Proof that 9/11 Truthers Are Dangerous and are a Threat against george bush

walkyrie said:
quote : .... for the truth always goes through three stages; First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed and Finally, it is accepted as self-evident .
Click to expand...

Why don't you come back here and let us know the instant you get off stage 1, kay?
 
fallout said:
They had to cover all of them, everything that was brought down by the terrorist attacks. Waiting over one year for a silly novel leaving it all out won't justify anything of that. About covering only the part where people died, it only adds up to their intention of presenting a touchy story rather than a criminal investigation report.
Click to expand...

Why? when a train derails you find out exactly why it derails not how the locomotive crushed a nearby empty house, When a plane crashes in a town you find out why the plane crashed not why it knocked the house down, When a car leaves the road you find out why it left the road not why the 800ft fall wrecked the car....

Likewise when two 110 floor high mega buildings fall down you find out why that happened not why the resultant collapses damaged other buildings!:boggled:

To do anything else is simply a waste of money and time.
 
walkyrie said:
Originally Posted by : aggle-rithm,
Hee-hee!
And people say truthers don't have a sense of humor!


quote : .... for the truth always goes through three stages; First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed and Finally, it is accepted as self-evident .
Click to expand...

And idiocy goes through three stages as well: First, it is ridiculted; Second, it is forgotten, and Finally, some idiot dredges it back up again as if it were something new.
 
fallout said:
They had to cover all of them, everything that was brought down by the terrorist attacks. Waiting over one year for a silly novel leaving it all out won't justify anything of that. About covering only the part where people died, it only adds up to their intention of presenting a touchy story rather than a criminal investigation report.
Click to expand...

Your arguments from ignorance are touching.

1. The 9/11 cr was a narrative of the events of the 9/11 hijackings and crashes.
2. WTC7 is beyond the scope of the investigation because the hijackers did not cause wtc7 to collapse directly.
3. That was their job and what they were tasked to do. Which is what they did.
4. It wasn't a criminal investigation, it was a political report designed as a narrative (a story) of the events which occured.
5. There is a vast difference between a criminal investigation and a political report.
6. Because it was a political report, it is filled with politicians COVERING THEIR ASSES. Gee go figure.
7. The writers of the 9/11 CR know that there was CYA going on, and they wre mislead by some trivial matters because people were CYA'ing. They also state directly and specifically that 19 hijackers took over 4 jets, then crashed 3 into buildings and 1 into a field.

It is rather straightforward. In fact the plan is brilliant for how simple it is.
 
fallout said:
I don't know if that argument is any good for justifying they leaving it alone. They should have save some pages of the cool story to narrate those buildings falling as well. They weren't primarily targeted but were destroyed as well. Many people wanted to know about them.
Click to expand...
Argument from incredulity and ignorance noted.

should the 9/11 commission report have covered the 11 other buildings which were either destroyed or heavily damaged on 9/11?

They didn't just ignore wtc7... they ignored 11 other buildings.

If you want to know about those buildings, then go look up the FEMA building reports. They are fully covered in those.

In fact, that shows how partial interior collapses occured (wait for it) due to fire. You know... steel losing its strength and collapsing in wtc5 and 6.
 
TruthersLie said:
Your arguments from ignorance are touching.

1. The 9/11 cr was a narrative of the events of the 9/11 hijackings and crashes.

2. WTC7 is beyond the scope of the investigation because the hijackers did not cause wtc7 to collapse directly.

3. That was their job and what they were tasked to do. Which is what they did.
4. It wasn't a criminal investigation, it was a political report designed as a narrative (a story) of the events which occured.
5. There is a vast difference between a criminal investigation and a political report.
6. Because it was a political report, it is filled with politicians COVERING THEIR ASSES. Gee go figure.

7. The writers of the 9/11 CR know that there was CYA going on, and they wre mislead by some trivial matters because people were CYA'ing. They also state directly and specifically that 19 hijackers took over 4 jets, then crashed 3 into buildings and 1 into a field.

It is rather straightforward. In fact the plan is brilliant for how simple it is.
Click to expand...

I think you just provided 7 reasons to support that it's nothing but an useless pile of political junk.
 
"Argument from Ignorance" is a logical fallacy. It is not an ad-hominem (which is another logical fallacy). You demonstrate this fallacy when you ask why the 9-11 Commission should have studied WTC7. You are incredulous. You are ignorant of the purpose of the Commission, even after it was shown to you in the links above. Observing this fact about your argument is not an argumentum ad hominem.

You really don't understand it? Try this.

ETA - the above was directed at fallout.
 
Last edited:
fallout said:
I think you just provided 7 reasons to support that it's nothing but an useless pile of political junk.
Click to expand...

dur...

no one has ever said that it wasn't.

Oh you wanted it to be a criminal investigation? It wasn't. It wasn't supposed to be, and it isn't.

It is a narrative (you know a story) about who the 9/11 hijackers were and what they did on 9/11, and how to prevent future attacks. Which is what it did.
 
fallout said:
I think you just provided 7 reasons to support that it's nothing but an useless pile of political junk.
Click to expand...

He explains why the 9/11 Commision Report didn't discuss buildings beyond the main tower and you try to write that off as "useless"? No. He explained why it happened; you don't get to turn around and simply write it off as "useless" without reason. The burden is on you to explain why you think "(t)hey should have save some pages of the cool story to narrate those buildings falling as well". Especially in the light of the fact that NIST was the one charged with providng that explanation, and not the 9/11 Commision. Why would the Commision be obligated to include that info? Especially considering the fact that the NIST investigation was still not complete at the time of the hearings, and especially considering the fact that detailing the engineering details of the buildings failures were never part of their responsibilities to begin with.
 
carlitos said:
"Argument from Ignorance" is a logical fallacy. It is not an ad-hominem (which is another logical fallacy). You demonstrate this fallacy when you ask why the 9-11 Commission should have studied WTC7. You are incredulous. You are ignorant of the purpose of the Commission, even after it was shown to you in the links above. Observing this fact about your argument is not an argumentum ad hominem.

