all 9/11 and related american political threads, merged here

[Hua Lin Laoshi]

http://www.rense.com/general73/osam.htm

[Kymus]

"We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable."
White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin

Strawman.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".

People sometimes make mistakes when they don't really know.

Come to think of it, maybe the original designers were wrong about the towers even surviving a run in with the 707.

Substituting theory for fact.

And you wonder why I don't bother to delve into this any deeper with you

[canglong]

Interesting cast of characters to say the least.
http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/cronies/index.html

[rogue]

Substituting theory for fact.

I find it interesting that you say that as the theory was that the towers could with stand multiple planes crashing into the towers, but the reality was that they couldn't.
The outside of the towers did behave like he thought, but they weren't the only part of the building holding it up and together. In this instance Mr. Demartini was using a very restricted view of what a plane crashing into the towers would do. Mr. Demartini says that "he believes" rather than he knows because he's never tested his theory in the real world. I have to wonder if anybody ever took the theory about 707s vs the towers and game how the plane could win.

And you wonder why I don't bother to delve into this any deeper with you

Hmmm, looking back at most of the posts I'd say I've done a lot more explaining how things happened then you have. So far you haven't shown any real insight into how things work in the real world even though you've been looking into this longer than me. That's OK, I've been around longer and have done more, so I may have a leg up when it comes to knowing about things that may explain why something happened the way it did. I may be biased but MP, RD, Dave and myself have made a better case, with more depth, for why 9/11 happened the way it did than you have for your theory. So far your main response has been to blurt out "strawman", "disinformation" or call people liars when they present you with facts and examples. I'm honestly getting suspicious that you are just pulling our legs and really don't believe what you're writing. If so then you got us good, if not then it's just tiresome.

Once again, please produce your research and not just your conclusions.

[canglong]

the con
the conspiracy
and
the cover-up
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ductions&hl=en

[rogue]

Kymus wrote,

Maybe you can explain to me RD how it is that no modern steel building has ever collapsed in history even after being on fire for days at a time. I assume you saw pictures of the building in Madrid? White hot flames on just about every floor and it still stands but the WTC has much smaller flames for a total of 1 hour & 104 mins and it collapses to dust. Doesn't make a bit of sense to me.

Kymus wrote: I assume you saw pictures of the building in Madrid? White hot flames on just about every floor and it still stands...

From Wiki...

It was gutted by a huge fire on February 12, 2005, and partially collapsed; it has since been demolished.

More fun facts from Wiki...

The Caracas Tower, First Interstate Bank [36] and 1 New York Plaza were constructed using the conventional steel girder system consisting of a grid of steel columns and trusses connecting the columns. The Windsor Tower (Madrid, helpful Rogue), however, was constructed with concrete columns and a concrete core for the first 16 floors, steel girder and concrete core for the floors above that, and two additional concrete slabs to provide additional strength [37], [38].

The Twin Towers used gypsum instead of concrete around their core.

Looks like you're comparing apples to oranges as the construction of the other buildings was quite different from WTC 1 & 2. Guess you missed that little tidbit about construction in your research. I'll admit it was hard to find and took me an entire 10 minutes to locate.

[Merryprankster]

Ah.

We've reached the pointless phase of all of this. Got it.

Kymus - You're boring. Not becuase you believe something we don't but because you spend more time tossing around jargon than actually arguing. You got haughty and trotted out "strawman!" "Hegelian Dialectic!" "Red herring!"

Hey guess what? The reason I called you on it is because I took Western Political Theory and rhetoric as classes too. You can't toss around that crap to make you look smarter - it doesn't win any points - and further in an argument like this, it is not enough merely to point out the mistakes of the opposition.

And yes, of course I was full of bull**** with respect to the Unions comitting 9/11. That was the entire point - to demonstrate an alternative complete, self-consistent, non-falsifiable theory of 9/11. That, along with citing holes as smoking gun proof that the story itself is wrong, it the heart and core of conspiracy theory. It's easy and I did it to demonstrate how simple building your very own argumenum ad ignoratum is. (Argumentum ad Ignoratum is the fallacy that just because something hasn't been proved wrong, it must be true).

