911 Truth Movement

[Harry]

There are 103 pages of answers. There's a report too, and those who oppose its findings have had ample time release a report of their own arguing their case. So far they've chosen instead to self-publish self-referential websites in a masterpiece of circular engineering. I'm done answering questions, the answers are in these pages. A final summary; A building that was hit with the falling debris at full gravitational acceleration from two 110 storey towers and suffered the requisite damage and the induced fires from this maelstrom that was then left to burn and continue to degrade over the next 7 hours finally gave way.

If you think buildings should be able to cope with insults they suffered that day then don't complain when commercial leases skyrocket as titanium frames and carbon nanotubes are made compulsory in the building codes.

again, you didn't answer the question

 

[Disco08]

I know Disco, but there are experts who hold different views. I don't discount them completely I just don't think they hold the only views possible. And I can't help but be cynical about any website with 911 in the URL. I am cynic and a sceptic. I have conceded multiple times that the OR isn't definitive either but as the evidence is gone I can't see how it can be improved upon.

That's the same point you just said you mispoke about. What evidence is gone now that was available 5 years ago?

The NIST reports fail the scientific method even though they purport to be scientific studies. Just investigating the collapses properly would be an massive improvement.

The 9/11 commission was a complete joke. Any independent review of the events would again be a massive improvement.

Heaps of legitimate sites have 911 in their URL. The fact you're cynical of them before you even read their content shows your bias.

 

[Disco08]

I wouldn;t go so far as to accuse him of being morally bankrupt but there is little doubt that appeals to ethical superiorty in debate are nearly always a sign that they are struggling.

Now you're just taking the pi##. You say you're not appealing to emotions then appeal to emotion in the very next sentence.

How is it an appeal to emotion? It's not a logical fallacy to suggest victims of any tragic crime deserves a proper investigation.

There are plenty of classic signs of people struggling with the debate but it's not me saying the victims of 9/11 deserve a proper investigation.

 

[Disco08]

Sorry you feel that way, but its been a while now and thats the pattern I see in your responses. The way I see it, your perception is out of whack, but thats only the way I see it. You position yourself as taking a 'scientific approach' but from where I sit its anything but ('second law of thermodynamics'), you take the high moral ground ('families deserve better...') when your opponents don't but easily could argue it, and as I said in the post this is responding to, you get pinned down on something, then you change the subject or go on a strange tangent or ask a strange question ('you're the one saying it was a big conspiracy to blow up the towers').

So you disagree that I've answered every question put to me? I'll bet you whatever you lie that you can't find any example of me changing the subject when challenged.

What's wrong with the point made about pancae collapses, freefall and TSLoTD?

I'm not taing the high moral ground. Victims deserve a proper investigation. If that's wrong tell me why they don't.

You guys have asserted many times that complicity requires a massive and complex conspiracy.

As someone posted earlier, peer review. You replied that its all too complicated for peer review or something, but it isn't. If someone was able to argue, prove and publish in a peer reviewed journal, a historical or political journal, any one of the many individual 'facts' the truthers bandy about, for example, 'plane had no windows', 'mass spectrometer detects explosives in removed dirt', etc etc. any single tiny 'fact', they would be world famous. Speaking curcuit, new stories everywhere. Hasn't happened, won't happen.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles.html

I admit I was wrong about there not being enough access to evidence to create articles for peer review.

 

[Disco08]

There are 103 pages of answers. There's a report too, and those who oppose its findings have had ample time release a report of their own arguing their case. So far they've chosen instead to self-publish self-referential websites in a masterpiece of circular engineering. I'm done answering questions, the answers are in these pages. A final summary; A building that was hit with the falling debris at full gravitational acceleration from two 110 storey towers and suffered the requisite damage and the induced fires from this maelstrom that was then left to burn and continue to degrade over the next 7 hours finally gave way.

If you think buildings should be able to cope with insults they suffered that day then don't complain when commercial leases skyrocket as titanium frames and carbon nanotubes are made compulsory in the building codes.

Most very tall high rises are designed to withstand plane impact and all are designed to withstand serious fires.

You're ignoring eyewitness report of explosions and damage inside WTC7 before and after the collapses too. Did you see the state of WTC6? Don't you think it's odd that it escaped relatively well when it was much closer and WTC7 was shielded by it and WTC5?

 

[Disco08]

That's the same point you just said you mispoke about. What evidence is gone now that was available 5 years ago?

Sorry KR I get your point now.

If there was enough evidence for NIST to publish detailed but flawed reports there's enough evidence to run a proper scientific investigation.

 

[evo]

How is it an appeal to emotion? It's not a logical fallacy to suggest victims of any tragic crime deserves a proper investigation.

It's not so much a logical fallacy as it is a rhetorical device that I've noticed over the years squabbling on the internetz.

you just did it again by the way with the emotive word 'tragic'. The implication in the context of this debate is we don't see(or care) how tragic it all is, only troofers do.

 

[Disco08]

Then it's not actually an apeal to emotion.

Do you think the victims of 9/11 deserved a proper inquiry?

 

[evo]

I've answered that anumber of times as has just about everyone else in the thread.. After a 100 pages it's really getting tiresome.

Here's a question for you: does it not seem a little odd to you that probably the only other large debate PRE has seen over the years that required a fair amount of clear thinking and emperical research, the creationist v' evolutionist debate, in one you were on the same side as normally reasonable posters such as Pantera, antman, tigersnake, me etc but in this one you in direct opposition?

Does this not ring any alarms bells?

 

[poppa x]

Alarm bells wake you up.
Disco and Harry I suspect are still asleep.

 

[Disco08]

Feel free to actually try and make an intelligent point every now and then poppa.

I've answered that anumber of times as has just about everyone else in the thread.. After a 100 pages it's really getting tiresome.

