The 100% Solution

[whatchamacallit]

I've noticed a rather transparent and silly debating technique being employed by some of the OCTists. It goes like this:

Step one - create a false dichotomy by erroneously framing something as all or nothing: "If the debris of the building didn't fall precisely within the boundaries of it's perimeter, it didn't fall into it's own footprint" or "If all the concrete wasn't turned into dust, none of it was"...

Step two - provide some evidence that the impossible proposition you've created is untrue. Not too difficult considering practically nothing in life achieves the criteria.

Step three - Shout "Gotcha!" and cross another troubling 911 issue off the list as "debunked".

That's all there is to it. Look for it coming to a thread near you.

[SDuderstadt]

1. Your first example is NOT a false dichotomy!

Do you know what the term means or are you just throwing it around? I hardly think that spewing debris for hundreds of feet away is quibbling about precision. I didn't make it an either-or argument at all. In the instance at hand, the debris is strewn all over the place and I think you're trying to insert some semantical nonsense in here as if I made it a precise criteria. The fact is, the claim that the towers fell within their own foorprints (howver you want to measure that) is easily disproven by looking at nearly any collapse or post collapse picture.

In the meantime, I would strongly suggest that you google a study called "Unskilled and Unaware of it". Most illogical people lack the cognitive skills to notice that they aren't logical and, consequently, go through life believing that they are when they aren't. Some of them have even learned how to interject logic phrases into their claims.

[whatchamacallit]

3. Like this one?

"In the meantime, I would strongly suggest that you google a study called "Unskilled and Unaware of it". Most illogical people lack the cognitive skills to notice that they aren't logical and, consequently, go through life believing that they are when they aren't. Some of them have even learned how to interject logic phrases into their claims."

[JuniperLea]

5. That one is brilliant...

It insults too, covering yet more bad debate territory!

[SDuderstadt]

6. That isn't a false dichotomy either.....

I'd strongly suggest you read the study.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Did it help you SDude?

Wow man, you must really think you're "the shit". It takes a whole lotta self-love to presume you're someone's intellectual superior. Whatever gets you through the night, genius.

[JuniperLea]

8. Just so you know...

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt. – Bertrand Russell

[whatchamacallit]

9. Thanks, great quote

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

26. Well, thaqnks for being cocksure....

nonetheless.

[SDuderstadt]

24. I've studied Logic formally and....

I presented no false dichotomy. If you can't see that, I can't help you. As I said before, when one looks at photos of the collapse and sees debris raining down 100's of feet outsode the towers footprint and damaging adjacent buildings, how someone can call that tower "collapsing within its own footprint" or anything remotely close is beyond me.

[JackRiddler]

57. Yes! You're almost there. I'm pleased with your progress.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

4. And if you somehow get past that list...

All of a sudden you are bombarded with personal insults.

[LARED]

10. You really have this backwards

cross another troubling 911 issue off the list as "debunked".

There are few troubling issues surrounding the collapse of the WTC's. The trouble is with the CT'ers ability to provide a coherent, rational theory regarding LIHOP, MIHOP demolition theory.

[reinvestigate911]

11. an investigation with subpoena power is needed to collect enough data to postulate such a theory

at this time, there's sufficient evidence to support the need for a new investigation.
reasonable people agree on this point, when exposed to the evidence.

it is dishonest to argue this point when you consider the multitude of unanswered questions put forth by the victims family members, or when you look at the evidence compiled which points at government complicity.

if you deny the evidence, then at worst you support the coverup of a heinous, disturbing crime... and at best you're neglecting an opportunity for us to improve our foreign and domestic policies, and our understanding of the factors contributing to the event in all of its dimensions; whether political, scientific, economic, etc.

so why are you so opposed to finding out what really happened on 9/11?
moreover, what would it mean if what the truth movement suggests is in fact real? could you cope with it?

i hope you answer honestly.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. So how could whatchamacallit claim that CD was the most unified theory explaining all the data

if you now claim there's not enough data to make a unified theory?

Less backslapping and more comparing of notes.

[whatchamacallit]

19. There's not enough data

that hasn't been manipulated, corrupted, or disappeared, to overcome the sanctioned orthodoxy. We need a new investigation under this new, and hopefully less criminal, administration. We need access to information withheld and experiments to be conducted. Otherwise all we have is the word of a gang of war criminals and the speculation of their supporters.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Oh, so every bit of evidence that doesn't support CD is automatically "manipulated"

Thus it doesn't count, and thus CD is the most unified theory.

