Explosive News

reply to post by without_prejudice


In conclusion, I will restate my point to you I made earlier: asking questions does not prove anything. Constructing logical cages by asking questions whose answers restrict the answerer into supporting your (unspoken) thesis, idea, or claim may make you look clever, but it does not prove your idea if the cage is constructed with fallacious questions.

If you want to convince someone that something is true, there is a long-standing and accepted format for doing so: you state a premise, and another, and another, until the framework for your claim is established. Then, you state your claim in a declarative statement, and using specific language.

If your premises both prove to be correct and support your claim, then you have proven your point. Any deviation from this at best make your argument inductive, rather than deductive, and at worst, fallacious and irrelevant.

Which most, if not all, of your questions turned out to be. I hope this lays to rest the burning in your soul over the answers to these serious questions that truthers can't, won't, or don't answer. As you can see, there is a very good reason that they haven't.

Originally posted by 11Indigo11
reply to post by seethelight

 

Seethelight, I never said that was total proof my friend.
In fact, that is a misleading title in my opinion. The person who created it
shouldn't have emphasized the title in such a way. So, I agree it's not
TOTAL 100% truth. Though, I did expect you to bring that up.

Anyway, with that said, I see your point.
BUT, the simple point I'm 'attempting' to get across, and I speak for some out there, is that it just doesn't seem to fit logic or rational, period.
BOTH towers were hit at nearly the top.
WTC7 was behind ANOTHER building.
YET, they all seem to fall down in the same exact manner (okay, maybe not 100% exactly Seethelight, but you know what I mean).
You have bush on tape lying about the incident on camera: www.youtube.com...
(Please don't say "it could have been a minor mistake")

So, my overall question is: If the government had absolutely no involvement, and 9/11 Truthers are just typical, crazy conspirators, then why don't they just get the investigation over with? If they know Alex Jones is out there promoting this "Anti-American Lie", with such a huge following, then why not just shut us all up? Prove us wrong and get it all over with?

Why not?

It's good that you don't think it's proof.

That's reasonable.

The answer of why there's no further investigarion is pretty complex:

Another investigation = the first one failed: how many politicians have said it's accurate, and really, if you were a politician and the CIA/FBI/NIST, etc. etc. all said, "this is accurate," what would there be to gain?

Now, if you look at what we do know is probably not completely right in the investigation it has NOTHING to do with the collapse of extremely damaged buildings and EVERYTHING to do with political bull#.

The main source for AQ is SA. They are also a huge part of our economy and a very important economic ally. And a brutal dictatorship... but that's beside the point.

the point is that another investigation throws EVERYONE under a political bus, in front of a 24 hour news cycle looking to score point... every other year is an election year,,, any new investigation would hugely benefit some candidates, etc.

No politician will touch this # for those reasons, not because they're all part of a secret cabal.

If you need reasons for bad behaviour, politics is a good place to start looking.

Now, as for Bush.

Some people think he's a secret alchoholic who could barely tie his own shoes, other think he's Cheney's puppet.

Other's not he can barely speak in complete sentences.

I would say it's one of W's endless stupid mistakes... a mistake he's probably too arrogant to admit to.

I mean, remember when he said he couldn't think of a single mistake he's made?

That's one of the most common job interview questions, he's the CEO President and he couldn't answer it.

If I BELIEVED 9/11 was an inside job and if Bush was not known for his stupid mistakes then I might find if suspicious.

But really, it's not proof... is it?

Originally posted by without_prejudice

OK, I believe a lot of these points have been addressed, but I want to put them into a post with full quotations of your list so that you can't pull any of your typical shenanigans and claim that they weren't all answered.

On the very first one, don't you mean non-concrete-reinforced steel building? If not, there are the Petronas Towers. Regardless, I do feel this question is irrelevant because the core of the WTC Twin Towers was steel reinforced by concrete. So what we have is a concrete-reinforced steel core, with a non-concrete-reinforced steel curtain outer perimeter wall. At the time of its construction, it was unique and allowed the buildings to be much taller than with conventional methods of the day. Notably, the Towers' central cores were contructed so that they could NOT carry fire up and down the building. The elevators for one section would be offset in relation to the shafts for the sections above and below, making it impossible for a chimney effect to occur, or for fire to use the shafts to spread--another innovative design for the Twin Towers.

