Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[johnny karate]

Wrong. I am pointing out that Al's statement is incorrect. Next, as you can clearly see in the quote you obsessively post, I use the phrase, "relying entirely on eyewitnesses." You do know what "entirely" means, right?

What else do you have besides your interpretation of eyewitness testimony that supports a controlled demolition hypothesis?

 

[TexasJack]

Really? Nobody heard anything consistent, as in similar to, controlled demolition? Are you sure about that?

OK, what witnesses said they heard something that sounded like a controlled demolition, and were they qualified to make such an observation? (for example, had they heard a controlled demo in the past?)

 

[twinstead]

A nice blend of appeal to emotion and appeal to authority. Well done.

An appeal to authority when the people are, you know, AUTHORITIES, is not a fallacy. The other is an appeal to emotion, but it is also a true statement. A LOT of very competent people worked on the 911 investigation. If it is SO obvious to you that it was an inside job, then you hold them all in the utmost contempt.

So, "It's disgusting" stands.

 

[johnny karate]

Use whatever word you want, he'll still be wrong and so will you for defending such nonsense.

Then I'll probably go with the word originally used, which was "consistent".

Please quote the testimony you believe is an example of someone reporting an experience consistent with a controlled demolition.

 

[johnny karate]

OK, what witnesses said they heard something that sounded like a controlled demolition, and were they qualified to make such an observation? (for example, had they heard a controlled demo in the past?)

Let's not Red of the hook so easily here. The term used was "consistent" which has a different meaning than saying something "sounded like" something else. All explosions have a basic similarity in that they're explosions. But one type of explosion is not necessarily consistent with another.

 

[BigAl]

Really? Nobody heard anything consistent, as in similar to, controlled demolition? Are you sure about that?

Yes.

The 1993 bombing (1,000 pounds of TNT, equiv) was heard by essentially everyone up and down the towers and over the approximately 24 acres of the WTC plaza yet it did no structural damage to a tower. Man-made demolition would require many such charges, better placed, in each tower.

If you do find a witness list, it will be thousands of names long reporting the same instant and unambiguous and lacking of metaphor and simile. No noise heard by only one person or a small group is consistent with man-made demolition.

(By the way, there are two good seismic records of WTC from two different companies. They match. Neither shows anything that is evidence for man-made demolition.)

 

[RedIbis]

An appeal to authority when the people are, you know, AUTHORITIES, is not a fallacy.

Had a twoofie written this it would be enshrined in the Stundie Hall of Fame.

 

[johnny karate]

Had a twoofie written this it would be enshrined in the Stundie Hall of Fame.

From Wikipedia's definition of the "Argument from Authority, with which RedIbis is apparently unfamiliar:

Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

 

[BigAl]

Really? Nobody heard anything consistent, as in similar to, controlled demolition? Are you sure about that?

In addition to my other post, I'll add that none of the injuries incurred at WTC are consistent with man-made explosions or the intense burns that would be caused by therm-anything.

 

[twinstead]

Had a twoofie written this it would be enshrined in the Stundie Hall of Fame.

BS. Relying on proper authorities is NOT a fallacy in this situation.

 

[RedIbis]

From Wikipedia's definition of the "Argument from Authority, with which RedIbis is apparently unfamiliar:

Shocking that you started with the informal use and overlooked the primary definition:

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false).

And of course, what Twinstead said originally:

An appeal to authority when the people are, you know, AUTHORITIES, is not a fallacy.

 

[stateofgrace]

Really? Nobody heard anything consistent, as in similar to, controlled demolition? Are you sure about that?

Bring forward your witness, who heard this and supports you.

 

[RedIbis]

In addition to my other post, I'll add that none of the injuries incurred at WTC are consistent with man-made explosions or the intense burns that would be caused by therm-anything.

Now you're shifting the goalposts. You're orignal claim was that "Nobody heard anything at WTC consistent with man-made demolition."

A simple review of firefighter accounts (as has been done numerous times by myself and others), as well as other eyewitnesses on the scene, reveals many descriptions quite consistent with CD.

 

[stateofgrace]

Now you're shifting the goalposts. You're orignal claim was that "Nobody heard anything at WTC consistent with man-made demolition."

A simple review of firefighter accounts (as has been done numerous times by myself and others), as well as other eyewitnesses on the scene, reveals many descriptions quite consistent with CD.

No they do not, stop lying.

Name one fire fighter who was there and supports you.

 

[TexasJack]

BS. Relying on proper authorities is NOT a fallacy in this situation.

It went right over his head, your original post was not an appeal to authority.

 

[Justin39640]

Shocking that you started with the informal use and overlooked the primary definition:



And of course, what Twinstead said originally:

im still waiting patiently for reds evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt explosives caused the collapse of WTC7

 

[twinstead]

Red, just give it up. I do applaud your little dance away from how you must obviously hold all the experts who worked on the 911 investigation in contempt (like your FDNY dance).

Now. How do you reconcile all the hard work these folks put in to this investigation only to come to a totally different conclusion than you? Are you suggesting you just investigated better?

 

[johnny karate]

Shocking that you started with the informal use and overlooked the primary definition

I assumed you were familiar with the primary definition. It was the qualifier I cited that is relevant here.

And of course, what Twinstead said originally...

...is perfectly consistent with the primary definition taking into account said qualifier.

 

[johnny karate]

Now you're shifting the goalposts. You're orignal claim was that "Nobody heard anything at WTC consistent with man-made demolition."

A simple review of firefighter accounts (as has been done numerous times by myself and others), as well as other eyewitnesses on the scene, reveals many descriptions quite consistent with CD.

I have already made one request in this thread for you provide an example of testimony you believe to be consistent with a controlled demolition.

This will be my second.

 

[BigAl]

Now you're shifting the goalposts. You're orignal claim was that "Nobody heard anything at WTC consistent with man-made demolition."

A simple review of firefighter accounts (as has been done numerous times by myself and others), as well as other eyewitnesses on the scene, reveals many descriptions quite consistent with CD.

No report by only one person could possibly be consistent with man-made demolition in timing, loudness and brisance.

None of the dead or injured have wounds consistent with man-made explosion or thermite.

We have seismic records from two unrelated organizations that agree and show the planes impacting and structural collapse and do not show any man-made demolition.

You have nothing.