Anything you post about it, I can explain it via a Union conspiracy. I GUARANTEE it.

Mind you, there's no evidence for it, but I never intended there to be. I think it might make for a good novel - or maybe even the Godfather IV.

To get back to the matter at hand: Merely saying "There are unanswered questions in the story," doesn't make the whole story arc wrong. I'm sorry. This is not a formal debate, where you earn points with the judging panel by pointing out logical flaws in the proposing/affirmative side's argument. Nor is it a court of law, where you are the defense attorney and all you must do is demonstrate that the proposing side didn't meet its burden of proof. It is not a trial. Variations on Argumentum ad Logicam. I'm sure you know it....

(Argumentum ad Logicam is the fallacy of believing/assuming that shooting or citing holes in the proposing side's argument renders the premise - ie, the story arc - invalid. There may be alternative lines of reasoning/argumentation - or even the same line with better information - that demonstrates the proposition is true).

Here's the bottom line: There will always remain unanswered questions about 9/11. Those unanswered questions do not by neccessity imply conspiracy or cover-up. They are unanswered questions, nothing more, and nothing less.

Take your Pentagon flight example: You cite that a 747 never could have manuevered like that. OK. Great. I cite a missing plane, the dead passengers, air traffic controllers that say the radar picture tells us all otherwise, and visual confirmation from a variety of on-scene witnesses, not to mention wreckage (which despite alternative theories, does, in fact, exist, of course, you could argue it was planted, but how deep does this rabbit hole go?). Incidentally, I also cite the death of the Solicitor General's wife that day. Guess he wasn't in on it.

Do I know how somebody manuevered a 747 like that? Nope. It's an unanswered question. Perhaps scientific models will solve it. But treating unanswered questions like smoking guns is EXACTLY how creationists argue. They say that because evolution can't provide every single step in the chain, then it is incomplete and therefore wrong/highly flawed. Exploration of the natural world (by natural I mean the observable universe) is a lengthy, time consuming process where specific answers are often not available.

Contrary to creationists claims, that does not make the story arc of evolution wrong - merely incomplete.

With respect to the physics of the issues, they have been rehashed in detail, over and over again. You keep bringing up certain studies, but fail to mention that the overwhelming consensus of the national and international scientific community is that "yeah, 9/11 could definitely have happened the way it appeared to happen." Heck, the University of Pennsylvania even ran computer simulations to try and figure out what happened, and ultimately concluded that it could have. They used to have their model posted on the interweb.

My own experience working with metal and with the tremendous forces involved with something as relatively benign as ship driving also informs some of my decision - that is, I've seen what mass, momentum and inertia can do, and it's awe inspiring. Low temp flames are used to soften metal, and all experts - even the ones that insist that 9/11 couldn't have happened the way the official story reads - agree that a 40-50% reduction in the strength of the metal could definitely have led to a collapse. I find the inward bowing a particularly compelling argument, because it suggests to me that the building was beginning to lose tension on its outer structures - precisely part of the distributed load design inherent in the WTC. If it was starting to lose tension then it was beginning to sag. After that the cascade effect makes quite a bit of sense to me. I've seen what fire can do to a metal compartment.

Dr. Greening's articles on the energy transfers involved, I found quite excellent, as are the discussions of the towers' collapses. The seismic evidence is especially compelling, IMO. A great deal turns on the actual time it took for the towers to collapse (which was not freefall BTW).

http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

You can find them about half-way down.

I admit to having got them from 911myths.com, but then again, we wouldn't want to commit the fallacy of evaluating the hosting website rather than the information presented, now, would we? Especially not when looking at quantitative, vice qualitative arguments.

Interestingly, there is also a refuation of the "couldn't have flown a 747 that way on there." Haven't read it.