You are letting your hypothesis determine what evidence you will look at, and not letting the evidence determine the truth or falsity of your hypothesis. That is the very definition of unfalsifiabity. It is grossly unscientific.

[whatchamacallit]

28. It should all be looked at and evaluated

and in the light of any new revelations, reevaluated.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Give an example of "manipulated data." how it was manipulated, who did it, what it really is

I dare ya

[mrgerbik]

64. name some that arent

... perception is king isnt it? its time we wake up imo.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. It shouldn't be that difficult to provide the examples I asked for

Please stop silly games and do so.

[mrgerbik]

66. im serious

produce unquestionable evidence of any data is the bona-fide `i gaaauruntee` absolute truth - anything..

Im not stating that all OCT evidence is manipulated, but just giving us something that is tangible and 100% provable would be neato.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Answer my question first. Jesus Christ, stop playing stupid games. n/t

[mrgerbik]

68. jesus christ, you never asked me nt

[Bolo Boffin]

69. God DAMN. You responded to the

GODDAMN QUESTION I ASKED when you piped up. So answer it!

[mrgerbik]

70. well really bolo i quipped in with a question

not an answer. maybe i shouldnt butt in like that...

if you want my take... i would say the 9/11 whitewa... err.. investigation is a good place to start.

good enuf?

[Bolo Boffin]

71. Exactly. You "quipped in". Silly games.

And no, saying "the 9/11 investigation" is not good enough. Which one? And how exactly was the data manipulated, who did it, and what was the data originally? All components of the original question. You "quip in" and then you provide the vaguest of answers to a question asking for specifics. SILLY GAMES.

[mrgerbik]

73. your turn now nt

[Bolo Boffin]

74. No, it is not. You haven't answered the question at all, as I showed.

Now go away or stop these stupid games.

[mrgerbik]

75. give a stab at mine pls

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Hell, no. Gameplayers get nothing from me. n/t

[mrgerbik]

78. well i guess we both cant answer the question

does that mean we will never ask it again?

[SDuderstadt]

72. Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy known as....

"trying to shift the burden of proof". If you're challenged to provide proof of evidence that has been manipulated, it isn't responsive to counter with, "well, find some that isn't". It's YOUR claim (or whoever's), thus it's YOUR burden of proof. Surely, if so much of the evidence is manipulated, it should not be hard to find one concrete example of it.

[mrgerbik]

76. SD you blowhard

did you remember the story in 1990 about the Iraqi babies being left to die on the floor by the Iraqi soldiers? (I personally dont remember that story for some reason, then again I was only 14). Did you believe it at the time?
If we had this argument then, armed with your 'hard evidence' (what you read and saw on tv) and then made bold statements to dare anyone to show any wrongdoing - most people wouldn't be able to - even if suspicion amongst people of wrongdoing was extremely high. Your rosy little fucking happy world would continue to bounce along.

I just so happened to occur later that the the real story behind the news about the baby killers was totally fabricated. What does it say about our condition when almost everyone you know believes in a propagated lie with such conviction? That's the point im trying to make... perception management is necessary in times like these...

[SDuderstadt]

82. Which is why you look to evidence and fact-checking....duh

I made a simple observation. If the CT's are going to claim that all or most of the evidence is "manipulated", it stands to reason they could produce at least one concrete evidence of it. It's THEIR claim. It reminds me of born-agains I have dealt with who chide me for being an atheist. When I ask them to prove that God exists, their retort is, of course, "Prove he doesn't exist". Again, that's called "shifting the4 burden of proof" and, even dumber, challenging me to prove a negative.


BTW, I never believed the Iraqi baby story, as I basically didn't trust the Bush administration. The reason that I'm a debunker, however, is because on does not need to rely on the Buah administration for evidence of what happened on 9/11. For example, if WTC's 1 & 2 were victims of controlled demolition, then the "9/11 truth movement" needs to explain why NO ONE found ANY evidence of explosives in the rubble...no det cord, no detonators, no traces of explosive materials, no seismographic detection of CD...nada.

[LARED]

34. I support an investigation into

Bush using 9/11 to further a war agenda.

The intelligence failures that allowed 9/11 to happen.

There is actual evidence a more complete investigation is warranted regarding these issues.

A criminal investigation into the collapse of the towers is a complete and utter waste of time; and an investigation into the US government plotting and implementing the 9/11 attacks is a complete and utter water of time.

....and it remain so until someone provides real and material evidence contrary to what is known.

