Hi love, and everyone who has since joined the debate. Isn't it interesting how cognitive dissonance can cause peoples sphincters to tighten?
Hmm, cognitive dissonance, a failure to recognise the contradictions in your own attitudes and behaviours...
Just to remind ourselves, you describe yourself as a "fellow skeptic", yes?
Interesting.
You debunkers are being silly...you would rather sit back and not know exactly what happened because you claim to already know based on a official story that wasn't even investigated using a deductive process...
You seem to be a little overexcited about your use of 'deductive' versus 'inductive' reasoning.
Are you totally sure you understand what both mean?
Inductive is sometimes described as moving from the specific to the general, while deductive can be described as moving from the general to the specific.
The situation here is moving from the specific to the specific (although several arguments have already been produced that indicate why generallly held principles might strongly be considered applicable to 9-11).
We don't have all the information (and never will) so a certain degree of assumption will be required for anyone attempting to reach a conclusion.
Nobody will ever be able to reach conclusions about 9-11 based on pure logic.
As it has already been pointed out, even the experts are at odds over all of the evidence...this should be one cause for concern that apparently eludes you..
Which experts?
why waste your time answering reams of quoted text backed up by your shallow inductive investigation techniques?
The techniques that have satisfied everyone excpet a handful of CTs?
Well if anyone had any compelling counter evidence...
No? Never mind.
None of you have personally seen any of the actual physical evidence in this matter and therefore none of you is capable of debunking it.
An old chestnut.
As you weren't personally sitting in the Pentagon and hit by an aircraft can we equally dismiss your opinion?
You can cite all the jobs you have had if you want....it doesn't make you an expert.
So what, exactly, defines 'expert' to you? Someone who agrees with your preconceived notion?
I have solidly debunked your ability as internet skeptics to debunk any of this...
Any chance of us reading where you have done this?
You fail to explain why it's okay for you to use inductive reasoning, when that is the very thing you complain about CT's doing.
We are using observation and expert testimony. It's hard to know what further information we can use to form an opinion.
If you have access to reliable secret information, please let us know.
You fail to explain the logic in not conducting a deductive investigation on part of the federal government.
That's true. When you see 2 planes fly into 2 buildings it would make sense to doubt it.
This was quite possibly one of the worst investigations ever in terms of evidence handling...and claims made.
I believe you accidentally left out the words "In my opinion..."
For example on 911 it was determined that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack....
based on what? all of the intelligence that was ignored up to that point?
So you don't think it was Muslim extremists?
Why?
What 'deductive reasoning' has led you to that conclusion?
Now I ask again:
Why can't I see one picture of a plane hitting the pentagon?
I don't know. Several reasons have already been provided, none of which you appear to liike.
But it seems just frankly bizarre to think that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
Why can't I see the 6,000+ photo's that were sealed?
What 6000+ photos?
Why can't I see the results of any chemical tests performed in regards to explosives...? If there wasn't one, why not? Someone said, because there was no cause...3000 people died, there were reports of multiple explosions from inside the building from trained firefighters, there was reported explosive damage in the lobby and lower levels of the buildings from the same trained firefighters...
A building on fire has explosions inside...
And this would be unexpected... why exactly?
how much more cause do you need? The fact that in deduction you need to rule out other possibilities plays a role here, but as all you wannabe skeptics have so so readily revealed THATS NOT SOMETHING YOUR INTERESTED IN.
In the same way you are not interested in the possibility that a group of muslim extremists hijacked planes and flew them into skyscrapers?
Your explanations are pretzel logic at it's finest. Quit trying to reinforce your skeptical worldview with induction... seriously...your being super hypocritical for even engaging in it in the first place.
You seem very angry about this.
We see this a lot. No-one likes their preconceptions or cherished views questioned.
It's only unfortunate that you seem to think that holding an opinion that disagrees with observed facts makes you more truly 'skeptical'.
Here's a thought, instead of debunking everything, why not investigate it using deductive techniques, letting your findings inform your facts.
That all I am suggesting...
What a good idea.
Which fringe websites that disagree with experts, eyewitnesses, common sense, scientific and video evidence should we visit?