Don't care.

Here's what I want - I want a coherent, alternative theory of the crime rather than a great big list of what's wrong with the official story. A great big list of what's wrong with the other side is exactly why the Israelis and Palestinians keep fighting.

[Royal Dragon]

Mind you, there's no evidence for it, but I never intended there to be. I think it might make for a good novel - or maybe even the Godfather IV.

Reply]
What about the Mob controlled union Scrap trucks that were taking away debris before the fire was even out?

[David Jamieson]

MP- are you saying 747 on purpose?

[cam]

C'mon Kymus, don't you realize that it was all just a coincidence!
That and the fact that just about everyone in any position of authority in the US are a bunch of bumbling incompetent idiots.
Just look at the results of Hurricane Katrina, if that wasn't a total cluster****, it should convince anyone of the total failure of your government institutions....Oh wait that was all a coincidence too

OKay let the character assination begin

[rogue]

Here's what I want - I want a coherent, alternative theory of the crime rather than a great big list of what's wrong with the official story.

Good luck with that!

I do get the feeling that most of those yelling incompetence have never even read the 9/11 Commision Report, and yes there was some incompetence and lost opportnunities. And I have to ask those who are so outraged by the failure of their government what they were doing before 9/11 and did they know who AQ and bin Laden were?

[cam]

Thanks for supplying the link Rogue. After reading the first few pages, well incompetence just doesn't do this idiocy justice! Someone will have to invent a new word for such a colossal failure!
Actually there is only one conspiracy, How was the American Media so completely neutered?

[rogue]

Which page numbers did you read? What did you find so idiotic on them?

[Kymus]

I find it interesting that you say that as the theory was that the towers could with stand multiple planes crashing into the towers

Which was proclaimed by one of the two men with the most experience and knowledge of that building.

but the reality was that they couldn't.

See, you're doing it again.

The outside of the towers did behave like he thought, but they weren't the only part of the building holding it up and together. In this instance Mr. Demartini was using a very restricted view of what a plane crashing into the towers would do. Mr. Demartini says that "he believes"

Spin. He "believes" that it could withstand MULTIPLE hits. He clearly said it was DESIGNED to take atleast 1 plane.

I have to wonder if anybody ever took the theory about 707s vs the towers and game how the plane could win.

It's called mathematics.

Hmmm, looking back at most of the posts I'd say I've done a lot more explaining how things happened then you have.

Creating strawman arguments, spinning things people have said and telling people they're wrong on a subject you know nothing about isn't explaining, it's called bullsh!t tactics.

So far you haven't shown any real insight into how things work in the real world even though you've been looking into this longer than me.

Again, why bother? At every step of this, you continually try to foist these phoney tactics. It's evident that you are adept at ignoring the facts that you don't like.

That's OK, I've been around longer and have done more, so I may have a leg up when it comes to knowing about things that may explain why something happened the way it did.

I base things on what I can prove. When I theorise, I readily admit to and explain that. You are still strugling to understand that.

I may be biased

Biased eh? Never would of guessed.

but MP, RD, Dave and myself have made a better case, with more depth, for why 9/11 happened the way it did than you have for your theory.

I'm sorry, offering theorisations that sound good is something that you won't find me doing or supporting. I base everything on that which I can prove. If I can't prove it, I don't bother.

So far your main response has been to blurt out "strawman", "disinformation" or call people liars when they present you with facts and examples.

For which the definition of those words fits. You tell me I'm wrong, and I've got nothing to prove my claims, but you can't answer my questions. That makes you a liar. You also claimed you answered my questions, which is another lie.

I'm honestly getting suspicious that you are just pulling our legs and really don't believe what you're writing.

I don't believe in false words.

If so then you got us good, if not then it's just tiresome.

Likewise, I get tired of trying to discuss issues with people who are still locked into this phoney paradigm and allow their very petty partisanship determine what issues are important for truth, and which are not.

Once again, please produce your research and not just your conclusions.