[whatchamacallit]

35. Kinda hard to provide real and material evidence contrary to what is known without an investigation

don't ya think?

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Out of all the many investigations into 9/11, you can't shake loose any evidence?

Really?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi

A partial list:

ACE Bermuda Insurance / AEMC Construction / AIG Insurance / Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington / Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue / Allianz Global Risks / American Airlines / American Concrete Institute / American Institute of Steel Construction / American Red Cross / Applied Biosystems Inc. / Applied Research Associates / Arlington County Emergency Medical Services / Arlington County Fire Department / Arlington County Sheriff's Department / Arlington VA Police Department / Armed Forces Institute of Pathology / Armed Forces Institute of Technology Federal Advisory Committee / ARUP USA / Atlantic Heydt Inc. / Bechtel / Berlin Fire Department / Big Apple Wrecking / Blanford & Co. / Bode Technology Group / Bovis Inc. / Building and Construction Trades Council / Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms / C-130H crew in D.C. & Shanksville / Cal Berkeley Engineering Dept. / California Incident Management Team / Carter Burgess Engineering / Celera Genomics / Centers for Disease Control / Central City Fire Department / Central Intelligence Agency / Cleveland Airport control tower / Columbia University Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics / Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee / Consolidated Edison Company / Construction Technologies Laboratory / Controlled Demolitions Inc. / Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Counterterrorism and Security Group / CTL Engineering / D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Inc. / DeSimone Consulting Engineers / Dewhurst MacFarlane &Partners / DiSalvo Ericson Engineering / District of Columbia Fire & Rescue / DOD Honor Guard, Pentagon / D'Onofrio Construction / E-4B National Airborne Operations Center crews / Edwards and Kelcey Engineering / Engineering Systems, Inc. / Environmental protection Agency / Exponent Failure Analysis Associates / EYP Mission CriticalFacilities / Fairfax County Fire & Rescue / Falcon 20 crew in PA / Family members who received calls from victims on the planes / FBI Evidence Recovery Teams / Federal Aviation Administration / Federal Bureau of Investigation / Federal Emergency Management Agency / Federal Insurance Co. / FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams: Arizona Task Force 1, California Task Force 1, California Task Force 3, California Task Force 7, Colorado Task Force 1, Fairfax Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 2, Maryland Task Force 1, Massachusetts Task Force 1, Metro Dade/Miami, Nebraska Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, New York Task Force 1, Pennsylvania Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Texas Task Force 1, Utah Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, Washington Task Force 1 / FEMA Disaster Field Office / FEMA Emergency Response Team / FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Incident Support Team-Advanced 3 / Fire Department of New York / Fort Myer Fire Department / French Urban Search & Rescue Task Force / Friedens Volunteer Fire Department / Gateway Demolition / Gene Code Forensics / Georgia Tech Engineering Dept. / Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP / GMAC Financing / Goldstein Associates Consulting Engineers / Guy Nordenson Associates / HAKS Engineers / Hampton-Clarke Inc. / HHS National Medical Response Team / HLW International Engineering / Hooversville Rescue Squad. / Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department / Hoy Structural Services / Hughes Associates, Inc / Hugo Neu Schnitzer East / hundreds of ironworkers, some of whom built the WTC / Hundreds of New York City Police Department Detectives / Industrial Risk Insurers / Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems / International Association of Fire Chiefs / International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 14 & 15 / J.R. Harris & Company / Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority / Karl Koch Steel Consulting Inc. / KCE Structural Engineers / Koch Skanska / Koutsoubis, Alonso Associates / Laboratory Corp. of America / Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory / Leslie E. Robertson Associates / LIRo Engineering / Listie Volunteer Fire Company / Lockwood Consulting / M.G. McLaren Engineering / Masonry Society / Mazzocchi Wrecking Inc. / Metal Management Northeast / Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit / Miami-Dade Urban Search & Rescue / Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team / Montgomery County Fire & Rescue / Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers / Murray Engineering / Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc. / National Center for Biotechnology Informatics / National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States / National Council of Structural Engineers Associations / National Disaster Medical System / National Emergency Numbering Association / National Fire Protection Association / National Guard in D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania / National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) / National Institutes of Health Human Genome Research Institute / National Law Enforcement and Security Institute / National Military Command Center / National Reconnaissance Office / National Response Center / National Science Foundation Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems / National Security Agency / National Transportation Safety Board / National Wrecking / Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center / New Jersey State Police / New York City Department of Buildings WTC Task Force / New York City Department of Design and Construction / New York City Department of Environmental Protection / New York City Office of Emergency Management / New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner / New York City Police Department Aviation Unit / New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit / New York Daily News / New York Flight Control Center / New York Newsday / New York Port Authority Construction Board / New York Port Authority Police / New York State Emergency Management Office / New York State Police Forensic Services / New York Times / North American Aerospace Defense Command / Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders and crew / Numerous bomb-sniffing dogs / Numerous Forensic Anthropologists / Numerous Forensic Dentists / Numerous Forensic Pathologists / Numerous Forensic Radiologists / NuStats / Occupational Safety and Health Administration / Office of Emergency Preparedness / Office of Strategic Services / Orchid Cellmark / Parsons Brinckerhoff Engineering / Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection / Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services / Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group / Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association / Pennsylvania State Police / Pentagon Defense Protective Service / Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team / Pentagon Medical Staff / Pentagon Renovation Team / Phillips & Jordan, Inc. / Port of New York and New Jersey Authority / Pro-Safety Services / Protec / Public Entity Risk Institute / Purdue University Engineering Dept. / Robert Silman Associates Structural Engineers / Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc / Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers / Royal SunAlliance/Royal Indemnity / SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams / SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams / Salvation Army Disaster Services / several EPA Hazmat Teams / several FBI Hazmat Teams / several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams / several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams / Severud Associates Consulting Engineers / Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company / Silverstein Properties / Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Engineers / Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP / Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire / Society of Fire Protection Engineers / Somerset Ambulance Association / Somerset County Coroner's Office / Somerset County Emergency Management Agency / Somerset Volunteer Fire Department / St. Paul/Travelers Insurance / State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency / Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company / Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) / Structural Engineers Association of New York / Superstructures Engineering / Swiss Re America Insurance / Telephone operators who took calls from passengers in the hijacked planes / Teng & Associates / Thornton-Tomasetti Group, Inc. / TIG Insurance / Tokio Marine & Fire / Transportation Safety Administration / Tully Construction / Twin City Fire Insurance / Tylk Gustafson Reckers Wilson Andrews Engineering / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers / Underwriters Laboratories / Union Wrecking / United Airlines / United States Air National Guard / United States Fire Administration / United States Secret Service / United Steelworkers of America / University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research / US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County / US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command / US Department of Defense / US Department of Justice / US Department of State / Virginia Beach Fire Department / Virginia Department of Emergency Management / Virginia State Police / Vollmer Associates Engineers / Washington Post / Weeks Marine / Weidlinger Associates / Weiskopf & Pickworth Engineering / Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency / Whitney Contracting / Willis Group Holdings / WJE Structural Engineers / Worcester Polytechnic Institute / World Trade Center security staff / XL Insurance / Yonkers Contracting / York International / Zurich Financial / Zurich Re Risk Engineering

