The entire 9/11 Truth Movement is a false premise by design, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 12-3-2010 @ 05:03 PM by esdad71

The Truthers argument is a false premise by design. Lets look at what false premise is.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error.

Truthers think that since it looks like a demo it was a demo. The syllogism would be defined as the argument that they are making..does it make sense? Let's see.

Major Premise - All buildings can collapse into themselves
Minor Premise - Buildings that are demo'd collapse into themselves
Conclusion - All buildings that collapse into themselves are demolitions

Now, is this true? Based on a truthers train of thought. This is an example of a syllogistic mistake. It is failed logic.

You see, a building can 'look' like a demolition but not be a demolition. Please take a look at the following video and maybe a visual interpretation will be better for you. I did not find it until after I wanted to post this but it fits. There are actually quite a few videos and quite informative.

Link to video -

VIDEO OF FAILED LOGIC
Another
Another

and this one is for Mr. BSbray personally....
free fall what?????

These videos actually also contain some video you have NEVER seen before because the truth movement does not want you to see it.

So, as you can see, the entire non-OS arguement, as I said, is a false premise that is laced with failed logic. Let my beating begin.....

[edit on 12-3-2010 by esdad71]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:06 PM by ExPostFacto

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:07 PM by kiwifoot

And it's possible 911 could just LOOK like a terrorist attack, but actually it wasn't!!

There are two sides to every coin my friend.

History is littered with examples of events that LOOKED like simple open and shut cases, but in fact were not!

Also you discount the ENTIRE truther argument because of THAT! how can you post supporting the OS using a logic based argument, then go on to do exactly what you complain about.....

[edit on 12-3-2010 by kiwifoot]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:10 PM by esdad71

reply to post by kiwifoot

Which is why I am making sure that people have the ability to see both sides. I tranny looks like a chick but has a package also...not all is what is seems.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by esdad71]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:14 PM by esdad71

reply to post by ExPostFacto

Major Premise - Questions held by the public went unanswered by the 9/11 commission
Minor Premise - 9/11 Commission members admit they did not receive the truth even barred from the truth
Conclusion - The OS is not truthful

No, you are making a list and coming to a conclusion. Sorry, this is the problem. You are stating that

MP - All public questions went unanswered
MP - 9/11 members state they did not get the truth
Conclusion - All public questions were unanswered and there was no truth provided to the commission

This is simply, like others. failed.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:18 PM by ExPostFacto

reply to post by esdad71

lol you really lack the ability to critically analyze something in the real world. I guess you can go back and follow the prescribed method outlined in your textbook to critically analyze an issue. And by the way, your whole OP is nothing but a troll thread.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:19 PM by esdad71

reply to post by kiwifoot

There are actually 3 sides to every story, yours, mine and the truth. I am not trying to call truthers crazy, idiots, retards, shut-ins...etc...I am simply trying to point out that their logic is flawed.

Once you get past the premise and it is out in the open, ALL of them will state that they do not really know what happened and want a new investigation. There is nothing that is not already out that there needs to be researched. This is NOT 1963. There was one film of JFK's death. It was a time when people could be bought and shut up and it was for the greater good. There was no MSM, internet, you tube, etc....

All the evidence that is needed is at the tip of your fingers if you just look. Hell, I am still waiting on a response from Steve Jones to independently test his red dust...nothing so far. You have to ask and try to find the answer as it will never fall into your lap.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:21 PM by esdad71

reply to post by ExPostFacto

Again, there is no content to what you have written. Can you try to tell me that the logic I have stated is incorrect? This is why I put this out here.

I guess you are right about it being a troll hunt thought since you showed up for your drive by.

THANKS!!!!!

[edit on 12-3-2010 by esdad71]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:22 PM by ExPostFacto

reply to post by esdad71

How about you provide an example using the logic method you just proposed of how the OS is true, or why truthers are wrong?

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:25 PM by esdad71

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by esdad71

How about you provide an example using the logic method you just proposed of how the OS is true, or why truthers are wrong?

I just showed how it is wrong. Lets try one thought to make you happy.

MP - All demo'd buildings leave residue, blasting caps, wire or at least a wireless transmitter
MP - The WTC 1,2 and 7 were demo'd
Conclusion - since there is no physical evidence of demolition the WTC 1,2 and 7 were not demo'd.

Satisfied.....

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:29 PM by ExPostFacto

reply to post by esdad71

Oh you are really missing the point. I see what you are saying, but you are supporting a status quo methodology of supporting the system. How do you know there was no blasting caps or explosives? Because you believe with all your heart that the OS is true. Understandable. However, it is on record that they didn't look for these items so your logic is flawed using your own method. Saying something wasn't found does not mean it didn't exist, if nobody looked for it.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:32 PM by esdad71

reply to post by ExPostFacto

or we could try this one

MP - Terrorists hijacked UA175 and AA11 on 9/11
MP - 2 planes were flown into the WTC
Conclusion - Terrorists flew UA175 and AA11 into the WTC

This gets rid of the holograms and the missile theories...any more?

Who said that NO ONE looked for explosives on 9/11?

Also, the FBI appointed more than half of its agents to PENTTBOM after 9/11 for the investigation. They looked for secondary explosives and were also looking for items that may have been on the plane at the time.

www.fbi.gov...

I am also not supporting the system as I think 93/587 are linked. My issues is that I think the entire movement is to keep those who can investigate away from Flight 93.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by esdad71]

[edit on 12-3-2010 by esdad71]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:44 PM by getreadyalready

reply to post by esdad71

That is not the only two premises of that argument, nor the only argument for that case.