On the second question, you are also being irrelevant by your use of vague phrases like "giant plane full of fuel." How about you answer me one? Give me an example of a "giant plane?" Because the Boeing 757 and 767 are hardly the largest things in the sky. The Boeing 777 and 747 are larger, as is a C-130, an MD-11, a Lockheed L-1011, or an Airbus A380. Nor were the tanks "full" on the jets that hit the Twin Towers.

Honestly, why do you think that you are so clever? Seems blatant that you are attempting to build a logical cage by laying the foundation of limits around your "super question" that will show that since there are no other buildings with the same construction as the WTC that have been hit with "giant planes full of fuel" there can be no apples-and-apples comparisons made. Except of course, to each other. And they both collapsed--from fire and collision damage--in a neat 110% correlation, thereby proving that planted explosives are unnecessary for the Towers to have fallen, ergo no controlled demolition. The problem is, your foundation does not fit the circumstances of the WTC, therefore, this is a red herring fallacy. If have the courage to make declarative statements that are easily understood, please do so instead of using this tired, trite, "I'll ask questions that make YOU tell my idea in a way that you can't refute" tactic that is obviously beyond your language skills to pull off.

Your third question also seeks to limit the debate in ways that make you "win," but only if one is naive enough to grant that your arbitrary limits on the question a) are valid in that they restrict from answer all unreasonable, incorrect, and incoherent responses, and, b) do not preclude similar or dissimilar answers or situations that also support the "truther" or "faither" claim that explosions were heard, seen, or experienced that support the concept that the Twin Towers' collapse could or must have been undertaken using explosive devices.

I'm not going to grant you either of those concessions. I have provided you with plenty of video evidence that "many explosions"were heard, seen, or experienced by hundreds of victims, survivors, first responders, and onlookers throughout the morning up to and until the towers collapsed, and that the number and severity and placement of and timing of those explosions lends credibility to the concept of a controlled, and novel, demolition. (If you want to a list that proves actual hundreds, since there are only tens of witnesses on the links I provided earlier, you will have to make that request specifically, and I will post the list in a new thread here.)

Your next question is a burden of proof fallacy, so that forces me to ask you to prove that a) the collapses started 3/4 way up the buildings of all three (or even just both the Towers) and b) that no other demolitions have started 3/4 the way up in history. Once you have done that, it becomes a red herring fallacy. Where is the relevance? The starting point of the demolition does not prove or disprove whether a demolition has occurred, does it?

Again, the next question is another burden of proof fallacy. You are making a claim that the Twin Towers and building 7 collapsed in a prescribed manner, and you are asking a question based on that claim. Prove it, so I can answer your question.

Your next question, on Professor Jones, I also answered above--it is plausible that no one has told him about it, maybe because those who could don't believe it, right or wrong. He may not have read the critique you have and may be unaware of it's bogusness.

Your next question is an ad populum fallacy. The truth or falsity of a claim is not determined by how many people approve of it. Your question again, is irrelevant, and again, suggests that this "prove your point with questions" tactic or strategy is beyond your command of the language.

Actually the last group of "questions" that each begins with "Explain" are demands, not questions, anyway. Nearly out of space, continued...

Ok, I will try and respond to all of this.

You can't simply say, "sure there's never been another building like the WTC, but that's not relevant".

If you want to draw comparisons, they have to be reasonable.

You yourself say that the construction was novel. So, as there's nothing to precisely compare it to, and there's nothing particularly honest about claiming proof when you known a comparison isn't apt, I can't really accept your argument.

Second, I called it a giant plane, because relative to most vehicles, it's huge. Nothing weird about that. Sure, you can name bigger planes, that that doesn't mean those planes weren't huge.

Think of Yao Ming. Not the tallest guy to ever live, but I called him astonishingly tall, would you say, no he's not, there have been taller people?

Cause that would be a lame argument.

Why do I think I'm so clever?

Why do you?

Why can't I come onto one of these threads and ask questions without people calling me a government stooge?

Why do people send me nasty U2Us?

Here's a more direct answer.

I just see so many holes in all of this.

I have seen so many people revert to "faith" to keep their BELIEF alive when they can't answer questions.