[spoony]

80. They shook loose some change

Then named a video after it :P

[Bolo Boffin]

81. Ah, yes, Loose Change, that unvarnished piece of lying crap.

How I remember it. What a sack of shit that thing was!

[JuniperLea]

40. Yeah! Take that!

AIG and several dogs say so!

:rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Weak. n/t

[JuniperLea]

43. Ouch

That's going to leave a mark.

:eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

44. You summed up a comphensive list of dozen of agencies as "AIG and some dogs."

Well, I feel for you, but you don't have to defend such a ludicrous position. You could just quit.

[JuniperLea]

45. Why would I?

Clearly you have no life other than the constant waiting for a post from certain people to which you can respond. You should be thanking me!

It must be a heinous responsibility. I hope it pays well. But think of all the opportunity for sanctimonious oneupmanship! Perks, I know.

Quite frankly, I didn't give an airborne rodent's derriere about the 9/11 forum, until I saw all the self-righteous pontification here! It pulled me into this forum... I didn't want to be here... I just can't resist watching people with massive chips on their shoulders make fools of themselves!

I'm taking a little vacation... now, don't you go thinking my absence is a sign I don't love you anymore! Please keep these arguments going while I'm gone! I'll miss you!!!

:loveya:

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Why would you quit? You ask. And then... you quit!

Come back when you're ready to post sense.

[whatchamacallit]

12. Ah, you mean like

19 dudes directed by an evil bogyman in a cave - get past security - commandeer 4 airliners with box cutters - fly them with astounding skill (despite having little or no training) into 3 of 4 desired targets - while NORAD fails to scramble interceptors because of questionable changes in protocol made a month prior, requiring authorization from individuals who are conveniently mia during the crucial hours of the attack - causing 3 enormous buildings to fall in a manner never before witnessed except in controlled demolitions... kind of coherent and rational. Glad to see your standards of proof are high LARED.