You really don't understand it? Try this.

ETA - the above was directed at fallout.
Click to expand...

It's an ad hom in the form of calling a logical fallacy over me. This purpose isn't clear enough, it's disputable. Any attempt to defend this is only rhetoric bull. One might think that the purpose was to tell a silly narrative story about something serious. But any non-gullible person knows that this thing had an agenda and there was numerous problems with it. It surprises me someone told me above that "all the issues on the wiki article has been addressed here". Who am I against here? The Commissioners themselves? LOL? Where's the skepticism? If there's not a single problem in the report submit the truth to wiki, they will gladly change it.
 
fallout said:
Whatever, you now hold onto this alleged "purpose" as to make your case. It is not what everyone was expecting, and you know that. The american and world community wasn't expecting a "political narrative" report.
Click to expand...

Ok, first of all, says who? And second of all, what does that matter? The fact that they undertook an inquiry - note, not an investigation, but a panel inquiring - into a terrorist event doesn't mean that it'll cover ground predetermined by post-facto critics. Rather, it's mandate said that it'll cover ground regarding the terrorists attack and the state of national preparedness for it.

I don't know why you truthers insist on denigrating the commision's findings, because it serves as a more damning indictment of the government than any trutherism could ever achieve. It showed that the the government and it's associated authorities by design were completely incapable of properly stopping the event as it unfolded. As Gumboot pointed out a while back, it doesn't show incompetence, it shows a structural failure. Yet, you truthers want to distract from that in order to build a contranarrative of collusion and conspiracy.

fallout said:
I will never bother to read the entire report, because I clearly see it's nothing but a smoking pile of political mumbo jumbo aiming at touching people's hearts like a shakespeare drama.
Click to expand...

I don't recall Shakespeare ever footnoting his plays with references to original material. But if you want to write it off, you also write off the material it was based on, and you end up perpetuating your ignorance on the matter.

If you refuse to read the commision report, at least read the damn sources it was based on. If you refuse to even do that, well... then like I said, you're perpetuaing your ignorance.

fallout said:
You taking this position shows you have almost zero critical thinking and it's willing to swallow any crap your government tells you, which is clearly the position of many here as well.
Click to expand...

You purposefully ignore the possibility that Arus has already looked at the material and discovered for herself what's acceptible and what's trash. As have most of us here. You are the one displaying zero critical thinking by simply writing off the writeup of an inquiry simply because you condemn it to the trash heap before paying attention to what it says or what sources of information it leans on.

fallout said:
And no, you fail again, I never registered @ any truther forums. But go on and label me such, it's what you and your friends like to do most over here. That's both very known and sad. But I'm always in for a laugh and for seeing to what extent people can be naive and gullible.
Click to expand...

Then why are you bringing points directly from the truther playbook? The denigration of the 9/11 Commision Report due to its lack of narrative on the other buildings at Ground Zero is exactly what truthers argue in an attempt to paint a picture of "coverup".

You can claim it all you want, but when we see the town drunk wheeling about town smelling of liquor, it does no good for him to protest that he's not an alcoholic. Ditto you truthers: When you bring the same arguments as all truthers before, then all your protestations to the contrary do not change the fact that you're reciting truther canon.
 
carlitos said:
Add "lack of understand of burden of proof" to "lack of understanding of logical fallacies."
Click to expand...

If my purpose over here was to show you all that the commission is a steaming pile of poo, then yes, I would create a thread about it and then the burden of proof would be over me. That has been done extensively already by other people. What makes you think I'm in for it?
 
Saying that the purpose of the Commission is silly is just fine. Criticize it all you want.

But, once the purpose was explained to you and quoted here "to study the terrorist attacks..." THEN you can't go and say "why didn't they give detailed explanations about "WTC7" (The Solomon Brothers Building). Because that building wasn't attacked by terrorists, it was outside the scope of the 9/11 Commission.

Do you understand now? You can criticize the Commission report all you want, even if you haven't read it all the way. Just don't ask "why didn't they explain WTC7" because that question shows you to be ignorant of the purpose of the Commission.
 
fallout said:
Lol thats enough for not taking you seriously anymore as well.
Click to expand...

Another truther tactic: Cherry picking. Let's review the whole quote, shall we?
ElMondoHummus said:
I don't know why you truthers insist on denigrating the commision's findings, because it serves as a more damning indictment of the government than any trutherism could ever achieve. It showed that the the government and it's associated authorities by design were completely incapable of properly stopping the event as it unfolded. As Gumboot pointed out a while back, it doesn't show incompetence, it shows a structural failure.
Click to expand...
So, what are the truthers aims in pursuing the conspiracy fiction? To demonstrate that government deserves to be not only criticized, but held responsible for not being able to stop 9/11 in its tracks? Or to guarantee that criticism regarding the government's response on 9/11 will always be written off as invalid? As I said: The 9/11 Commision's report painted a searing critique of government's ability to handle such an event. Understanding that what they found is damning is understanding that the truth can serve truther goals far more than the conspiracy fantasies do.

But, you'd rather write off the report. Which means that you'd rather the US government be percieved as actually competent, but merely unwilling to stop 9/11. In an odd way, that perpetuates the very structure you protest against. Odd that you'd be such a willing tool to that end... but I've never expected much out of truthers to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom