It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Please stop using this logical fallacy!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 05:10 AM
link   
I’ve been lurking around here for a very long time and I have repeatedly come across an argument that makes me want to suffocate my self due to the mental agony such stupid statements inflict upon me.

The argument is in relation to the suggested demolition of the World Trade Center towers. It goes like this:


The World Trade Center Towers could not have possibly been demolished because [1] it would take a ridiculous amount of explosives to bring them down (they’re MASSIVE buildings) and [2] it would therefore be physically impossible to wire the building with such a enormous quantity of explosives without being detected.


On one hand this argument is used to support their reasoning that demolition of the towers could not have happened, however, on the other hand the lone impact of the airplane along with fires burning for approximately one hour, achieved the very same goal.

This logical fallacy slaps me in the face every single time and I finally felt I had to say something. This is very similar to arguing with supporters of Intelligent Design, we do not know how everything begun therefore God did-it. Just as the theory of evolution says nothing about how life first begun, the theory that the WTC towers were demolished (or blown up or destroyed, pick your phrase) says nothing about how this was accomplished.

To say that “I cannot see how the building could possibly have been rigged with explosives therefore this is impossible” is absolutely ridiculous, mind boggling ignorant and naive.

Some recent quotes that triggered this posting:

Well, the employees would notice some guy who doesn't work there putting # all over the place. And let's face it, the explosives would be EVERYWHERE to take down the WTC. These are massive buildings, larger then anything that has ever been demolished.



The amount of knowledge required to do this is mind bending. They would have to go into nearly every room on several floors, and you're telling me no one ever noticed this?



Ok, but it is impossible to smuggle a ridiculous amount of bombs in. How would they have carried them through the elevators without someone noticing.



I don't know how many times I have to reiterate this. Do you have any idea how many pounds of bombs it would take to do what you say it needs to do?






posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Yeah lol this contradiction comes up many times.

But really if anyone had spent any time in large high rise office buildings they could see that planting explosives wouldn't be as hard as they assume.

The only thing they would need is the right paperwork to please the security guards, and when you've got help on the inside that wouldn't be hard to get.

In a large building like the WTC towers there is always some kind of maintenance/upgrades going on somewhere in the building. Quite often areas will be closed off, or plastic sheeting hung, to minimize the mess. No one is going to pay any attention to this other than a mild curiosity. "What are they fixing now?", "I don't know, internet upgrade or something I think".
No one is going to think, hey they might be planting explosives.

Internet cable upgrades
Telephone cable upgrades
Battery installations
Elevator maintenance
Electrical power upgrades

Many covers could have been used over a period of time to do the job, and if any thinks it would be hard to find people to do it are extremely naive...



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
For the towers, since their support structure was designed around an inner core you might need a lot less explosives to start the domino effect than other buildings with different support structure designs, and with the inner core you would be putting the explosives in non-populated areas.

But a much quicker/efficient and proven method to reach an inner core support is a large aircraft going 600 MPH with 100k LBS of gas. The ones who pulled it off didn't even know how devastating it would be.

But the logic fallacies that get me are the ones that jump at any direction but the obvious. I do think it is a good thing to “think out of the box” in a what if, but in situations that have over whelming evidence towards one direction I see arguments that have extremely weak theories, but are used as the de facto answer.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
i agree 100%. anytime someone says that's "too big of" a conspiracy to be valid, i simply say "what about pearl harbor and the manhattan project?".



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I’ve been lurking around here for a very long time and I have repeatedly come across an argument that makes me want to suffocate my self due to the mental agony such stupid statements inflict upon me.

The argument is in relation to the suggested plane damage of the World Trade Center towers. It goes like this:


The World Trade Center Towers could not have possibly been destroyed by planes because [1] it would take a ridiculous amount of damage to bring them down (they’re MASSIVE buildings) and [2] it would therefore be physically impossible for a plane and the resulting fire to bring the building down


To say that “I cannot see how the building could possibly have been brought down by a plane therefore this is impossible” is absolutely ridiculous, mind boggling ignorant and naive.




posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
But a much quicker/efficient and proven method to reach an inner core support is a large aircraft going 600 MPH with 100k LBS of gas.