Really? I honestly don't recall this line of discussion earlier in the thread.

Here's a question for you: does it not seem a little odd to you that probably the only other large debate PRE has seen over the years that required a fair amount of clear thinking and emperical research, the creationist v' evolutionist debate, in one you were on the same side as normally reasonable posters such as Pantera, antman, tigersnake, me etc but in this one you in direct opposition?

Does this not ring any alarms bells?

Not at all. I'd rather try and form my opinion by learning as much as can and trying to be objective. Jumping on the smart people bandwagon doesn't appeal to me at all.

Pantera's unstoppable when he's got the upper hand. Just railroads his oppenents. In this debate he's hardly made a point or objection except to pass judgment on my method of debate.

If I'm perfectly honest I've always had as much repect for Azza as anyone here. Terribly considered and respectful poster. Between he, Harry and I it's not as lopsided as you seem to think it is. The same is true in the real world. There's a lot of respected and intelligent people in the truth movement.

 

[evo]

Pantera's unstoppable when he's got the upper hand. Just railroads his oppenents. In this debate he's hardly made a point or objection except to pass judgment on my method of debate.

You may be right. But I suspect he is just shaking his head in dismay.

He's more polite than me.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Most very tall high rises are designed to withstand plane impact and all are designed to withstand serious fires.

You're ignoring eyewitness report of explosions and damage inside WTC7 before and after the collapses too. Did you see the state of WTC6? Don't you think it's odd that it escaped relatively well when it was much closer and WTC7 was shielded by it and WTC5?

A couple of points. Firstly you can't know if your design really is "resistant" to attack by jetliner until someone is crazy enough to put it to the test. In the only ever live test it failed. Secondly no it isn't odd. In just the same way that a twister doesn't really miss this house and miss that house and chose your house.

On WTC 7 it is not agreed upon that there was damage before the towers came down. There is much contention over the timeline some of which is a result of deliberate misrepresentation of Hess and Jennings statements and recollections into a flawed timeline.

 

[Disco08]

you just did it again by the way with the emotive word 'tragic'. The implication in the context of this debate is we don't see(or care) how tragic it all is, only troofers do.

What was unreasonable about the use in that context? Not all crimes require investigation but all that result in tragic outcomes certainly do. I didn't even use it to describe 9/11.

Saying I'm implying you guys don't see or care how tragic 9/11 was is absolutely wrong. My assumption is that every person with any level of intellgence, morality or compassion nows exactly how tragic 9/11 was. I'm amazed you could think otherwise.

 

[jb03]

I've answered that anumber of times as has just about everyone else in the thread.. After a 100 pages it's really getting tiresome.

Here's a question for you: does it not seem a little odd to you that probably the only other large debate PRE has seen over the years that required a fair amount of clear thinking and emperical research, the creationist v' evolutionist debate, in one you were on the same side as normally reasonable posters such as Pantera, antman, tigersnake, me etc but in this one you in direct opposition?

Does this not ring any alarms bells?

Shattered.

 

[evo]

My assumption is that every person with any level of intellgence, morality or compassion nows exactly how tragic 9/11 was.

BUt we're the side that don't want to do anything about this TRAGIC event, right? Hence the 'bad' guys. Otherwise why would you continually always reference how tragic it was? If, as you say ,we all realise how tragic it was, what is the relevence that requires you to keep mentioning it?.

I'm amazed you could think otherwise.

passive-aggressive is also another rhetorical device I've noted over the years

 

[evo]

Shattered.

;D Sorry...... and jimbob

 

[Disco08]

A couple of points. Firstly you can't know if your design really is "resistant" to attack by jetliner until someone is crazy enough to put it to the test. In the only ever live test it failed. Secondly no it isn't odd. In just the same way that a twister doesn't really miss this house and miss that house and chose your house.

On WTC 7 it is not agreed upon that there was damage before the towers came down. There is much contention over the timeline some of which is a result of deliberate misrepresentation of Hess and Jennings statements and recollections into a flawed timeline.

Hess and Jennings both testify to hearing explosions and that there was significant damage inside WTC7 before the first collapse. Either way tower 2 collapsed first anyway. Other eyewitnesses also report explosions coming from within.
[youtube=560,315]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKtU01qcZBM[/youtube]

Here's a bit more eyewitness testimony of explosions n/under the twin towers.

http://911proof.com/11.html

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm

 

[Disco08]

BUt we're the side that don't want to do anything about this TRAGIC event, right? Hence the 'bad' guys. Otherwise why would you continually always reference how tragic it was? If, as you say ,we all realise how tragic it was, what is the relevence that requires you to keep mentioning it?.

passive-aggressive is also another rhetorical device I've noted over the years

How often have used I "tragic" in this thread before today when I wasn't even describing the events of 9/11? Not often at all I'd say.

There was nothing aggresive about that point. Maybe "surprised" is a better word than "amazed" but honestly I would never have thought you'd believe I'd imply such nonsense.

You may be right. But I suspect he is just shaking his head in dismay.

Is this a decent example though?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Hess and Jennings both testify to hearing explosions and that there was significant damage inside WTC7 before the first collapse. Either way tower 2 collapsed first anyway. Other eyewitnesses also report explosions coming from within.
[youtube=560,315]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKtU01qcZBM[/youtube]

Here's a bit more eyewitness testimony of explosions n/under the twin towers.

http://911proof.com/11.html

Seriously? More 911 URL s? Yet again nothing either one said supports the idea that there was damage before the towers came down. Where do you get that from? Yet again two 110 storey tower blocks have been attacked and are collapsing or have collapsed, your video doesn't clear this up, and you think what? You shouldn't hear concatenations? On what planet? Logic has now well and truly left the building. I think Knighter should follow.