[reinvestigate911]

13. whatchamacallit

you forgot to mention the intel which suggests foreknowledge and the thwarted investigations and failure to share information between investigative organizations tasked with knowing that these imminent threats existed.

[whatchamacallit]

14. Oh yeah, oops

;-)

[reinvestigate911]

15. i mean

it is on public record that foreknowledge existed, and it is part of the "grand unified official conspiracy theory" even though it's not talked about much by our "debunker" friends.

[JuniperLea]

21. Yep... and it takes more than stupidity on the part of the POTUS

To overlook everything. It took a hell of a lot more than incompetence on the part of BushCo.

[jberryhill]

39. What makes you believe Bin Laden was in a cave on 9/11?

...or at any time prior to 9/11?

When the US invaded Afghanistan, it is believed he hid out in underground complexes in a cavernous area.

But I can never understand this "guy in a cave" thing in connection with the planning or execution of the events of 9/11.

Really, please tell me, what "official story" has Bin Laden - the rich guy with the engineering degree - "in a cave" on 9/11?

[Mist]

17. One the silliest OCTer arguments: "The buildings didn't fall at EXACTLY free-fall

speed--nearly free-fall speed doesn't count!" Don't know how many times I saw that one.

[whatchamacallit]

18. Yep, that's the stuff (n/t)

[JuniperLea]

22. And I'm STILL waiting for pictures...

Or even just a very detailed newspaper story on any other building, anywhere in the world, that went down like that, with all the concrete turning to dust, and onto its own footprint.

My mind is very open. I'm even open to being wrong on this. But all I get is: Did you even read the NIST report? :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

25. "all the concrete turning to dust" -- quit misrepresenting the OP of the other thread

That is not what the OP said, and I have been roundly chastised for suggesting that it did.

Please, CD advocates, compare notes.

[AZCat]

37. ...sigh...

You know, every time somebody repeats this argument, Richard Feynman rolls over in his grave.

[reinvestigate911]

20. there was some "concrete that didn't turn to dust and blow away"

"therefore, all the concrete did not turn to dust and blow away"

[SDuderstadt]

27. Do you understand Logic at all?

If someone claims that "all x is y", all I have to do is find ONE example of x that is not y and I have falsified the claim. Do you understand that?

[reinvestigate911]

30. George Pataki: "And you look, and you see that there is no concrete."

George Pataki: "There is very little concrete... all you see is aluminum and steel."
Bill Hemmer: "What happened to the concrete?"
George Pataki: "The concrete was pulverized."
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuBi8KyOhw

sdude, you should contact pataki and demand that he redact his statements as they violate simple laws of logic.
can you believe we elect these stupid people to office?!

[SDuderstadt]

31. Jesus, this just gets dumber and dumber....

When, precisely, did Pataki visit the site? Does he purport to have examined the entire site? Who else has examined it and made statements? Do they agree with Pataki? It's amazing to me how CT's are constantly accusing debunkers of "cherry-picking".

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Personally, the Truth Movement has my permission to slap old Pataki around

What do I care? He's not a building expert, he's some politician. The Truth Movement wants to embarrass the U.S. Government? Fine. There Pataki is. Have at it.

[JuniperLea]

41. What were the names of your logic classes? n/t

[JuniperLea]

46. My first was...

Mathematical Reasoning... what was yours?

[SidDithers]

33. Please demonstrate how the second statement...

follows from the first.

This should be entertaining.

Sid

[reinvestigate911]

38. seeing how it's your statement, the onus is upon you

i don't have a problem with it personally, just that you want to downplay the significance of pataki's statements because they don't fit the debunker framework of "logic" with a capital "L". personally i find it cheap, petty, and a shameful and dishonest way to approach the subject... but it makes you guys feel better, just like all the references to "woo woo" science.

clearly mr pataki thought that the lack of large chunks of building debris was astonishing.
that you can sit there and argue against that infers that you have more of an interest in debating trivia as opposed to searching for the truth.

but let me ask you a question: let's say you were the CNN reporter from that clip. what would your line of questioning be in response to mr. pataki's assessment?