How is that a proven method? Do you have proof that the planes damaged the central structure of the towers?

An aluminum plane goes through a steel facade and then is still solid enough to sever massive steel columns? Yeah OK, maybe in hollywood...


You remember the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagoon? Well that disappeared into nothing after supposedly going through just a concrete wall. I guess the planes that hit the towers must have been made from a different aluminum...


Or as someone said on ATS once, the 'terrorists' that hit the towers must have been more determined...



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
The World Trade Center Towers could not have possibly been destroyed by planes because [1] it would take a ridiculous amount of damage to bring them down (they’re MASSIVE buildings) and [2] it would therefore be physically impossible for a plane and the resulting fire to bring the building down


LOL well that's not exactly what's being said now is it. If you ever spent any time doing any real research you would find that there is NO evidence that your plane and fire bought the towers down. So why do you believe they did? Well obviously it's what your government told you, and you feel no reason to question. It's not surprising, the system we live in has relied on just that since it began. Silent, unquestioning acceptance of authority. It's how you're conditioned to react, taught in school and church to obey or else.
It's why the World is so messed up, the passive unquestioning majority has allowed the greedy elite to rape and pillage, legally.

There is so many questions about 9-11 you can find answers for yourself. But no, the lazy majority just find a web-site that says what you want to hear and back to the football. Why is it so many are happy to be spoon fed their belief system? Even when proven wrong... but but but it says here that blah blah blah...

Don't believe what you can't verify for yourself. Can you verify that the central columns in the tower were damaged in any way? Is it logical that the plane could have severed massive steel columns, after being shredded by the steel facade (if they weren't shredded than something is seriously wrong there)? The plane that hit the South Tower didn't even hit the central columns, so what is the excuse to wave that one away? I guess the fires must have been hotter in the South Tower?

Is it logical the fires, that NIST said didn't get hotter than 650d, could have caused the massive central structure to globally fail and then eject pieces of building, weighing in the tons, up to 600ft away?

Can't find an answer in the official story so ignore is the usual MO eh?...


[edit on 21/8/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Amusingly enough, all I did is take the OP's first post, remove "demolitions" and substitute "planes". The point was to illustrate that it was a complete BS argument.

So thank you.

Not only have you debunked my post, but that of the original poster.



Go you!



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
My problem with this logic is that people believe that ZERO explosives brought the towers down. Then they turn around and say it would take thousands of pounds of TNT (C4) etc. to do the same thing. I guess they forgot that in both scenarios, there is still plane damage and fire. So, if plane damage and fire can do it with ZERO explosives, plane damage and fire could only be helped along with the addition of ONE explosive would it not?

Why the extremes in peoples minds?



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
[How is that a proven method? Do you have proof that the planes damaged the central structure of the towers?

An aluminum plane goes through a steel facade and then is still solid enough to sever massive steel columns? Yeah OK, maybe in hollywood...


You remember the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagoon? Well that disappeared into nothing after supposedly going through just a concrete wall. I guess the planes that hit the towers must have been made from a different aluminum...


Or as someone said on ATS once, the 'terrorists' that hit the towers must have been more determined...



Well since they found parts of the fuselage sections 3 or 4 blocks away that went through the buildings, and other parts like engines and landing gears too it is safe to say the force was enough to penetrate. I also didn't see any of the fuel on the outside of the building so I'd say it all went into it.

Anyone want to figure the force of an aircraft going 600 MPH with the engines at full throttle I’m sure compared to the plane that crashed at the Pentagon the ones that hit the towers had a massive amount of energy.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by IhateGod


This logical fallacy slaps me in the face every single time and I finally felt I had to say something. This is very similar to arguing with supporters of Intelligent Design, we do not know how everything begun therefore God did-it. Just as the theory of evolution says nothing about how life first begun, the theory that the WTC towers were demolished (or blown up or destroyed, pick your phrase) says nothing about how this was accomplished.



Most of the Demolition Theories have multiple "squibs" going off on multiple floors of both WTC, thus implying that here were many spots on many floors with explosive charges planted. That is why you hear people talking about the how many charges there must have been.

