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.

 

Not one word: WTC 7 and the 9/11 Commission Report

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



Well, you've presented a fallacious argument. I tried to help you see the error. But by all means feel free to carry on. Full speed ahead.



I rest my case.


Your case is wrong.

Let's repeat:

1. The 9/11 Commission was not tasked with investigating the collapses of the WTC Towers or the Pentagon attack. Those investigations were specifically tasked to FEMA, NIST, and ASCE.

2. The 9/11 Commission Report was published on July 21, 2004. Two additional monographs were published on Aug 21, 2004. The 9/11 Commission closed on Aug 21, 2004.

www.9-11commission.gov...

3. NIST's WTC 7 investigation began in Sept. 2005, 13 months after the final report of the 9/11 Commission.

wtc.nist.gov...

4. NIST's WTC Final Report was released on Nov 20, 2008, over 4 years after the final 9/11 Commission Report.

www.nist.gov...

Do you now understand why you are wrong, the ability?




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the attack was staged by shape shifting aliens as a science experiment to see how we humans would react. The attack being staged by a secret cult of Satan worshipping numerologists comes in as a close second.


Both good.

In terms of theories about what happened - rather than who did it - my favourite is a cliche, but No Planes is just so wacko it's almost perfect.

Time travellers are my personal favourite culprit.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
It is not called the 9/11 Commission, it is called the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Terrorist attacks. Those are the facts that they were interested in.

Sorry, but they did not care nor were they tasked with the findings of why WTC 7 collapsed. It was NOT their job. This was left to another non partisan agency called NIST who in cooperation with the ACSE conducted their investigation.

The job of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States or NCTAUUS was to find out the how, why and prepare reasons that national security should be changed. If anything, it shows credence to the fact that terrorists accomplished on 9/11 what they wanted to do and now years later the country is still slightly divided. I am sure that there are AQ operatives that watch forums such as these who must laugh their burkas off at the things that are posted here.

You OP is a question about why WTC 7 was not included in the report and it has been explained numerous times. I think that since many truth believers can no longer pick apart the NIST articles that they are now moving to this venue or option to show negligence.

Why is it so hard for some of you to grasp this simple concept?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

I will only reply to you this once:

and I quote:

Your case is wrong.

Well as for the guidelines for and concerning logic argument and debate, defined and established by university; The thread I supplied here is sound.

I know that in any good debate, a logical argument must be clearly defined, which of course has nothing to do with ME.

My Premises, or declarative sentences, do exaclty what a logical argument is suppose to, right here as noted:

snippet from Preface:

“facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001,”


First declarative sentence, and is either True or False. Which has been determined that this is TRUE statement from the Government.

Next declarative sentence is from Preface:

“Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate"


Second declarative sentence, and is either True or False. Which has been determined that this is TRUE statement from the Government.

In the process of deductive aurgument, asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises.

Hmm simple enough, ok let me devise a logical consequence then:

First declarative sentence:

“facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001,”


WTC 7 did Indeed collapse, and this is regarded as TRUE.

Second declarative sentence:

“Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate"


The United States Government Did indeed require investigation by Law.

Therefore Logically we can conclude:
By establishing the foundation and premise the logical conclusion is: By law the Commission report must state the All the facts regarding 9/11 which includes mention WTC 7, plus state where and when, by who these facts should, and WILL be investigated by, outlining the days events logically,in order, by law leaving nothing omitted, thereby representing the contiditions setforeth by the fourth Paragraph of the Preface!


Now this website ATS has nothing to do with me being wrong, it has to do with debate and logical argument, which I am done my best to define.

I understand why personal attacks happen, just so we are on the same page: Acting like this is my issue and placing the blame on me, isn't going to change the issue, that my argument is SOLID and FACT!

ALL
fact! Have a great day!

Ohh btw if you need direction on why your here on ATS, here is couple of great links that define what debate is, and argument, logic too!

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
Ohh btw if you need direction on why your here on ATS, here is couple of great links that define what debate is, and argument, logic too!


Logical fallacy:

"A deductive fallacy, or logical fallacy, is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a deductive fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process."

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



Awesome, you should look at the definition of what you posted thanks for helping in my argument AGAIN!


From your link!

By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority).


Definitley seen this behavior on this thread, next:

From your link again!


Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly


AWESOME seen that behavior in this thread too!



And the best one of the ALL, again thanks!

Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."



And still my argument is sound, no matter if you cannot follow!

Awesome contribution again thanks...




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
To continue the definition formal fallacy....


Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.



Awesome definition:..rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument...

ohh this is a good one too!


popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum--appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.)


Definitely seen that here....


wow what a useful page!


to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam)



And the conclusion of that page, which describes my position completely


A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren, Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction, and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in this sense.



Wow, couldn't say it better myself, yet I have been the whole thread!

great page!



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


Terrorist attacks...did you read what you wrote? They are to investigate the terror attacks.

Now, by logic, there was no terror attack on the WTC7 that day since all of you think the government did it and swear up and down that nothing from the WTC 1-2 hit it (even though pictures show different) so there is NO terrorist attack which is what they were to investigate. Do you understand that angle?

We are all here for the same thing, to deny ignorance and to educate those who are misinformed, confused or on the fence. a conspiracy is not a story but a theory and there is a big difference.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
thanks for helping in my argument AGAIN!