[SDuderstadt]

48. I can't believe I didn't notice this before....

Please point to anyone here who has made this argument: "If all the concrete wasn't turned into dust, none of it was"

Good luck, because no one did. However, I, as well as possibly some others, did point out that to falsify the argument that "all the concrete was turned into dust", it's only necessary to establish that "some of the concrete was NOT turned into dust" to disprove that claim. I hope you realize that saying that the argument "all the concrete was turned into dust" being falsified by establishing that "some (or even any) concrete was not turned into dust" is NOT the same thing as saying "If all the concrete wasn't turned into dust, none of it was". If the argument is made that "all x is y" and I establish that "some x is NOT y", that still leaves room for some x to be y. God, I wish some of you would take critical thinking classes.

[whatchamacallit]

49. If the argument is made that all OCT are OCD, but it turns out some OCT are not OCD, then

some OCT are BAT SHIT CRAZY!

You still here obsessively trying to prove how smart you are?

[SidDithers]

50. No, then all you can safely say is that...

some OCT are not OCD.

But it's been amply shown in this thread that many truthers are logically challenged.

Sid

[SDuderstadt]

52. Nevermind...

you're not interested in serious debate. My mistake.

[HamdenRice]

51. Sad, but true. And perfectly accurate. I think JackRiddler coined the phrase

"strategic irrelevant nitpick" for another one of their stupid tactics.

[SDuderstadt]

53. I knew that you wouldn't see the logical fallacies....

in the OP.

[whatchamacallit]

54. Only you can see them

like those voices only you can hear...

[SDuderstadt]

55. It isn't hard to see a false dichotomy that isn't...

a false dichotomy. More importantly, you can't point to a single debunker who presented a false dichotomy. Again, suggesting a debunker is rejecting the claim the towers fell within their own footprints simply because it isn't "precisely" within their footprint is rather ludicrous when photos show that debris was strewn hundreds of feet outside their footprints. If CD teams did that regularly, they couldn't stay in business because of lawsuits from adjacent property owners.

[whatchamacallit]

56. Just for the moment let's remove the issue of debris area

and concentrate on the way the buildings fell. "Fell" is kind of a funny way to put it when you think about it because most things like you and I or trees, fall over, we do not fall through ourselves with our heads finally coming to rest on our feet. I know of no steel and concrete buildings to date that have fallen in that manner that weren't demoed. I have seen pictures of natural collapses where the floors compressed like an accordion, but those always have that stack of pancakes look because each floor provided resistance, slowing and finally stopping the collapse. Now you can make all the arguments you like about the unique construction of wtc1&2, but that doesn't help you with #7. So as far as I concerned, the straight down direction of the collapse is where I get the notion of "into it's footprint".

Back to the debris field; it looks to me like debris was ejected more or less uniformly from all sides of the building as it collapsed. Why was the area of debris so large? I don't know, but that it was, doesn't rule out CD. If you can make the argument that the unique construction of the towers allowed it to fall through itself, maybe one can make the argument that it's unique construction required a demolition method that produced a much larger area of debris.

[SDuderstadt]

58. Whatever...

it's really kind of pointless talking to you. Again, if your premise is correct, why aren't CD experts all over the country swarming over this? Better yet, why are prominent CD experts like Brent Blanchard of ImplosionWorld writing detailed anylyses that show it wasn't CD?

[whatchamacallit]

59. I don't know why, maybe politics, maybe $$$?

Really what's the point of talking to anyone in here? It's not like you've had any luck making converts...

[SDuderstadt]

60. It's not like I think we're going to be able to convert any of you hardcore...

CTers anyhow. Hopefully other interested readers who have not heretofore made up their minds have been dissuaded from some of the LIHOP/MIHOP/"9/11 was an inside job!" nonsense. It's really an embarrassment to all of us liberals. BTW, it sure doen't seem like the "9/11 truth movement" is picking up steam. Have you noticed that?

[whatchamacallit]

61. It would take more than people who love the sound of their own voice

flapping their gums about how idiotic we are, to change our minds. BTW as any real liberal can appreciate, it's conservatives, not liberals, who are supposed to have totally uniform beliefs and values. As a liberal, it would never occur to me to shame you into conformity. Oh well different strokes as they say... As far as the "911 truth movement" is concerned, I say who gives a shit? I don't rise or fall with that or any movement. As much as you would love to use their success, or lack thereof, as an indication of popular opinion regarding 911, it's not. You can still find general polls where the majority believe the government was complicit.

[SDuderstadt]

62. Please produce such a poll....

be specific.

