The entire 9/11 Truth Movement is a false premise by design

reply to post by esdad71


you have no proof it was a transformer that exploded, you are speculating, whereas the sound is the same as those heard on controlled demolition.

www.youtube.com...

I've read your statement in previous posts, you are cherry picking, and not even doing a very good job of it. Just so you know, I am responding to your 'Aristolean logic' simply to pass the time, I do not take you seriously for one moment nor are you convincing at all.




[edit on 12-3-2010 by ancient_wisdom]

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
your ignorance is excusable if you have never heard of the paper written which proves nano thermite was found int the WTC dust,

Ah, the paper that was not peer reviewed, was published in a vanity journal that publishes anything if you pay them to and never actually proved what you claim!

Typical lie from a "truther"!

reply to post by _BoneZ_


No, you give me some evidence that it was NOT the fires and the big ass planes that hit the towers that caused it.

We know that there were huge fires, there are videos. We know there were planes, they were in videos with eyewitnesses. What we do not have is ONE shred of physical evidence that anything OTHER than fires bought it down.

This thread is about showing how the 9/11 Truth movement or whatever you want to call it is based on a false premise.

Are you trying to say that my post was not correct? I am tired of the hijacking. This is a thread about how the logic that is presented is not solid, filled of holes and conjecture and is always waved away without an explanation or a counter argument.

reply to post by esdad71

MP - WTC did not come down based on fire alone
MP - NO building has ever collapsed due to fire
Conclusion - WTC had to have something else to cause the collapse

Either you are intentionally misrepresenting his argument, or you are not very good at this logic stuff?

His argument was "sound." I haven't seen you use the proper terminology yet. Also, you cannot criticize a conclusion, only a premise. You need to go back ot Aristotles school I guess?

Anyway, his argument is:
MP: 1.) Numerous firefighters reported red, low-level flashes going "up, down and around" both towers in the lower and middle levels while hearing "popping or exploding sounds" associated with the flashes.
MP: 2.) Concentrated ejections of dust/debris that have only ever been associated with controlled demolitions:
MP: 3. Video and photographic evidence clearly show ejections and flashes.
MP: 4. No other building has ever been "demolished" using fire as an efficient method.
MP: 5. No other building has ever fallen neatly into its own footprint without a "controlled" demolition.
Therefore: A controlled demolition was used for these two buildings.

Anymore questions? I can loan you a basic "Critical Thinking and Constructing Arguments" book if you would like?

Look dude I am going to tell you this so that you understand something about logic.

You are talking about basing a premise on an abstract idea that cannot be quantified nor qualified.

Why? Because the OS has several parts of it redacted due to STATE SECRET PRIVILEGE?

NO OR YES?

YES.

So it is impossible for you to know that you have all of the evidence to come to a valid decision.

You are hand-picking evidence to support your idea, the exact same thing happened with the OS, and that is not acceptable logic.

You are coming to a conclusion KNOWING that certain evidence is absent.

reply to post by dereks


oh, please provide the link where you review and criticize the paper, because since it is on the internet for all to see, anyone, including you can review it. Plus you just exposed yourself, you said there is no proof that nano thermite was used, and now you just admitted you are aware of the proof. And you can't dismiss it until you actually do the peer review. I'm waiting, but I won't hold my breath.

reply to post by esdad71

This thread is about showing how the 9/11 Truth movement or whatever you want to call it is based on a false premise.

What false premise? The one you created? The one that says our main premise is that it "looked like" a controlled demolition?

That is not our Main Premise, or any of our premises, and it is not what any of the argument is based around.

How about you go back, do some thorough research, construct a real table with some real premises, and then come back and argue for or against them. I would honestly love to see anybody do such a thing. Hell, I would love to see you construct a real table for the Official Story. I would love to attack those premises. (See earlier post. Shooting fish in a barrell! )

reply to post by ancient_wisdom

Not worth the time....edit...

[edit on 12-3-2010 by esdad71]

OK here it is


WHY WOULD THERE BE AN EXPLOSION AFTER the collapse is done? Because there are live electrical wires, gas lines, etc that are in the vicinity of fires.

Here is a NYFD talking about it on 9/11

www.nytimes.com...

There are even eyewitness reports of people falling into poles causing explosions. It was a 100 story building filled with electronics so why would there not be any explosions.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by esdad71]

Originally posted by dereks
in the left hand picture the demolition charges are seen before the collapse, but in the picture of the WTC collapsing the collapse is well under way

If you would do some actual research instead of being an armchair debunker, there are several videos on the internet of CD's where the building collapse is underway and they continue to detonate explosives below. I've saved the videos for an upcoming documentary that I'm working on. But they do exist if you took the time for real research.

Originally posted by dereks
Please show the names and sources for that claim

I've posted the names numerous times on this forum and I'm not going to keep doing it so that you can continue to ignore them. If you want to see their names, check my post history or go read the First Responder Oral Histories where their testimony came from. Time for you to do some real research of your own.

Originally posted by dereks
Or windows being blown out by air - but you ignore that best explanation!

That explanation is ignored because not a single image or video exists of a natural collapse that shows those concentrated ejections. The only videos in the entire world that show concentrated ejections are videos of CD. When these concentrated ejections are added with the other evidence, then they can only be from explosives.

What you are attempting to do is push facts and history to the side and give your opinion or theories on what the ejections could be. Denial is the only reason to make you ignore facts and history.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ancient_wisdom

 

WHY WOULD THERE BE AN EXPLOSION AFTER the collapse is done? Because there are live electrical wires, gas lines, etc that are in the vicinity of fires.