You say know direct comparisons can't be made and that alone is my basis for not believing in he demo nonsense. That's blatantly false.

Go look at my posts, I have listed many problems with the theory that have nothing to do with concrete (and you even reference them...bit confused me thinks).

As for you completely ignoring my third question and referring back to ridiculously inconclusive sounds (lot's of things sound like explosions, as I have shown) and non-signature "explosions" heard (as related to all known demos), that's what I expect from you faithers:

You run into reasonable questions, you either weasel out of answering them by calling them irrelevant (how handy) or simply leave the thread... or my favorite, you make up imaginary technology and start up the faither drum circle, "it could be true, it could be true, it could be true".

The thing is, you need facts if you want to choose to claim you know the truth.

I'll accept questions. I'll even try to help you answer them, but if yo want me to join your religion, no thanks.

If there was PROOF, you'd have answers.

Until you do have these answers I won't begin to consider you have proof.

Oh and show me where the questions you dismissively brushed aside have been answered.

One more thing, related to all of this.

One of my very best friend is a faither.

We go round and round, but at least he accepts he doesn't have all the answers and no definitive proof. In other words, he knows he's going on faith and for essentially socio-political reasons.

At least he isn't delusional.

And he also thinks Stephen Jones is an embarrassment to the so-called movement.

Originally posted by seethelight
One of my very best friend is a faither.

Just like yourself?

In other words, he knows he's going on faith and for essentially socio-political reasons.

At least he isn't delusional.

Whereas you ARE delusional because you believe there is some kind of actual evidence you base YOUR opinions on? Evidence in the traditional meaning of the word, not the "I saw two planes fly into the building, case closed" kind of elementary school "evidence."

And he also thinks Stephen Jones is an embarrassment to the so-called movement.

You can't even spell his name right. Who cares what your opinion of his scientific work is.

reply to post by seethelight
Just maybe your mate understands something you are having trouble with, that there is no such thing as total belief when it comes to the Official 9/11 story. Both the 9/11 commision and NIST reports are tainted by inaccuracies, (the 9/11 commision report still stands, although individual members have said that they had not all the facts, or were lied to) ? The NIST has changed it's story more than once, and based it's report on a cartoon, [imputed] by them. This is not about a blind religious faith, it's about truth and the real events. Obviously those real events involved real people, many who were heroes on the day, and who have stories to tell that don't always gel with the official events.

reply to post by seethelight


When I say the construction was novel, that doesn't mean that comparisons to other buildings on fire can't be made, obviously. The building is still basically a steel-framed high-rise--but where most buildings have concrete-reinforced steel on the outside, the towers used it in the central core, then put up a steel and glass curtain around that and suspended the floors between the two. If it pleases you, let's just think about the core, which you must admit was not standing after the abrupt and rapid collapse of the floors and outer curtain. Had that core been left standing, then I would no doubt be on your side of this argument, that controlled demolition is less likely than failure due to the impact of jets.

But there's the rub. It was not standing, and you Deniers claim that it collapsed due to the jets crashing into the skyscrapers. Well, without the outer perimeter, that core is just another concrete-reinforced steel framed building, and one that is very sturdy, with offset elevators and stairways to prevent fires from running up and down the length of it. And to date, NO other concrete-reinforced steel framed building has collapsed due to fire. Oh wait, except for Building 7, which did not burn or collapse due to damage from debris of the towers, nor from fire fueled by tanks of diesel fuel in the basements, but apparently from fires that could not have burned for more than 20-30 minutes in any one place as the building adhered to NYC fire and building codes. All this is taken directly from the NIST's third report on how building 7 fell. Notably, that report was developed entirely from computer models and not from any direct experimentation or testing from materials taken from the building, and those computer models differ from the actuality of the construction of building 7 in subtle but significant ways.

Now I never said that there's never been another building like the Twin Towers but that's not relevant, did I? I said that your construction of an argument based on answers to questions that attempt to create unreasonable limits was irrelevant. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough, but my point is that because the structure of the towers was unique, the methods used demolish it--especially since that demo was to take place with people still in the building, including police and firefighters--could also be unique. And since that demo would be intended to be mistaken for a collapse due to impact damage, it could also certainly start at a different floor than a more familiar, abandoned building demolition.