[mrgerbik]

63. why didnt people

working for Enron blow the whistle the moment they knew they were involved in wrongdoing? Why did some of the Enron traders knowingly defraud people all over the country (particularly California) without hesitation? Enron is just one example of some good people doing things that they understand are wrong, but because of a myriad of reasons that cant all be listed in a forum post, they just go along with it.

I can only imagine all the people out there with major doubt about 9/11 that have remained silent. When and if they do talk (and some have), you can bet your ass that the OCT brigade will instantly label them as kooks, incompetent or liars .

The point you make to me shows that you either haven't put much thought into human nature or you you are in major denial.

[Realityhack]

79. I think you are missing something.

You said that 'some have spoken out' (paraphrase). The problem is with the quality of the evidence/arguments from the people who have 'spoken out'.
The CD crowd likes to point out how completely obvious it is that the towers were demolished... even someone with no training can see it, etc. etc.
But CD experts refute that notion. And those who claim it is obvious can not produce any clear evidence or rational. They claim all day that other answers are inadequate but do not address them directly (or when they do make obvious errors).

[vincent_vega_lives]

84. Demolitions use explosives to initiate the collapse

and let gravity do the rest. The planes and the fires did exactly the same work as explosives by removing the strutural supports on the affected floors...just over the course of minutes rather than fractions of a second.

Buildings that have pancaked and stopped their collapse were not 110 stories tall. The compromise to build the buildings that tall without being overly massive (and expensive) was a lightweight construction that used the exterior "skin" of the building as a significant structural component in that it supported 1/3 of the weight of the huge floors. As any structure gets larger the relative material strength to weight ratio gets smaller as the effect of gravity gets exponentially greater.

In other words, if you double the height of a structure you need to quadruple the mass of the structure for it to have the same strength to weight ratio as the smaller building. This in turn quadruples the gravitational potential energy stored in the building.

As far as the straight down collapse...gravity vector is "straight down". Once in motion structural strength was nil compared to the mass in motion above.

In scale model terms a 13' replica would be constructed of toothpicks and brittle ceramic tiles...and weigh half a ton.

The ejected debris was from the massive structure above (think thousands of tons) accelerating downward literally exploding the concrete floors beneath, shattering the hollow steel perimeter columns, projecting them outward, and ejecting the massive volume of air in the building (the building was for the most part empty space filled with air) out in all directions (upward, outward and downward) at hurricane wind velocities.

I hopes this helps you understand the forces at work.

[whatchamacallit]

85. I'm afraid it doesn't "help me understand"

cuz it's bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

88. then it should be easy to...

explain precisely how it's bullshit. why don't you take a whack at it? we're all eagerly awaiting your response.

[vincent_vega_lives]

89. impressive

I gave it my best shot at answering the questions you posed and that is how you reply? Coward.

[whatchamacallit]

91. Quite the provocation...

I'm pretty sure that was a rule breaker, but I'll let it stand as a lasting testimonial to your maturity and class.

The planes and the fires did exactly the same work as explosives by removing the strutural supports on the affected floors...just over the course of minutes rather than fractions of a second.

Pure speculation. The problem with this theory is there are no other known cases of fire and structural damage causing similar results. Matter of fact, there are numerous instances where buildings burned hotter, longer, and never fell. I don't have to accept this as fact just because you erroneously present it as such.

As far as the straight down collapse...gravity vector is "straight down". Once in motion structural strength was nil compared to the mass in motion above.
The ejected debris was from the massive structure above (think thousands of tons) accelerating downward literally exploding the concrete floors beneath, shattering the hollow steel perimeter columns, projecting them outward, and ejecting the massive volume of air in the building (the building was for the most part empty space filled with air) out in all directions (upward, outward and downward) at hurricane wind velocities.

Again, speculation. If this description of forces and events is contained in an official (peer reviewed) report, please supply a link. Is this in the NIST report?

In scale model terms a 13' replica would be constructed of toothpicks and brittle ceramic tiles...and weigh half a ton.

Source please.

[vincent_vega_lives]

93. Oh I'm sorry

I was unaware that "Bullshit" was a response indicative of "maturity and class".

Pure speculation. The problem with this theory is there are no other known cases of fire and structural damage causing similar results. Matter of fact, there are numerous instances where buildings burned hotter, longer, and never fell. I don't have to accept this as fact just because you erroneously present it as such.

Pure speculation from actual structrual engineers. There are no known previous cases of The WTC towers being struck by 767s either. You seem to forget that crucial fact. Here is the crux of the argument.