You are unquestionably the most confused individual I've ever seen. Using definitions of logical fallacy to commit another series of logical fallacies. Best of luck to you getting through life, sir.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
...Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument...

let see if there has been an attempt to obscure the logical argument:
[within this thread]


It's a stretch because you use the word "facts" to validate your desired requirement that it include details about the WTC7 collapse.



There is no requirement for WTC7 to be mentioned. That's why it's not there.



It does say that. Then it immediately details very specific areas which must be investigated. The collapse of WTC7 is not listed. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend



Again, that's a major stretch and a pretty lame argument.



Well, you've presented a fallacious argument. I tried to help you see the error. But by all means feel free to carry on. Full speed ahead.



This guy thinks he can shoehorn in WTC7 based on the word "facts" in the preface. He considers this a "logical debate" but refuses to discuss the obvious fallacy when presented to him. This person is clearly incapable of critical thinking skills.



Agreed. But the fact that this guy believes he has a great point and has presented a "logical debate" on such a basis still makes me question his ability to think critically and objectively. This has to be up there with some of the worst of the 911 conspiracy arguments.



You are unquestionably the most confused individual I've ever seen. Using definitions of logical fallacy to commit another series of logical fallacies. Best of luck to you getting through life, sir.


wow let me retort please!

Now to define for others

Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments...
First, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual reader or listener.



A Great Note:

One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else (supposedly) does.


Another Great example!

Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence.


And it continues!

AWESOME FOR ATS!

In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue.


GREAT!


ohh this was is good too! THe Red Harring...


Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.


Ahh this is it!

In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place.


All great examples of what fallacies are!
www.unc.edu...


wonderful!



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Sorry, sir.

You are incapable of interpreting a simple preface statement as many have pointed out. Best of luck getting through life, sir.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


well now that you know what a fallacy is lets take a look at your post. Did you read what I posted? The The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States did not need to investigate WTC 7 for 2 reasons.

One, that was not its job since there was no terror attack on the WTC. No planes hit it...no bombs by terrorists but thermite by the US soooo....where is the terror attack they should be investigating.

Two, There was another agency that was assigned to investigate it. NIST. This IS its job. It has been used historically during disasters to find the reason why.

Therefore, no matter what your argument may be, it does not apply based on these simple facts.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



Sorry, sir.
You are incapable of interpreting a simple preface statement as many have pointed out. Best of luck getting through life, sir.



...Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument...


Again we see your pattern!

Thanks again for showing us what fallcious arguments are!





posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


This is all a long way from the commission report.

Now, as the collapse of WTC 7 had it's own special NIST report I do not really see what your complaint is.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
By establishing the foundation and premise the logical conclusion is: By law the Commission report must state the All the facts regarding 9/11 which includes mention WTC 7, plus state where and when, by who these facts should, and WILL be investigated by, outlining the days events logically,in order, by law leaving nothing omitted, thereby representing the contiditions setforeth by the fourth Paragraph of the Preface!


Let's just say for argument's sake that you're right and leaving the WTC 7 collapse out of the commission report really was an inexcusable oversight. You still didn't answer the question: so what?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
Again we see your pattern!


We see yours too.

Reading comprehension.

Good luck, sir.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by jthomas
 

I will only reply to you this once:

and I quote:

Your case is wrong.

Well as for the guidelines for and concerning logic argument and debate, defined and established by university; The thread I supplied here is sound.


The topic of this thread is: "WTC 7 and the 9/11 Commission Report".


I know that in any good debate, a logical argument must be clearly defined, which of course has nothing to do with ME.


It has to do with your claims, to wit: "Now they speak of law, yet what does the report state regarding the WTC 7 issue? NOT ONE WORD!...This is a serious issue, not only does the Report omit this, but in Preface says the law that they must include this issue in the report and they don't! Thus making this report, biased and unworthy of being FACTUAL"


Now this website ATS has nothing to do with me being wrong, it has to do with debate and logical argument, which I am done my best to define.


The topic of this thread is: "WTC 7 and the 9/11 Commission Report". You made a factually inaccurate claim. We showed you why and how you were wrong and now you should be all the wiser.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


I think I may be able to give you another example of why you´re wrong.

Let´s say a man was driving in his car when he saw one of the planes crash into one tower, he has a heart attack, crashes his car and dies.

What you´re saying is that the 9/11 commission would have to investigate the car crash of this man, as part of the terrorist attack.

The event is not part of the attack itself. It´s a circumstantial death. While still related somehow because the man would probably not have died if the attack hadn´t taken place, it doesn´t need to be investigated by the commission.
Other offices shall investigate the man´s death, like the police, the coroner, etc. Just as it happened with WTC 7.
My 2 cts.




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


"For most people, the understanding that massive mounts of wreckage from the north tower falling all over the place instigated the collapse of WTC 7 is sufficient. I don't know the exact physical progression of the sinking of the Titanic either but that doesn't mean it wasn't sunk by an iceberg."

Bravo. That paragraph cuts right through the years of obsessive pettifogging over Building 7.

It's inconceivable that the conspirators would gratuitously collapse this structure, with the whole world watching, and not have at least some vague cover story in place. They're not idiots. They will obviously know ahead of time that it might resemble a controlled demolition. This will have been discussed.

So what was their plan? According to the conspiracy theorists, they didn't have one. Their modus operandi was, - let's just bring it down. This sloppiness from those as powerful, ruthless, audacious & intelligent as any hypothetical conspirators, is bizarre.



posted on Dec, 7 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I always thought the Shanksville plane was supposed to be the one that hit tower 7. But, something went wrong and it was pulled.



new topics




 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join