Also, I don't claim proof of anything. All I have ever done here is say that there are reasonable questions that contradict the Official Story, and state those questions. Oh yes, and critique some rude and illogical posts on merit, yours being currently prevalent.

I am not saying that I know how a controlled demolition was done; I am saying that there is significant and damning evidence that the buildings could not have fallen from the impact of the planes and the resultant fires alone. This suggests a controlled demolition, and a novel one at that. Am I offering proof that it happened a particular way? No. I am saying that the Official story is an unlikely conspiracy theory that doesn't hold water. The burden of proof is equally levied between us if you are going to state that the OS is true, but the nature of that proof is different. I am saying that it didn't happen from planes, and I can offer many many reasonable points that support the idea that impact and fires of those jets did not have the ability to collapse the buildings in the way that they fell--leaving no core standing and in the short time it took, in particular. I'm saying it happened somehow, but not by the causes we've been told and therefore another investigation is warranted, to find out HOW it was done and WHO was responsible.

If, however, you say that the OS must be true, then you are insisting that a particular scenario that you know happened occurred. So your burden of proof is to show how that, and only that, scenario could have occurred. To support my logical claim, I only have to state premises that cast a reasonable doubt on the particulars of your particular scenario. Which I have done in spades, whether you can admit that or not. On the other hand, you have failed to even state your premises clearly in many cases, and your arguments offered as proof follow the pattern of logical fallacies. Unfortunately, do to the nature of your chosen position, you don't have the luxury of being able to prove your point by asking questions of me or other truthers, at least not with the questions you've been asking. You can only logically prove your point with declarative statements that illustrate how the only possible way those buildings could fall is in the way the Official Story dictates. Then those statements can be rebutted by simply asking questions or stating premises that cast your premises into the shadow of reasonable doubt.

I didn't make up these rules, they have been cast by centuries of reasonable argument and the necessities of debate to follow the rules of logic. You are stating that a particular conspiracy theory is the only possible scenario, and you must defend that claim on its merits. I state that I don't buy it, my burden of proof is to cast reasonable doubt on its likelihood.

Your ranting on about my objections to your phrase "giant planes full of fuel" is revealing of the fact that you can't really refute my answers to your "serious questions." I objected to that phrase because it is imprecise, doesn't convey an accurate sense of the situation, and could be used as some sort of gambit to draw some statement that you could grab as erroneous and, in the fallacious way you do, then claim the entire answer given to you is wrong.

Now as to anyone calling you a government stooge: I haven't read the entire thread, because I keep getting interrupted by the need to respond to your posts. But I would bet no one in this thread has actually done that. If I'm wrong, then show me.

I can state for certain that I have never called you that, so why bring it up in a reply to me? I do think you a stooge, certainly after the last few exchanges, but one entirely of your own making.

LOL

It's so funny that there people in here, that actually believe that 9/11 was caused by terrorists. It's hilarious actually. This just demonstrates how much the media controls people. If Neil armstrong landed on the moon and said it was made out of cheese, people to this day would still believe it. But for those of us with a brain, that isn't related to sheep, can clearly see a number of things pointing the fingers directly at the government being involved in the 9/11 attacks.

First of all, the most obvious thing, and I don't even need to say more than that here..... is this.

Building 7. No plane hit it. But it falls downward, just like a controlled demolition. The building wasn't even on fire.

Explain that one sheep.... i mean debunkers.

reply to post by xxshadowfaxx
Er, Um
I suppose someone has to say it...the building was on fire, that, in fact is one official reason for it falling, and "hotly" disputed.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
considering the gravity of all the evidence for CD

Just what evidence would that be exactly? Truthers keep claiming that there is evidence for CD, but so far have not showed any evidence for Cd at all.

yet came down in "pure free-fall acceleration.

overall, it did not -- that is just a lie truthers push.

"mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking."

except again there is zero evidence 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking being pulverised...


[edit on 24/2/10 by dereks]

Really?
Then tell it to Congress since they are the ones suggesting that:
Buildings fall down if something explodes somewhere near it.
It's in their report. And to add: I'll wager that if it was Toyota instead of your government then you'd not only would have a problem with their statements, you'd go borrow your friend's Toyota and take advantage.