You have switched it around to seem it is the "debunkers" themselves who brought up the amount of charges when it is a response to the CD theory in the first place. Does that clarify it for you?



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Those that are having a problem with controlled demolition have NO IDEA how big those structural steel columns were in the core of the towers. Look at the rails on a railroad track. They are babies compared to the core! 911research.wtc7.net...
Bush's brother held the security for both the twin towers and Logan Airport until the contract ran out which was.....the day of 911
Bush's other brother is Gov of Florida and after a visit from George declared martial law in Florida a days before 911
A perfect setup! Watch 911 Demolitions at Google video and see the people like Mr. Forbes that talked about having to clean up the dust layer covering his office overnight weeks before the event! Sounds of machinery on empty floors that many people heard and felt! Finally 90% of the concrete was pulverised and reduced to tiny 10-60 micron in size, "flour-like powder". STEEL RENFORCED CONCRETE! They had plenty of time to place what it took to bring them down because well because they came down didn't they! Those that are stupid stay stupid because we can use you for cover when they start shooting!



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jondular
They had plenty of time to place what it took to bring them down because well because they came down didn't they! Those that are stupid stay stupid because we can use you for cover when they start shooting!


The big question is do you believe this is a theory or the answer? Theories are great, but when they take on a reality of their own with zero physical proof I need to say “show me the money”



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
...it is safe to say the force was enough to penetrate. I also didn't see any of the fuel on the outside of the building so I'd say it all went into it...
....I’m sure compared to the plane that crashed at the Pentagon the ones that hit the towers had a massive amount of energy....


I didn't say they didn't penetrate the building, I said I doubt they damaged the central structure to the point of severing massive steel columns.

No fuel on the outside? Did you not see that big explosion? What do you think that is exactly?


www.aviewoncities.com...


But regardless fuel evaporates and burns up real quick and doesn't get hot enough to cause steel to fail to the point of global collapse, regardless of how much there is.

You're sure they had a massive amount of energy? Are you sure that the planes caused sufficient damage to the central core to cause, an hour later, a global collapse? Are you sure fire can get hot enough to cause global failure of thousand of tons of construction steel? None of this stuff has been proved, it's all conjecture, and when looked at seriously it falls apart like a cheap suit.

Are you sure about this, or do you just want to believe your government no matter what?

So now the plane that hit the pentagon weren't going as fast? Where do you get theses ideas? All these physics complications you all just blow off with comments like 'it was going 600 dude', or 'It wasn't going as fast as the pentagoon plane' or other lame excuses to avoid facing the truth.
You guys won't except any comparisons unless they don't contradict your official fairy tale, like bridges in California that 'melted', but then was mysteriously repaired with the same steel that supposedly melted...
But will any of you ever admit you were wrong?



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
All I can be bothered to say now is just look at the seismic recordings and then tell me the towers just fell.

LaBTop wrote an excellent (and as yet unchallenged) thesis. Search is your friend. He invites anyone (including NIST and LDEO) to try and debunk it. I second that motion! It can't be done.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Sorry but this is his post here.. It kinda of/on lines ATS so I guess its half ass'ed ok..

www.studyof911.com...

Everything about the seismic activity is on that link above. It goes into many posts on ATS.. I figure it would be easier looking at it here instead of searching a million threads..

Altho nobody has yet to kill this..

It is a good read..

[edit on 8/21/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

You're sure they had a massive amount of energy? Are you sure that the planes caused sufficient damage to the central core to cause, an hour later, a global collapse? Are you sure fire can get hot enough to cause global failure of thousand of tons of construction steel? None of this stuff has been proved, it's all conjecture, and when looked at seriously it falls apart like a cheap suit.



Actually I would agree with you if there was any tangible proof. The data I have is the fact that two planes hit the towers and a short time later those floors collapsed and caused a domino effect. I find the other theories intriguing, but I see nothing but theories and interpretation of video. Both of us are correct that something caused the towers to come down, but until there is other tangible proof I will stick with the airplanes.