Again Rogue, what is the point? You and I both know that nothing short of GW going on national TV and admitting that he engaged in treason will ever change your mind. If you honestly cared more about hoensty than you did about protecting your fragile world of the good guys of the right fighting the bad guys of the left, you already would of done research on this subject and others. I care more about the Bill of Rights than I do petty partisan leanings, so I research things, and I look at both sides. I've debated with folks like yourself Rogue; it doesn't get anywhere.

[Kymus]

We've reached the pointless phase of all of this. Got it.

Actually, the pointless phase began when I thought for a moment I’d encounter someone who wouldn’t engage in phoney debate tactics even thought they were incredibly biased

Kymus - You're boring. Not becuase you believe something we don't but because you spend more time tossing around jargon than actually arguing. You got haughty and trotted out "strawman!" "Hegelian Dialectic!" "Red herring!"

Oh I see, you don’t like it when I call your BS arguments, so now you gotta create these funny theories about “jargon”. I explained each. Did you miss the definition? btw, I wasn't the one that threw the "Red Herring" bomb, it was your little buddy oops!

Hey guess what? The reason I called you on it is because I took Western Political Theory and rhetoric as classes too. You can't toss around that crap to make you look smarter - it doesn't win any points - and further in an argument like this, it is not enough merely to point out the mistakes of the opposition.

Looks like you never did much in the ways of debate or you’d understand that each shoe fit.

And yes, of course I was full of bull**** with respect to the Unions comitting 9/11. That was the entire point - to demonstrate an alternative complete, self-consistent, non-falsifiable theory of 9/11.

Your hypocrisy is astounding. You accuse others of creating a self-sustained theory and using that to proclaim they are right, but that’s exactly what you are doing here. Not only creating theories about others, but theories about evidence and back story as well.

That, along with citing holes as smoking gun proof that the story itself is wrong, it the heart and core of conspiracy theory.

Well gosh, it’s a good thing I don’t use that logic. Of course, you’ll still say “nu uh nu uh!! Yes you are!!!111”

It's easy and I did it to demonstrate how simple building your very own argumenum ad ignoratum is. (Argumentum ad Ignoratum is the fallacy that just because something hasn't been proved wrong, it must be true).

You think I don’t know that? Wow, looks like you must apply well to the article I’ve been citing to Rogue

Anything you post about it, I can explain it via a Union conspiracy. I GUARANTEE it.

Doesn’t make it right, it just makes it theory. That’s the difference between us

Mind you, there's no evidence for it, but I never intended there to be. I think it might make for a good novel - or maybe even the Godfather IV.

You’re right, Bush’s executive order never existed and **** poor pilots can perform manoeuvres that are physically impossible. Go back to sleep, it’s all a dream. Torching the Bill of Rights is good, it’ll give us more freedom

To get back to the matter at hand: Merely saying "There are unanswered questions in the story," doesn't make the whole story arc wrong. I'm sorry.

Tell me something I don’t know. That type of argument flies REAL close to a strawman argument. I don’t need those to prove my point, I leave them to you guys

This is not a formal debate, where you earn points with the judging panel by pointing out logical flaws in the proposing/affirmative side's argument.

I am not here to gain points. I point out the bullsh!t in yours and Rogue’s pitiful arguments in a desperate hope that you’ll stop with the bullsh!t and get directly to the matters at hand.

Nor is it a court of law, where you are the defense attorney and all you must do is demonstrate that the proposing side didn't meet its burden of proof.

ROFL! It’s so funny you bring that up MP. “burden of proof” is the #1 excuse given to me by those that I debate with on this issue. Know what I think? I think it’s a wonderful excuse for the intellectually lazy. So again, I am not following this course of action you try to theorise about me.

It is not a trial. Variations on Argumentum ad Logicam. I'm sure you know it....