1. Fire with no airplane crash: Fireproofing on steel remains intact, most likley no collapse.

2. Airplane crash with no resulting fire: No further weakening of steel structure, no collapse.

IT TOOK BOTH!!!

Again, speculation. If this description of forces and events is contained in an official (peer reviewed) report, please supply a link. Is this in the NIST report?

That gravity works straight down is not speculation. That masses in motion have kinetic energy is not speculation. That large masses displace large volumes of air is not speculation. That you ask for a "peer reviewed source" would allow one to speculate the extent of your misunderstanding of the forces involved.

Source please

Source is a basic knowledge of the tower's construction of simple math based on a 1/100th scale model of the WTC towers.

[whatchamacallit]

95. You should be

I was unaware that "Bullshit" was a response indicative of "maturity and class"

My understanding is you can pretty much say anything about an argument, but not an individual. You calling me a coward is not the same as me calling your argument "bullshit", but you already know that.

Pure speculation from actual structrual engineers. There are no known previous cases of The WTC towers being struck by 767s either. You seem to forget that crucial fact. Here is the crux of the argument.

1. Fire with no airplane crash: Fireproofing on steel remains intact, most likley no collapse.

2. Airplane crash with no resulting fire: No further weakening of steel structure, no collapse.

IT TOOK BOTH!!!

Speculation by engineers is still speculation. The magical, fire + damage - fireproofing x 2 buildings (or is it 3?) was tortured out of the necessity to come up with something that might explain the collapses sans CD. Sorry, but If you come at people claiming these ideas are fact, you're going to get challenged.

That gravity works straight down is not speculation. That masses in motion have kinetic energy is not speculation. That large masses displace large volumes of air is not speculation. That you ask for a "peer reviewed source" would allow one to speculate the extent of your misunderstanding of the forces involved.

Again, what seems so obvious to you, was not obvious enough for the NIST to touch it. Maybe you should ask them to add your work to their report. Otherwise, it remains a theory you've adopted because it comports with your position.

Source is a basic knowledge of the tower's construction of simple math based on a 1/100th scale model of the WTC towers

Lol! Really? Please detail the simple math you used to derive this conversion: "In scale model terms a 13' replica would be constructed of toothpicks and brittle ceramic tiles...and weigh half a ton"

[vincent_vega_lives]

83. This newest and greatest crop of "CT'ers"

are interesting. Welcome to the dungeon. Feel free to rehash all the old arguments 'cuz there sho ain't any new ones.

So wats on today's menu?

Pentalawnplanepodsmininukescontroleddemolitionthermitethermatehologramsconcretecorefreefallpullitsquibsstanddown. Did I miss any buzzwords?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Twist_U_Up]

87. "'cuz there sho ain't any new ones.".... oh really...check this....

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/03/911-commissioner-bob-kerrey-it-might.html

Monday, March 16, 2009
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey: It Might Take "A Permanent 9/11 Commission" to End the Remaining Mysteries of September 11

Some of us have been writing for years (see this and this) that the 9/11 Commission Report was unreliable because most of the information was based on the statements of tortured detainees. As I wrote in March 2007:
In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on a third-hand account of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees.

I have also previously written that Senator Leahy's desire to base a torture investigation on the 9/11 Commission was problematic.
Now, Newsweek is running an essay by Philip Shenon saying the same thing:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/189251
Powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill are clamoring for creation of a bipartisan "9/11 style" commission to investigate the legality of the Bush administration's antiterrorism tactics—especially its use of harsh interrogation techniques.

President Obama has been notably cool to the idea. But the case for a "truth" commission was bolstered by the disclosure this month that the CIA had destroyed 92 videotapes of the interrogations and confinement of Al Qaeda suspects. A dozen showed the use of "enhanced" techniques routinely described by human-rights groups as torture.

Lawmakers say the obvious model for such an inquiry would be the 9/11 Commission—an independent bipartisan body praised for its authoritative account of the attacks.
More...........

"Now That sho is a new one now aint it"

liarsmurdererscheatsscumbagtorturerfascistskillersnwo I know I missed buzz words

[vincent_vega_lives]

90. None of it

has anything to do with 9-11-01 being a domestic construct.

so no nothing new.

[Twist_U_Up]

92. your kidding.right???

please.
Your being obvious now

[vincent_vega_lives]

94. Nope

Post refers to excesses as a result of Bush's antiterror strategy. No argument there. Nothing regarding evidence of:

Pentalawnplanepodsmininukescontroleddemolitionthermitethermatehologramsconcretecorefreefallpullitsquibsstanddown.