Here is a NYFD talking about it on 9/11

www.nytimes.com...

There are even eyewitness reports of people falling into poles causing explosions. It was a 100 story building filled with electronics so why would there not be any explosions.

No, I'm sorry, but people falling into poles do not cause explosions, now you're just saying nonsense. Have you thought of the fact that since one building collapsed before the other, the dust could be from the first building, and the explosion from the second? Plus, electronics don't just "explode" throw your computer out the window and tell me at what moment it explodes.

reply to post by ancient_wisdom


His critique is soooooooo weak.
And it's not even his critique, and it's not even the paper in question.

Soooooooo WEAK.

Go ahead dereks. Send the link.

reply to post by Josephus23


of course Dereks doesn't have a link, all he could do was make fun of the journal it was published in. I don't know what it's called when you ad hominem attack a journal, but that's what he did. The paper could be in Better Homes and Garden for all I care, facts are facts, but try telling that to him.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by ancient_wisdom]

Originally posted by esdad71
No, you give me some evidence that it was NOT the fires and the big ass planes that hit the towers that caused it.

Evidence can consist of three different types:

1.) Physical/forensic

2.) Witness testimony.

3.) Audio/visual

I've given you 2 of the three and if you want to get real technical, the nano-thermite research that Dr. Jones is doing would be the third.

Again, please show videos of the characteristics I've previously posted that are present in natural or fire-induced collapses OR CONCEDE!

I'm not comprehending why this simplistic task is so difficult for you.

You cannot rationalize with this dude.

It is pointless to participate in a thread with this person.

Ad hoc hypotheses, red herrings, cherry picked evidence, and straw man arguments GALORE.

Have fun. I can't take it anymore.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ancient_wisdom

 

Not worth the time....edit...

[edit on 12-3-2010 by esdad71]

is that you formally conceding? (wipes hands).

Originally posted by Josephus23
Look dude I am going to tell you this so that you understand something about logic.

You are talking about basing a premise on an abstract idea that cannot be quantified nor qualified.

Why? Because the OS has several parts of it redacted due to STATE SECRET PRIVILEGE?

NO OR YES?

YES.

So it is impossible for you to know that you have all of the evidence to come to a valid decision.

You are hand-picking evidence to support your idea, the exact same thing happened with the OS, and that is not acceptable logic.

You are coming to a conclusion KNOWING that certain evidence is absent.

First, to the explsoion guy

Yes, there were. 3000 people died. It is a known fact that the should of explosions in one of the towers was actually bodies hitting the lobby. There were electrical fires, gas fires and chemical fires after the collapse. It looked like a warzone.

However, what we are talking about is the OP.

then, on to Josephus23

First, you don't tell me #. Got it? If we now understand each other, let me explain away your post.

I am not basing a premise on an abstract idea, it is the idea of ANYTHING that goes against what people refer to as the OS.

Second, there were no state secrets. There was information that was not allowed to the public due to ongoing investigations and then it was released after that particular trial.

I did not hand pick ANYTHING in my OP, I simply showed the false premise by which the anti OS live.

I came to a conclusion based on simple statements. Now, this post...

MP: 1.) Numerous firefighters reported red, low-level flashes going "up, down and around" both towers in the lower and middle levels while hearing "popping or exploding sounds" associated with the flashes.
MP: 2.) Concentrated ejections of dust/debris that have only ever been associated with controlled demolitions:
MP: 3. Video and photographic evidence clearly show ejections and flashes.
MP: 4. No other building has ever been "demolished" using fire as an efficient method.
MP: 5. No other building has ever fallen neatly into its own footprint without a "controlled" demolition.
Therefore: A controlled demolition was used for these two buildings

This is a list and not a very good one.

1. yes, and they look and sound NOTHING like a demo. watch a video
2. No, the entire meaning of a controlled demolition is that it is assymetrical when it falls. This is again the opposite of what most anti OS state. You are explaining something that is ejecting debris which a CD is designed not to do.
3. Yes they do. that does not prove explosives though...
4. Efficient method? you do not use fire for demolitions so this makes no sense.
5. this is not true...look at JJ Hudson department store... www.youtube.com...

you are just listing things that are not connected to give your self an answer....

reply to post by _BoneZ_


No, you have not given anything and you would lose your butt in court with your 'evidence'

1.) Physical/forensic - NONE

2.) Witness testimony - you have testimony that says that there were no explosives found, no loud noises similar to demo's..etc. There were NO noises like the ones in the video i posted and that building was half the size.

3.) Audio/visual - the sound of an explosion is not a controlled demolition


MP - Loud noises happen during a demolition
MP - There were loud noises on 9/11
Conclusion - it must have been a demolition....(because explosives are the only thing that make loud noises....)

see how that does not work.....

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
oh, please provide the link where you review and criticize the paper, because since it is on the internet for all to see, anyone, including you can review it.

And because it's on the internet, it must be the truth?

Oh, boy.....

reply to post by Josephus23


So you run away when you can't cheer on your friends and gang up on someone, huh? Have a nice night and if you hear any loud noises be casreful it may be a controlled demolition....

The following is posted at the top of every thread page in the 9/11 forum.

This forum is dedicated to the discussion and speculation of cover-ups, scandals, and other conspiracies surrounding the events of 9/11/2001. Participants should be aware that this forum is under close staff scrutiny due to general rudeness by some. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

There are ample threads where the premise of this thread could be used as argument. As such...this thread is closed.