Yep. Ignoramus’s love it. Then they don’t have to bother with pesky research :P

(Argumentum ad Logicam is the fallacy of believing/assuming that shooting or citing holes in the proposing side's argument renders the premise - ie, the story arc - invalid. There may be alternative lines of reasoning/argumentation - or even the same line with better information - that demonstrates the proposition is true).

You can also call it a strawman argument. But wait, I forgot, you don’t like it when I use “jargon”

Here's the bottom line: There will always remain unanswered questions about 9/11. Those unanswered questions do not by neccessity imply conspiracy or cover-up. They are unanswered questions, nothing more, and nothing less.

I am fully aware of that. Your theorisations about me are inaccurate. At no point have I said that because there are unanswered questions that it means a conspiracy, and at no point have I said that because “my theory” makes sense, that means it must be true.

Take your Pentagon flight example: You cite that a 747 never could have manuevered like that. OK. Great. I cite a missing plane, the dead passengers, air traffic controllers that say the radar picture tells us all otherwise, and visual confirmation from a variety of on-scene witnesses, not to mention wreckage (which despite alternative theories, does, in fact, exist, of course, you could argue it was planted, but how deep does this rabbit hole go?). Incidentally, I also cite the death of the Solicitor General's wife that day. Guess he wasn't in on it.

So by your logic, if the official story was that superman flew in there and punched a hole in the pentagon killing people, then just because there’s a hole, and dead people, it must be true! Hyperbole, yes. But see, the plane and superman both have something in common: they are performing something that is physically impossible to do. I’ve yet to see anyone provide a source (other than Screw Loose Changes very pitiful strawman of calling pilot Russ Whittenburg (sp, I’m sure) a “conspiracy theorist”) that explains how that plane didn’t fall out of the sky (not to mention the details after that). By your own logic MP, it must’ve been superman!

Do I know how somebody manuevered a 747 like that? Nope. It's an unanswered question. Perhaps scientific models will solve it. But treating unanswered questions like smoking guns is EXACTLY how creationists argue. They say that because evolution can't provide every single step in the chain, then it is incomplete and therefore wrong/highly flawed.

See, that’s another example of a strawman argument. Am I now demystifying this mysterious jargon that’s right there in the encyclopedia?

[/quote]Contrary to creationists claims, that does not make the story arc of evolution wrong - merely incomplete.[/quote]

I agree.

Dr. Greening's articles on the energy transfers involved, I found quite excellent, as are the discussions of the towers' collapses. The seismic evidence is especially compelling, IMO. A great deal turns on the actual time it took for the towers to collapse (which was not freefall BTW).

http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

I’ve seen lengthy discussions on this subject by engineers and physicists. Both are missing something.

I admit to having got them from 911myths.com, but then again, we wouldn't want to commit the fallacy of evaluating the hosting website rather than the information presented, now, would we? Especially not when looking at quantitative, vice qualitative arguments.

Another common strawman. I find it a lot actually when debating other political issues. It’s commonly used by people who fear the truth. I’ve read through 911myths and other debunker blogs. I’m not impressed in the least.

Interestingly, there is also a refuation of the "couldn't have flown a 747 that way on there." Haven't read it.

I’ll have to read that. Hopefully they stay away from the pitiful strawman argument.

Here's what I want - I want a coherent, alternative theory of the crime rather than a great big list of what's wrong with the official story. A great big list of what's wrong with the other side is exactly why the Israelis and Palestinians keep fighting.

You and Rogue have already demonstrated to me that there is no point in it. Even if I were to give a long and detailed explanation, you both would still say “that’s wrong because of (theory)”. I should of learned my lesson the first hundred times: when people care more about their favourite poltical party than the truth (whatever it may be), there will be no progress. Honestly, I’ve never once seen a debate on 9/11 without the so-called debunkers throwing out a myriad of bullsh!t tactics. It's no different than explaining to a haughty practictioner your best move. Their response is always "Oh, well I'd just do that and...". Never gets anywhere.

In the words of Penn and Teller: “Elvis didn’t do no drugs!”