Howard Stern - Jesse Ventura on 9/11

MasterWrong- Dang ! Bring out the big words. None of the alleged attacks on reason apply when addressing PROBABILITIES! Just a suggestion :) You state my reasoning was incorrect. I state you view the 'effects' of 9/11 DHS etc as
" Coincidental Correlation " I supported your incorrect assumption. I WAS HELPING YOUR argument. LOL, honestly
this is hilarious. You're so inherently full of venom and BS you willingly resort to Apagogical argu. Sorry Sonny. No contest.
Take care of that ego :)

seriously, stop pretending you have a clue what logic is or how it works. probabilities do not excuse you from using logic. in fact invoking probabilities as evidence is fallacious in itself. Secondly why don't you provide your data for determining your "probabilities" or are you another twoofer who throws around words he doesn't understand?

no you weren't you were making a long debunked twoofer claim about UL saying fire couldn't have lead to collapse. and now you're back peddling. run along.

awesome...what superior alternative explanation exists based on evidence and logic?

citing events that followed to demonstrate a cause without direct evidence of such an effect is a post hoc fallacy.

@grandmastershek So you are suggesting DHS is a coincidental correlation and has no causal effect from 9/11 ? REALLY ! LOL.
Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer.
Try reading it again. Your not that smart ! If you want HARD EVIDENCE to support what I quote in the last post
Get your lazy ass up and look at it. Their controlled test in four samples does not support their conclusion. I was attempting to be polite but apparently you and 6Ott7 are obnoxious by choice,not worth my time. :)

i would recommend checking any frashamn level research methods text and look up the term correlation. there you will probably find a statement like "correlation does not equal causation". of course you could look up post hoc and find out that your argument is fallacious purely on its premises.

but then again you can just keep parading around ad hom and "READ THIS BOOK!" as a viable argument. lord knows the twoof just eat that stuff up.

Plus you may not want to use an argument from incredulity in the future. just a suggestion.

@6Ott7 I have a life. But thanks for your consideration.

@SethVandenberg

Yer a Jackoff

NIST gov site ULTestResults Canada Test 1>4 sample 1&4* Imminent collapse. Yet all four samples 1 thru 4 with an asterisk *** Failure to support load did not occur. If the conclusion is brought down by fire/heat resulting in failure/collapse this test did not support their conclusion. This type of issue will ultimately foster alternative theories.

LOL! way to leave out that all the examples had fire proofing.