Achilles Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 While demolition is almost impossible to be disproven, the ultimate evidence that the WTC was demolished would be to prove that the towers could not come down that fast on their own.Ray forgets that the official story has the burden of proof. Since it puts forth the claim that the impact of the planes was sufficient to cause the towers to collapse, those arguing for that claim are responsible for proving their case. I've had the pleasure of reading many of Ray's post and in the past I have held a great deal of regard for his thinking. This is why I find his use of logical fallacies and poor argumentation a little surprising and frankly a little sad too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 The BBC has this, regarding the upcoming 'Tower 7' report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7488159.stm Astor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 However, conspiracy nuts and their supporters, not the govt, have to prove the claim that the govt did anything untoward. I agree that it's possible, but want enough incontrovertible evidence before I'll take that step. Not enough to have contempt for the last 1 or 2 presidents to embrace the "truth". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Anyone offering a theory or hypothesis has a burden of proof, and the conspiracy theorists have no less of a burden. Saying that the official report has burden of proof in a way that seems to imply that the conspiracy theorists don't have that same burden is inaccurate. Without remnants of any explosive devices, and with no decisive chemical evidence that can't be explained in any other way but explosives, I find the hypothesis of planned demolition to be baseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Anyone offering a theory or hypothesis has a burden of proof, and the conspiracy theorists have no less of a burden.Anyone making any claim has the burden of proof for that claim. Being skeptical of a claim is not the same thing as making a separate claim though. Saying that the official report has burden of proof in a way that seems to imply that the conspiracy theorists don't have that same burden is inaccurate. Correct. Just as pointing out that supporters of Conspiracy Theory B have the burden of proof for their claims in an effort to dodge the fact that supporters of Conspiracy Theory A have the burden of proof for theirs is a fallacy and a distraction. As I have stated before, either the claim that the impact of the planes was sufficient to cause the collapse of the buildings is valid or it is not. My preference would be that we discuss that. If we can establish that it is valid, then we can pretty much ignore any other claim, wouldn't you agree? EDIT: If you do agree, then perhaps I could ask you to address the points/questions that I raised in posts #166, 175, & 182? It would save me the trouble of having to type them again. Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 A major thread resurrection, but too funny to pass up (with credit to Bee Hoon for the link): http://www.debunking911.com/questions.htm Achilles, all the points you've brought up have been addressed on the more serious parts of this site. There's just nothing you've brought up that can't be explained by conventional explanations that don't require a conspiracy and massive amounts of explosives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev7 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 A major thread resurrection, but too funny to pass up: http://www.debunking911.com/questions.htm That was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Also buy Darth Ray Jones "The Truth about the Death Star" lol wat? I especially liked that part. --Jae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HdVaderII Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I was looking over this thread and... Whatever happened to Osama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I was looking over this thread and... Whatever happened to Osama? Decided to take lawn bowling as a hobby. "KILL THE AMERICAN INFIDELS" just got boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 A major thread resurrection, but too funny to pass up (with credit to Bee Hoon for the link): http://www.debunking911.com/questions.htm Achilles, all the points you've brought up have been addressed on the more serious parts of this site. There's just nothing you've brought up that can't be explained by conventional explanations that don't require a conspiracy and massive amounts of explosives. Conspiracy theorists won't stop. I mean you could explain to them that high explosives have a tendancy to explode when exposed to temperatures above 500C(If I remember correctly the most stable had a rated temp of 850C) and they will still pretend that there HAD to be explosives in the building. You can go into sympathetic detonation and how that would have been triggered by the initial impact and aircraft explosion, and they won't listen. They will still cling to the delusion that it was all some cover up. Granted my expertise on high explosives is limited to my experience on the EOD team and my training in weapons handling on the boat, but I do know a bit about how explosives work. I've also watched a team rig a building to be pulled. If you believe that the towers were rigged that way, you've never seen it done. I highly doubt people would be able to work in the building and NOT notice huge holes in the structure. That seriously strains credibility. I'd also like to know what kind of triggering device they used. Obviously it wasn't wired units because I think people would have noticed a few hundred cables layed out to a safe distance. Which would suggest that they used radio detonators. That's stretching credibility right there. I mean they rig the building with explosives and leave the whole thing wide open for a radio signal? One errant radio operator with his set dialed in to the wrong frequency and the whole thing goes before expected. But hey you can discount my statements as I have worked for the government and have connections within the government(well military and a couple of agencies not tied to Bush). Another thing to point out. If you know how the government works, you would also know that IF this were true(which it isn't), the planning for it would have been done YEARS in advance. So it wouldn't be so much Bush as Clinton that took the blame. It takes a while to orchestrate something this covert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 They might have had timers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommycat Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 They might have had timers. Yeah, and some guy ran from the top down setting all of the timers after the planes crashed haha. But you have a point, there might have been a computer set up in the basement that was wired to the 200+tons of explosives all through the building that nobody noticed before 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.