How about:
MP: Diesel Fuel has never been used in a building Demolition.
MP: Steel will not molt at ideal Diesel fire temperature maximums.
MP: This Diesel fire was severely damped and not at ideal temperature max.
Therefore: A Diesel Fuel fire could not have caused a building Demolition.

or

MP: Millions of Tonnes of debris began an uneven freefall.
MP: The falling section was not torqued in any of 3 axes by the existing building.
Therefore: The existing building did not provide any resistance or counteractive force to the freefalling section.
Therefore: The existing building could not have been intact and rigid at the time of the fall.

or

Assuming the Official Story is correct

MP: Diesel fuel incinerated an entire large aircraft and melted steel support beams.
MP: Box Cutters and identifying passports were found on the ground and among the rubble.
Therefore: Box Cutters were used by terrorists that were kind enough to carry passports with their actual pictures and identitites onto a plane and hijack it with nothing more than box cutters, and those cheap pot metal box cutters and paper passports survived the incineration of an entire aircraft and a thousand foot fall among billions of tons of rubble and were subsequently found on the ground even though hardened and crash engineered black boxes with homing beacons could not be found?

Which conclusion seems the most far-fetched?

[edit on 12-3-2010 by getreadyalready]

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:52 PM by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by esdad71
Truthers think that since it looks like a demo it was a demo.

This is blatant mis/disinformation and violates #1 of ATS's T&C which states:

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

We don't go around saying the WTC was demo'd just because it "looks like it". That is blatantly false, misleading, and inaccurate on your part and you know it.

You show me a video of a fire-induced collapse that has the following characteristics and I'll stop claiming the WTC was demo'd:

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.

2.) Concentrated ejections of dust/debris that have only ever been associated with controlled demolitions:

3.) Controlled demolition companies don't use fire to sever all support columns simultaneously like was seen at WTC7. CD companies use explosives because fire cannot accomplish what was seen at WTC7 like we were led to believe:

If you cannot provide any evidence of fire-induced collapses showing the above characteristics, then YOU are the one with the flawed logic. I guarantee that you cannot find videos of the above characteristics without it being a controlled demolition, period.

Furthermore, typing text onto your screen doesn't make the facts of 9/11 go away. You either have to show proof, or concede. And since I know you cannot show proof that the above characteristics are seen anywhere else BUT controlled demolitions, you must concede.

Either way, your thread is reported for violation of #1 of ATS's T&C.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:57 PM by ancient_wisdom

statement: the entire 9/11 truth movement is a false premise
reason: because even though the building looks like a controlled demolition, it isn't
unstated assumption: if you can criticize one iota of the 9/11 truth movement, the entire premise must be flawed.

Not only is this flawed, but your reasoning doesn't even make sense. It looks like a controlled demolition because it was a controlled demolition. Try to use your 'false premise by design' theory to explain away the first explosion you hear in this video: www.youtube.com...

there it is, actual audio evidence of an explosion. You don't need logic, all you need are ears and a mind that is not closed tight.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 05:59 PM by esdad71

reply to post by _BoneZ_

This should not be on ATSNN? Is that because, in very simple terms, it shows that the anti-OS movement is incorrect and you don't want it here. I read posts about aliens and werewolves that by your view would not be allowed.

You bring the SAME old argument. The same.

I am using a proven scientific method that has been around since Aristotle.

Lets address one of your questions

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

That is not a conclusion as you are not proving anything. You are stating a case to research and are no where complete. Now, if you did something like.

MP - Cutting charges were found in the rubble of the WTC
MP - Cutting charges are used in demo's
Conclusion - The WTC must have been bought down by demolition.

This is if you HAD proof which no one can provide. And when it comes down to that, you all cry and say you want a new investigation. It is an obvious road with you guys.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:01 PM by dereks

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
This is blatant mis/disinformation and violates #1 of ATS's T&C which states:

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

You are the one trying to post disinformation here once again, you ignore the fact that 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, and air is simply blowing dust and windows out....

We don't go around saying the WTC was demo'd just because it "looks like it". That is blatantly false, misleading, and inaccurate on your part and you know it.

It is exactly what you are saying, as you have zero proof for any explosives or super nano thermite being used.

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.

Please show the names and sources for that claim

Concentrated ejections of dust/debris that have only ever been associated with controlled demolitions

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

You either have to show proof, or concede.

And as you have shown zero proof that means that you concede that no explosives were used!!

Either way, your thread is reported for violation of #1 of ATS's T&C.

You cannot handle the truth so you have a whine about it!

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:02 PM by _BoneZ_

reply to post by esdad71

You keep BS'ing around the bush. Either show proof that the characteristics I've shown above are common in fire-induced collapses, or concede. That is all you have to do.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:03 PM by esdad71

Originally posted by ancient_wisdom
statement: the entire 9/11 truth movement is a false premise
reason: because even though the building looks like a controlled demolition, it isn't
unstated assumption: if you can criticize one iota of the 9/11 truth movement, the entire premise must be flawed.

Not only is this flawed, but your reasoning doesn't even make sense. It looks like a controlled demolition because it was a controlled demolition. Try to use your 'false premise by design' theory to explain away the first explosion you hear in this video: www.youtube.com...

there it is, actual audio evidence of an explosion. You don't need logic, all you need are ears and a mind that is not closed tight.

This, again, is a prime example. What is wrong with you people? It looks like it so it must be...it does not work like that.

As far as the video, it was an explosion AFTER the collapse and would have no bearing. Sounded like a transformer to me of which there were many that day to be damaged or destroyed.

reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:04 PM by ancient_wisdom

reply to post by dereks

your ignorance is excusable if you have never heard of the paper written which proves nano thermite was found int the WTC dust, however I know that you are aware of this, so you are just simply a liar.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^