Scholarly Review of 9-11

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

http://911revisited.infad.net/video.html

I personally strive to stay radically moderate in all ideas, but I find it hard not to come to the obviously plausible theory seriously when all the information is considered as a whole.

What troubles me is the fact that we cannot at this point in time, come to a conclusion that is not wildly debatable due to the immediate and (deliberate?) complete destruction of all substantiatory evidence, let alone in such an ambiguous manner which goes completely against almost a century of the scientific forensics of the exact details of what happened such as out ability to scrape crashed airplanes parts from the bottom of the sea and fully reconstruct agreeably exactly what happened, buildings collapsing from a fire, etc.

Wouldn?t all that information be crucial to future proof all our buildings, or at least find a way to reinforce existing targets of opportunity?

We instead are left with the 2 common theories, (Pancake Theory, Explosive Theory) one taken as proven, the other a conspiracy, yet both are proven false by the information we have, which shows how subjective and poor the response truly was. Identifying possible motives and possible groups is the core in these 2 theories, one of course being Bin Laden, the other ‘IT/Bush/etc.’

What I find personally compelling drawing all these rational conclusions is any attempt at explaining the motive for destroying all analytical evidence of the incident, when it would only help to reinforce your given position, without even a single scrap remaining to be analyzed, stored historically, etc.

Additionally adding the context 5 years gives and then viewing suspiciously the response of each suspected group has further drawn me to one side considering what side actually gained in the end from this attack, let alone the obviously encouraged current state of affairs, and altered foreign policy (Patriot Act, etc) which were fought quite fiercely for and obviously would probably not have passed without such incident.

Am I a crazy tinfoil-hat wearing American for thinking things may look at least peculiar here?

Also note that any argument using the declaration force of ‘conspiracy’ is in itself a fallacy of argument and doesn’t debate the topic on hand, but instead shifts the debate to a value of precedent, in which there obviously is none in this matter.

Thoughts?

2

For the 117th time:

3

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
For the 117th time:

Facts about Noahs Ark!
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/technology_watch/1285246.html

The REAL face of Jesus.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html

4

It was airplanes. Get over it.

The 911 conspiracy myths are beyond bullshit. They are politically motivated lies.

5

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It was airplanes. Get over it.

The 911 conspiracy myths are beyond bullshit. They are politically motivated lies.[/quote]

Funny because the Iraq WMDs/WE MEANT DEMOCRACYs conspiracy is beyond bullshit with obvious politically motivated lies.

6

[quote]metalsluggx wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It was airplanes. Get over it.

The 911 conspiracy myths are beyond bullshit. They are politically motivated lies.

Funny because the Iraq WMDs/WE MEANT DEMOCRACYs conspiracy is beyond bullshit with obvious politically motivated lies.
[/quote]

You clearly do not want to engage in intelligent discussion.

7

Engage in an intelligent discussion, do you understand any statement your mind generates out of this abyss?
I asked a SIMPLE question, to which your only ?answer? was “It was airplanes?politically motivated lies.” I wouldn?t begin to call that an intelligent response. Your knee-jerk reaction leads one to believe that you cannot point for point logically prove yourself or your argument, but instead use the precedent of the matter as your position, in which your avatar clearly illustrates your train of thought.

So am I political liar now? Is this argument completely null and void because it involves, gasp hold your breath, politics? Am I lying to you right now with politically motivated lies?
Your denying an argument you cannot logically compete in.

Have you ever heard of Ad Hominem? I hope you do because it?s the basis of your current argument.

Return Fire.

8

[quote]metalsluggx wrote:

Also note that any argument using the declaration force of ‘conspiracy’ is in itself a fallacy of argument and doesn’t debate the topic on hand, but instead shifts the debate to a value of precedent, in which there obviously is none in this matter.

Thoughts?
[/quote]

This is a supressed correlative and/or false choice. To imply that the WTC disaster was ‘cleaned up’ to the effect of concealing evidence (a crime) constitutes the very definition of the word conspiracy, unless you think only one person cleaned up the WTC?

And if I’m not mistaken, abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. The fact that you rule out ‘dismissal by conspiracy’ as an option also demonstrates ignoratio elenchi or possibly cognitive dissidence. Either way, the argument, as presented, is a meaningless statement.

And to dismiss Zap for ad hominem attacks while you use ad hominem attacks to refute thunderbolt’s Popular Mechanics links seems a bit devisive.

Next time you want to play, bring some better cards.

Respice Finem

9

-This is a supressed correlative and/or false choice. To imply that the WTC disaster was ‘cleaned up’ to the effect of concealing evidence (a crime) constitutes the very definition of the word conspiracy, unless you think only one person cleaned up the WTC?

—Was the WTC not cleaned up to the effect of removing evidence neccessary to reconstruct the event, and if so was there intent? No one would imply that one personed cleaned up, and yet you imply that I do, your in the fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque now, and guily of shifting the argument away from the topic. I’m only asking that people not lable an idea as being ‘wacky,’ as we are all aware of perceptions obviously change due time.

-And if I’m not mistaken, abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. The fact that you rule out ‘dismissal by conspiracy’ as an option also demonstrates ignoratio elenchi or possibly cognitive dissidence. Either way, the argument, as presented, is a meaningless statement.

—I admit completely that conspiracy was the wrong word to use, my intent was towards the meaning of an ‘impossible’ outcome.

-And to dismiss Zap for ad hominem attacks while you use ad hominem attacks to refute thunderbolt’s Popular Mechanics links seems a bit devisive.

—It is the same relative links from the same website, I believe there is nothing wrong with that, why would you?

-Next time you want to play, bring some better cards.

—Bring my ‘better’ cards and play? What constitutes your ‘playing?’ you haven’t answered a single question.

10

[quote]metalsluggx wrote:

—Was the WTC not cleaned up to the effect of removing evidence neccessary to reconstruct the event, and if so was there intent?[/quote]

No on both counts. Was it cleaned up? Yes. Was evidence removed and a conclusion not reached? No. They just didn’t reach YOUR (or other theorists’) conclusion, so ‘evidence was cleaned up’.

I only implied a single person in response to the term conspiracy. As for your argument being ‘whacky’, in your opinion, to what end was the WTC cleaned of evidence?

So your intent was to rule out impossible outcomes or to label those arguments as derived from your (otherwise meaningless) statement as impossible?

Well, either ad hominem attacks are taboo, in which case your response to thunderbird is either meaningless or taboo, or ad hominem attacks are perfectly acceptable and Zap’s questioning of your political motivation is perfectly founded. If the Popular Mechanics links don’t argue against the character of thunderbird’s source, why did you post them?

Zap and thunderbird both answered the question, and you dismissed them. As well, you asked for three things, one of which was my thoughts, which were given. As for the others, you want answers;

No.

  1. The WTC towers were built to withstand the largest aircraft of their day. The planes that hit them were bigger, and in the future, it probably won’t be planes or hitting. Get rid of the ‘evidence’, save the people, clear the area.

  2. What’s the plan once you’ve collected and analyzed the ‘evidence’ (which already exists ask any civil engineer) retrofit everything you deem a target?

Okay, things may look peculiar, but so what? That’s where you’d earn your foil hat IMO. Not crazy, but getting there.

11

The only things that struck me kind of funny is when
Lee Hamilton (Vice Chairman of 9/11 commission) who said “We think we have written the defenitive story of 9/11, that doesn’t mean its accurate in every respect but it certainly will be the begining point for any future analysis of 9/11.”

Years after 9/11, and we still cannot get even get ‘accurate’ AND ‘definitive’ in the same story! WHY!? Mind you this report doesn’t even a single page on WTC7. Remarkably it also denies the existence of the 47 massive steel columns in place to support the vertical weight of the towers.

The 9/11 forensics team collected their evidence from LANDFILLS, yes LANDFILLS, not on the site, but LANDFILLS. Why was the steel immediatly shipped to Asia to be melted down? Why does no one on this entire plant have a single piece of the steel columns from 9/11!? They were many 30’ long sections, and yet not one was ever able to examine them. Why was concrete DUST shooting from the TOP of the tower? Seriously every single one of these questions should be very easy to answer, and shouldn’t have to be open to ANY speculation by TOP engineers, physists, etc (NIST rejects the foor collapse theory.

There have been HOTTER and LONGER fires in VERY SIMILIAR buildings that STOOD.

12

[quote]metalsluggx wrote:
You clearly do not want to engage in intelligent discussion.

Engage in an intelligent discussion, do you understand any statement your mind generates out of this abyss?
I asked a SIMPLE question, to which your only ?answer? was “It was airplanes?politically motivated lies.” I wouldn?t begin to call that an intelligent response. Your knee-jerk reaction leads one to believe that you cannot point for point logically prove yourself or your argument, but instead use the precedent of the matter as your position, in which your avatar clearly illustrates your train of thought.

So am I political liar now? Is this argument completely null and void because it involves, gasp hold your breath, politics? Am I lying to you right now with politically motivated lies?
Your denying an argument you cannot logically compete in.

Have you ever heard of Ad Hominem? I hope you do because it?s the basis of your current argument.

Return Fire.[/quote]

You ask about 9/11. I rspond thta it was airplane that did it.

You respond with a weak joke about WMD’s and the Iraq War. This response proved to me you don’t want to even stay on your own topic.

Where is the intelligent debate? You clearly want to troll with some foolishness that it was something other than planes thay brought down the twin towers.

It is hard to discuss such idiocy.