Now, what have you actually "read" that makes you think what the government says is true? Please GIVE YOUR PROOF! And fake patriotism is not proof.
:: patting foot, waiting::

BTW, something interesting on page 40 of that report:
www.9-11commission.gov...
If no explosions were possible because there were no bombs, just planes then where did they get this from? Freudian slip anyone?

MILITARY NOTIFICATION AND RESPONSE:
The first indication that the NORAD air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03. Thenotice came at about the time the plane was hitting the South Tower.
By 9:08, the mission crew commander at NEADS learned of the second explosion at the World Trade Center and decided against holding the fighters in military airspace away from Manhattan:

reply to post by seethelight


You guys last post was too much to quote, but here's a fab rebuttal for those who don't buy the demolition story:
I wish to thank the Italian Media for this one. Too bad US media has no balls!

www.youtube.com...
(added this in case my embed doesn't work and someone can assist.)
Marker 0:45 thru 1:46 has a side by side of WTC 7 which was not hit by a plane and a demolition done by the person in the video in Italy.


[edit on 24-3-2010 by DaWhiz]

reply to post by DaWhiz
Hi Whiz,
I have seen the film before, but it is right to be reminded of it in its' context.

Originally posted by seethelight
And for those of you with a REAL open mind, here's the thermite argument COMPLETELY debunked:

www.debunking911.com...

Whats really nice for us independent free thinking people is that even tho there is no way you could possibly debunk the thermite argument without a proper investigation, people actually beLIEve links like that.

Whys is that good news? Because it creates controversy. I don't care if there were or were not CD's. I Used to but I don't. It doesn't matter which side of the fence you are on so to speak, it really doesn't. All that matters is that people keep fighting about it tooth and nail so that the OS, which is crap at best, gets another look.



[edit on 24-3-2010 by jprophet420]

reply to post by seethelight


"It VERY OBVIOUSLY didn't fall in freefall" ????????

What is VERY OBVIOUS is that YOU have never watched the vid's, OR YOU have a VERY HANDICAPPED comprehension of the term 'Freefall'.

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by seethelight

 

"It VERY OBVIOUSLY didn't fall in freefall" ????????

What is VERY OBVIOUS is that YOU have never watched the vid's, OR YOU have a VERY HANDICAPPED comprehension of the term 'Freefall'.

The buildings fell at free fall speeds -- breaking the laws of physics.
No way to explain the buildings falling without noise if there were explosives -- breaking the laws of physics.
No way to explain where the energy came from to pulverize the buildings into dust -- breaking the laws of physics.

And there were more ....

It was an Act of God, not unusual -- look at the SUNSPOTS/Haiti thread.

reply to post by etcorngods


Nothing broke the laws of physics.

It's the government models for the collapses that don't make sense or are even physically impossible, ie they would have to break laws of physics to occur, and so are impossible. Like WTC7 free-fall into itself to the ground while simultaneously destroying itself with its own weight. If work is done then conservation of energy requires that the falling mass slow down or not accelerate as quickly.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by etcorngods

 

Nothing broke the laws of physics.

It's the government models for the collapses that don't make sense or are even physically impossible, ie they would have to break laws of physics to occur, and so are impossible. Like WTC7 free-fall into itself to the ground while simultaneously destroying itself with its own weight. If work is done then conservation of energy requires that the falling mass slow down or not accelerate as quickly.

What....?

If there was free fall when the physics would have dictated that it slow down from the drag, the laws of physics are broken.

If there is no place for the energy to have come from to pulverize the building and the building contents, then the laws of physics were broken.

If the laws of physics were broken -- It was an Act of God.

Originally posted by etcorngods
What....?

If there was free fall when the physics would have dictated that it slow down from the drag, the laws of physics are broken.

No, it just means there was apparently no air to slow it down either, or else a negligible amount that escaped measure and/or was within the margin of error for the visual measurements.

That's pretty nuts I know, but it's what the numbers show.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by etcorngods
What....?

If there was free fall when the physics would have dictated that it slow down from the drag, the laws of physics are broken.

No, it just means there was apparently no air to slow it down either, or else a negligible amount that escaped measure and/or was within the margin of error for the visual measurements.

That's pretty nuts I know, but it's what the numbers show.

You are joking I assume. You can't tell around here with some of the engineering (or lack of it) practiced.

The evidence is clear that 911was an Act of God