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]
The entire 9/11 Truth Movement is a false premise by design, page 2
privacy
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:08 PM by esdad71
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.
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 posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:08 PM by getreadyalready
reply to post by esdad71
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?
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?
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:12 PM by ancient_wisdom
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.
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 posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:13 PM by getreadyalready
reply to post by esdad71
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!
)
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 posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:13 PM by esdad71
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]
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]
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:18 PM by ancient_wisdom
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 posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:19 PM by Josephus23
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.
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 posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:20 PM by ancient_wisdom
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]
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]
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:24 PM by ancient_wisdom
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).
reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:30 PM by esdad71
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 posted on 12-3-2010 @ 06:35 PM by esdad71
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.....
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.....
WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up
Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags
Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
Breaking Alternative News: 17 hours ago, 27 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 17 hours ago, 27 flags
Fart joke leads to college student being arrested and charged
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 16 hours ago, 22 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 16 hours ago, 22 flags
As Commandos Raid Tampa, US State Dept Demands Power to Declare War?
New World Order: 9 hours ago, 12 flags
New World Order: 9 hours ago, 12 flags
Code Name** Stellar Wind. Objective** Infiltrate All. Chances For Sucess** High.
General Conspiracies: 8 hours ago, 11 flags
General Conspiracies: 8 hours ago, 11 flags
How many Vietnam Veterans does it take to screw in a Light Bulb?
General Chit Chat: 14 hours ago, 9 flags
General Chit Chat: 14 hours ago, 9 flags
TPTB Just Jumped The Shark In Syria - You Can Be Part Of The Payback
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 13 hours ago, 6 flags
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 13 hours ago, 6 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Fart joke leads to college student being arrested and charged
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 16 hours ago, 70 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 16 hours ago, 70 replies
Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'
Breaking Alternative News: 17 hours ago, 55 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 17 hours ago, 55 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.194 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.194 seconds
