in Seattle as detailed by Controlled Demoltion, INC on their website. See also their coffee table book on "how to" for building demolitions. (Research) (date unknown)
#101. To: Original_Intent (#97)
#102. To: nobody (#96)
How do you supposedly know this? Many are building engineers, they may have learned what they know about thermite from Jones. They are supposed to weigh in on a BYU personel issue involving a WTC chemical analysis/thermate hypothesis? How?
#103. To: Original_Intent (#90)
If my stated opinion is incorrect then correct it with sound logic and support of your reasoning. Otherwise I will treat it as an unsupported assertion, a logical fallacy, and if couched in insulting or uncivil language such as an implied attack and/or accusation will treat it as an attack and respond appropriately to the originator.
#104. To: Original_Intent (#102)
(Edited)
#105. To: TwentyTwelve (#100)
There is NO doubt that it WAS controlled demolition.
#106. To: Original_Intent (#102)
..as NO ONE has been able to refute his (Dr. Jones) work.
#107. To: Original_Intent (#105)
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
#108. To: TwentyTwelve (#106)
This is why they have to attack the messenger.
#109. To: HOUNDDAWG (#103)
#110. To: nobody (#104)
I do not believe the accuracy of Jones' scientific analysis was at issue there, nor was the question of whether there was (as the cliche goes) a controlled demolition. Someone encouraged Jones to make an accusation and it was videotaped, IIRC. I believe it was something such as that which got the ball rolling at BYU. That's when the two-faced corporate-mind political heat had an excuse to make itself felt, AFAICT. FWIW, he made a highly logical inference in assigning blame, however it was viewed in a politically-savvy (regrettable euphemism) manner as lacking proof beyond a reasonable doubt, at least that is my best guess of the ultimate issue.
#111. To: Original_Intent (#110)
(Edited)
#112. To: nobody (#111)
Is there a credible article somewhere that sourcedly agrees with what you say on why Jones was let go?
#113. To: Original_Intent (#110)
(Edited)
#114. To: nobody (#113)
#115. To: Original_Intent (#114)
(Edited)
credibility
#116. To: nobody (#115)
"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched. ...
...As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness. ...
#117. To: Original_Intent (#116)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest