ecoli Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 9/11 doesn't need to be addressed anymore? your arguments are ridiculous Uh ok then. Quoting Patrick Henry: "Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." irrelavent strawmanning, as usual.
bascule Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 your arguments are ridiculous irrelavent strawmanning' date=' as usual.[/quote'] First premise: People think I'm wrong Second premise: People who were thought to be wrong have been proven right in the past Conclusion: I will be proven right Q.E.D. Airtight logic!
Franklin Posted April 20, 2006 Author Posted April 20, 2006 your arguments are ridiculousirrelavent strawmanning' date=' as usual.[/quote'] If arguing for the truth is ridiculous then let me be ridiculed! Strawmanning-seems to be a new fangdangled word being thrown around here like a new toy.LOL:D
Franklin Posted April 20, 2006 Author Posted April 20, 2006 Conclusion: I will be proven right You finally got it! Well done.
Phi for All Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 OK, now I'll moderate. Last couple of pages were nothing but recriminations. If there is nothing of substance left to discuss I'm going to close the thread. I actually love stuff like this when evidence can be laid out objectively and discussed without jumping to conclusions really early on. It's when people make up their minds and refuse to be objective that I can't trust the process anymore. I really don't like the fact that the FBI didn't release the security camera footage they confiscated from the hotel and the convenience store. I can see why the Pentagon might not like for people to know where their surveillance cameras are located but the hotel and the convenience store cameras aren't detrimental to national security. If the footage shows nothing, you release them. If you wait five years and release them and they show nothing then many people will believe they were doctored in the interim. On the other hand I have never heard of anyone who questioned the employees at the hotel who supposedly viewed their tape several times before the FBI confiscated it. What do they say it showed? Are they allowed to tell? Have they told and claimed it was a 757, which would be as interesting to a conspiracy theorist putting together loaded information? I couldn't find that out.
Phi for All Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 Strawmanning-seems to be a new fangdangled word being thrown around here like a new toy.LOL:DStrawman:You come up against an argument you can't knock down, so you bring in another argument, usually as an analogy or example (the man stuffed with straw), that is much easier to knock down. Analogies and examples can be a great thing to help you prove your point, but when you stop trying to knock down the original argument and use the easier argument to prove you're right, THAT'S strawmanning. It's fallacious logic.
Franklin Posted April 20, 2006 Author Posted April 20, 2006 Can jet fuel burn hot enough to melt steel? Why were no forensics done on the molten steel? Why was every truckload of scrap steel satellite tracked to make sure none went off course? The simple facts of temperatures: * 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron * ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel * ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame) Diffuse flames burn far cooler. Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet. The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC. Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower. Smoke that!
Franklin Posted April 20, 2006 Author Posted April 20, 2006 While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31. The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses. http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.htm
bascule Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking Duh? significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. Spin spin spin. Two of the biggest buildings in the world unexpectedly collapsed. Of course that's going to create an earthquake. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31. Okay, and we aren't expecting this why? The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. Let's ask the 9/11 commission report: http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_472_462.html But the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets. Looking for patterns in a data set with high S/N? That's an interesting dropoff curve on your graphs, but you aren't evidencing the correlation you're describing whatsoever, nor are you showing us how data are inconsistent with expectations. The data are clearly inconsistent with your expectations, but you're not justifying in fact why your expectations should be the case and why the data are allegedly inconsistent. It's a lot of "It should be this way, but it's not. Why should it be that way? I don't know, it's just common sense, right?" These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses. When exactly was it that you became a seismologist?
bascule Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 I actually love stuff like this when evidence can be laid out objectively and discussed without jumping to conclusions really early on. It's when people make up their minds and refuse to be objective that I can't trust the process anymore. I don't know, perhaps I'm letting my frustrations regarding the Kennedy assassination and all the yokels I've talked to regarding that get to me. That's what this feels like all over again: a national tragedy that some people feel, for whatever reason, like blaming on the government. Oliver Stone laid out quite a bit of "evidence" on the table, all of which I watched get systematically deconstructed. I really dislike it when people start arguing in unevidenced hypotheticals spun in such a way as to predefine your expectations. For example, from Oliver Stone's JFK: Q: How could Lee Harvey Oswald get down six flights of stairs, grab his lunch, sit down in the lunch room in 45 seconds in time for a cop to see him casually eating his lunch, not winded and apparently unaware of what had just gone on outside? A: The incinuation here (that he should've been winded after running down 6 flights of stairs) is incorrect. The answer is simple: he walked. 45 seconds provides more than ample time to descend the 6 flights of stairs. This was proven empirically by a Discovery Channel special in which they went to the Texas Schoolbook Depository and timed how long it took someone to descend the 6 flights of stairs at a walking pace. It took a little over 30 seconds. Really, it's the same approach: an argument in which the validity of an entirely questionable assumption is incinuated throughout. I merely look for and question these assumptions, and very rarely do I get any corroboration of their validity, and when I do it's usually speculative in nature as well. Conspiracy theroists love to present evidence, but the real failure is in the arguments they construct from the evidence. I suppose you've seen that given some of your responses pointing out the fallacies he's been using.
Franklin Posted April 20, 2006 Author Posted April 20, 2006 http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html Description of Straw Man The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. Oh I get it now.As I don't believe the official line I am the strawman.Maybe I could make a good scarecrow.LOL:-) Please leave the thread open so as I come back and shout "see I told you so"
Phi for All Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 Why was every truckload of scrap steel satellite tracked to make sure none went off course?Because everything is satellite tracked these days. FEDEX and UPS can tell me where my aunt's fruitcake is as it comes my way (I have to deal with a lot of fruitcakes, you see).
Franklin Posted April 20, 2006 Author Posted April 20, 2006 You would think entering a link in a forum entitled "SPECULATIONS" that you could speculate!!! #Speculation: 1. Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation. 2. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture. 3. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition. I like fruitcake and froot loops!
ecoli Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 Oh I get it now.As I don't believe the official line I am the strawman.Maybe I could make a good scarecrow.LOL:-) So, I guess you don't realize that your arguments are full of fallacious logic. I've never seen anybody who is so wrong, and still so convinced that he's right. Everything about your posts violates SFN ettiqute, if not the rules themselves. Please leave the thread open so as I come back and shout "see I told you so" There's something I'd bet against.
Phi for All Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 You would think entering a link in a forum entitled "SPECULATIONS[/b']" that you could speculate!!! You've done no speculating. Even your title says, "This is the way it is, there's no room for error or speculation, this is the TRUTH!"
Franklin Posted April 21, 2006 Author Posted April 21, 2006 You've done no speculating. Even your title says, "This is the way it is, there's no room for error or speculation, this is the TRUTH!" And pray may I ask-who moved my thread to this forum?LOL:D Time for some yummy froot loops again!
ecoli Posted April 21, 2006 Posted April 21, 2006 And pray may I ask-who moved my thread to this forum?LOL:D Time for some yummy froot loops again! Phi's point was, you're speculating, even though you are too arrogant to realize it.
Recommended Posts