Here is just a layman’s point of view. Long time ago I worked on jet engines and they normally run about 1000c or so in the turbine. What keeps the turbines cool is a thin coating of air that blankets the blades. These blades are carbon/titanium to be able to with stand the temps. Titanium melts a few 100c above steel, but if that coating of air stops for a few seconds the blades will melt in a heartbeat. Jet fuel ignited in a pan burns about 980c, but a jet engine can get the temps well beyond that for just normal operation and if the fan stalls, stopping the air, those temps can reach high enough to melt titanium. I fly for the Air Force and my C-130 engines run 1010c in the turbine section all day and can easily go higher if not watched. Hmmm

Now what temp does a 600 MPH air fuel bomb reach? I do not know.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
...Actually I would agree with you if there was any tangible proof. The data I have is the fact that two planes hit the towers and a short time later those floors collapsed and caused a domino effect…

...Now what temp does a 600 MPH air fuel bomb reach? I do not know.


I was a jet mech also, in the Navy, which means I got to work on ALL the systems unlike you AF guys...
(just kiddin with ya)

I also worked on C-130's, P-3's etc. in 'I' level for a couple of years.

So anyway jet fuel burn temps are easy to find if you would just take some time to do some research, instead of just assuming and making guesses that just seem to make sense.
Speed of the fuel and quantity of fuel has no relation on how hot it will burn. All fuels have a max burn temperature. It was also NOT a bomb. A bomb, as you should know being military, creates a percussion blast due to its sudden release of contained energy.
A fuel explosion doesn’t have the same percussive blast wave; it only has expanding air from the sudden heat change. A big difference.

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough in an open air fire to cause 47 massive 110 story columns to globally fail. But having said that it really doesn't matter because the fuel would have burned off really quick anyway, no proof needed of that it's a known fact about fuel.
So the fuel itself would not have had a significant effect on the big picture.

The fire turned from blowing white to blowing black smoke, which is known to be caused by an oxygen starved fire. A known fact, again no proof needed. It is also known that an oxygen starved fire will burn cool. So again no proof really needed that the fires could not have been hot enough to cause all that steel to globally fail.

In fact even the NIST report agrees with me, well fancy that...



Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140)


Not hot enough to cause steel to fail. Another easily proved fact.


I have no proof the plane didn't sever columns. But what is more logical to you? What hit the columns, the planes wing right? You know the 'flimsy' part of the plane that disappeared at the pentagon crash?

Do you really think an aluminum wing is going to slice through massive steel columns, and after slicing through the building steel facade remember?
Funny how the wings are really brittle and weak when we talk about the pentagoon, but when it comes to the towers they become steel severing blades of destruction. You don't find that funny?

Ok now let’s look at your ‘domino’ assertion; I assume you mean ‘pancake’? But that’s OK I already ate and it’s dinner time, so we can play ‘dominoes’ if you like.
Well first off I should state that even NIST doesn’t support the pancake theory anymore, so what is your support for this theory exactly? In fact it’s time for desert, so I’ll leave you with that thought…Maybe in the meantime you can explain it to me…Your move.

[edit on 22/8/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Ok now let’s look at your ‘domino’ assertion; I assume you mean ‘pancake’? But that’s OK I already ate and it’s dinner time, so we can play ‘dominoes’ if you like.
Well first off I should state that even NIST doesn’t support the pancake theory anymore, so what is your support for this theory exactly? In fact it’s time for desert, so I’ll leave you with that thought…Maybe in the meantime you can explain it to me…Your move.

[edit on 22/8/2007 by ANOK]


I do not think the aircraft severed the columns either, but I do think there was a structural design flaw could not handle a crashing aircraft at that magnitude, and that design flaw could not withstand an escalating collapse of the floors. Even the terrorists were completely surprised and delighted that it happened.

For me to believe the theory that controlled dets enhanced the collapse I need to see a squib, chemical data or some other empirical data to back it up. My main reason for this is it would also expand the who, how and why too. Who did it, and that would lead more towards our own government working with terrorist groups, How they do it, and that would lead to a very long planning and coord with those terrorist groups, and why.
With all this added complexity of the issue we would need to prove a good chunk of that too. With the Aircraft only theory the who, how, why is rather easy to see. Just show me some tangible proof other than theory and I would believe, but physical evidence is needed.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join