Question about Shanksville crash

[eots]

two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators disagree with Liwabiltys belief that the air crash investigations of 9/11 are accurate... I guess that makes them pussie drippings and therefore debwunked

now here is a fallacious appeal to authority

No its a peer review of multiple and highly credible experts in the Field of air cash investigation and to a rational person therefore worthy of serious consideration

 

[CurveLight]

if the FBI is an authority then it is NOT a fallacious appeal, dipshit

School time for the divebitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.

What a lying sack of rancid rotten menstrual drippings. The FBI is not required to be THE expert (as though there is only one possible expert) on plane crash investigations to be AN authority (especially when working together with the NTSB).

Since when did it become required that the "expert" be the leading expert in order for an expert opinion or assessment to avoid the fallacy of an appeal to authority?

You snake-y slimy dishonest fucking dripping pussies are a thoroughly disreputable lot.

The FBI has developed a pronounced expertise in INVESTIGATIONS generally, you imbecile. And how much expertise IS required, anyway, to conclude that plane crash debris -- constituting less than 100% of the plane itself -- amounts to about 95%? And THAT is the real question, given a VALID definition of the fallacy of "appeal to authority."

If I point to YOU, for example, as an "expert" in brain surgery and cite your opinion that all brain surgery poses an unnecessary and unacceptable risk of the patient contracting syphilis, THEN the complete lack of expertise you have matters. But, when a person cites an ACTUAL expert, then the question boils down to how much expertise is required? YOU have no expertise. The FBI in conjunction with the NTSB has a massive amount of perfectly valid expertise.

I suspect that your actual complaint is not even associated with the alleged fallacy of "appeal to authority." That "complaint" is ridiculous on its face. Instead, I suspect that what you are actually attempting to grunt out is the question of whether (or not) the FBI was being truthful. That issue is entirely distinct from one of credentials.

The authority being cited needs to be an expert in the field of the topic being discussed. The LAPD is an authority but you can't cite them regarding a NASA launch. The FBI is not an expert group of aircraft crash investigations......that is what the NTSB does. But you simply ignored everything to go on another emo Snitch Bitch rant. Congrats.

 

[DiveCon]

two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators disagree with Liwabiltys belief that the air crash investigations of 9/11 are accurate... I guess that makes them pussie drippings and therefore debwunked

now here is a fallacious appeal to authority

No its a peer review of multiple and highly credible experts in the Field of air cash investigation and to a rational person therefore worthy of serious consideration

they had authority at one time, they were not any part of the investigative team on this so they lack the authority now

 

[CurveLight]

if the FBI is an authority then it is NOT a fallacious appeal, dipshit

School time for the divebitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.

moron, you are BEING schooled here, but are too fucking stupid to realize it
LOL

School time for the divebitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.

 

[CurveLight]

now here is a fallacious appeal to authority

No its a peer review of multiple and highly credible experts in the Field of air cash investigation and to a rational person therefore worthy of serious consideration

they had authority at one time, they were not any part of the investigative team on this so they lack the authority now

They are authorities because they are experts in aircraft crash investigations. You dumasses think "authority" only means sanctioned by the government. Holy fuk you truly truly are simply stoopid.

 

[DiveCon]

No its a peer review of multiple and highly credible experts in the Field of air cash investigation and to a rational person therefore worthy of serious consideration

they had authority at one time, they were not any part of the investigative team on this so they lack the authority now

They are authorities because they are experts in aircraft crash investigations. You dumasses think "authority" only means sanctioned by the government. Holy fuk you truly truly are simply stoopid.

no, its YOU that is stupid, dumbfuck

 

[DiveCon]

School time for the divebitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.

moron, you are BEING schooled here, but are too fucking stupid to realize it
LOL

School time for the divebitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.

you can repeat that multiple times, it still doesnt make you right
just like repeatedly posting the AT&T links about my phone, that proved me right even though you thought it didnt'

 

[eots]

now here is a fallacious appeal to authority

no its a peer review of multiple and highly credible experts in the field of air cash investigation and to a rational person therefore worthy of serious consideration

they had authority at one time, they were not any part of the investigative team on this so they lack the authority now

lol... thats not the definition of being an authority on a forensic science

 

[Fizz]

School time for the divebitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.

moron, you are BEING schooled here, but are too fucking stupid to realize it
LOL

School time for the divebitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

the FBI was the lead investigative agency. the NTSB assisted the FBI. can you please tell me who would be more qualified to investigate an airplane hijacking that resulted in a crash??

 

[Liability]

two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators disagree with Liwabiltys belief that the air crash investigations of 9/11 are accurate... I guess that makes them pussie drippings and therefore debwunked

First of all, asshole, I didn't claim that the findings of the air crash investigatons of 9/11 ARE accurate. However, I also have seen ZERO credible evidence that those findings are inaccurate, you fucking imbecile liar.

And NOBODY can "debwunk" anybody since there is no such thing as "debwunk," you fucking retarded scumbag ass-licker.

Moreover, shitforbrains, the alleged experts you point to were not part of the investigation's team, now WERE THEY? So their general expertise is of no significance, here, since they didn't perform the investigations which they pretend to criticize. In that respect, douche bag, you ARE committing the fallacy of "appeal to authority."

Irony is fun, isn't it?

 

[eots]

two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators disagree with liwabiltys belief that the air crash investigations of 9/11 are accurate... I guess that makes them pussie drippings and therefore debwunked

first of all, asshole, i didn't claim that the findings of the air crash investigatons of 9/11 are accurate. However, i also have seen zero credible evidence that those findings are inaccurate, you fucking imbecile liar.

And nobody can "debwunk" anybody since there is no such thing as "debwunk," you fucking retarded scumbag ass-licker.

Moreover, shitforbrains, the alleged experts you point to were not part of the investigation's team, now were they? So their general expertise is of no significance, here, since they didn't perform the investigations which they pretend to criticize. In that respect, douche bag, you are committing the fallacy of "appeal to authority."

irony is fun, isn't it?

its ridiculous to say their expertise is of no significance they are in a position to examine the reports ,evidence presented and flt data and they have found reason to question it

 

[Liability]

two former presidents of the air accident investigation board and several military crash investigators disagree with liwabiltys belief that the air crash investigations of 9/11 are accurate... I guess that makes them pussie drippings and therefore debwunked

first of all, asshole, i didn't claim that the findings of the air crash investigatons of 9/11 are accurate. However, i also have seen zero credible evidence that those findings are inaccurate, you fucking imbecile liar.

And nobody can "debwunk" anybody since there is no such thing as "debwunk," you fucking retarded scumbag ass-licker.

Moreover, shitforbrains, the alleged experts you point to were not part of the investigation's team, now were they? So their general expertise is of no significance, here, since they didn't perform the investigations which they pretend to criticize. In that respect, douche bag, you are committing the fallacy of "appeal to authority."

irony is fun, isn't it?

its ridiculous to say their expertise is of no significance they are in a position to examine the reports ,evidence presented and flt data and they have found reason to question it

No, id-eots, once again you are simply and flatly wrong. What IS ridiculous is offering the opinions of some alleged experts (possibly even people who could qualify as genuine experts) as "authority" for some proposition when those alleged experts have NO first hand knowledge of the very thing they pretend to be offering their "expert" opinions on.

Anybody can review a report of people who conducted an actual investigation and come up with reasons to "question" it. But these guys YOU point to so triumphantly, you nitwit, are not the kind of experts who can provide anything useful because

THEY WEREN'T THERE.

You remain an imbecile, a moron, a mutt, a mutant, a jackass, a pussy, a liar, a scumbag and, of course, an id-eot.

 

[CurveLight]

moron, you are BEING schooled here, but are too fucking stupid to realize it
LOL

School time for the divebitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

the FBI was the lead investigative agency. the NTSB assisted the FBI. can you please tell me who would be more qualified to investigate an airplane hijacking that resulted in a crash??

You completely ignored the link I provided because you know how to obey like the leetle bitch you are. Good job.

What's pure comedy is you ignored that link but expect the link you provided to be responded to.....even though the link I posted already addressed the point you are trying to make. You bitches always ignore facts and links that prove your position wrong. I'm just glad I realized long ago you have absolutely no interest in honest discussion.

 

[DiveCon]

School time for the divebitch:

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm

Furthermore, the FBI is not the expert authority on plane crash investigations.

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

the FBI was the lead investigative agency. the NTSB assisted the FBI. can you please tell me who would be more qualified to investigate an airplane hijacking that resulted in a crash??

You completely ignored the link I provided because you know how to obey like the leetle bitch you are. Good job.

What's pure comedy is you ignored that link buy expect the link you provided to be responded to.....even though the link I posted already addressed the point you are trying to make. You bitches always ignore facts and links that prove your position wrong. I'm just glad I realized long ago you have absolutely no interest in honest discussion.

Fallacies of Relevance: Legitimate Appeal to Authority

dipshit

 

[CurveLight]

no its a peer review of multiple and highly credible experts in the field of air cash investigation and to a rational person therefore worthy of serious consideration

they had authority at one time, they were not any part of the investigative team on this so they lack the authority now

lol... thats not the definition of being an authority on a forensic science

But in Candyfizzdiveability Land they don't have to adhere to anything except for what the first dumfuk posts. If the first one said an "authority" is Captain Hook the rest would follow suit and peter pan themselves right into another false sense of security by numbers.

 

[DiveCon]

they had authority at one time, they were not any part of the investigative team on this so they lack the authority now

lol... thats not the definition of being an authority on a forensic science

But in Candyfizzdiveability Land they don't have to adhere to anything except for what the first dumfuk posts. If the first one said an "authority" is Captain Hook the rest would follow suit and peter pan themselves right into another false sense of security by numbers.

ROFLMAO

you just defined the troofer mentality to a T

 

[RadiomanATL]

​

 

[CurveLight]

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

the FBI was the lead investigative agency. the NTSB assisted the FBI. can you please tell me who would be more qualified to investigate an airplane hijacking that resulted in a crash??

You completely ignored the link I provided because you know how to obey like the leetle bitch you are. Good job.

What's pure comedy is you ignored that link buy expect the link you provided to be responded to.....even though the link I posted already addressed the point you are trying to make. You bitches always ignore facts and links that prove your position wrong. I'm just glad I realized long ago you have absolutely no interest in honest discussion.

Fallacies of Relevance: Legitimate Appeal to Authority

dipshit

You ignored other links provided but you probably feel entitled to have your link addressed. Know what's sooper dooper funny? You just defeated your own argument you dumfuk! The fbi fails in criteria for 1 and 2. As for number 3, not all experts agree.

So even when you adhere to your usual dishonesty and fail to address points posted by others you still get pwned.

 

[CurveLight]

lol... thats not the definition of being an authority on a forensic science

But in Candyfizzdiveability Land they don't have to adhere to anything except for what the first dumfuk posts. If the first one said an "authority" is Captain Hook the rest would follow suit and peter pan themselves right into another false sense of security by numbers.

ROFLMAO

you just defined the troofer mentality to a T

Keep lying bitch......it's funny. I've openly criticized eots, terral, christophera, etc and you all know this for a fact. I don't walk lock step like you punks and once again you ignored eots' point and he was fully correct. One's expertise is not defined by who did a particular investigation you cocksucking whiner.

 

[CurveLight]

​

Go cry to Staff some more. Bitch.