Galileo/Newton agree-- 9/11 was an inside job!

[Punx0r]

Sure, why employ the scientific method when you can verify accuracy of technical claims based on party political allegiance?

Anyway, for anyone who finds themselves puzzled by a Truther claim, or simply wishes to be forearmed to refute those claims, I recommend reading the discussion threads on metabunk. For almost every Truther claim there is a detailed thread debunking it. The value is in the knowledgeable posters and the strict posting rules, which keep threads single-topic and forces people to properly define their claims. The debunkers also properly cite quotes and sources.

They also post links to some good references. The following is a document examining the argument for an controlled demolition by an actual controlled demolition expert: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

"A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint" By Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for ImplosionWorld.



For random humour, I also noted the explanation below for how the evidence of demolition charges acting on the structural steel was hidden:

Illuminati Guy: "get rid of all the steel as quickly as possible, and drop any suspicious bits off the side of the barge"
10,000 workers: "yes sir"
Illuminati Guy: "oh, and vacuum up all the dust so nobody can test it for explosive residue ever".
10,000 workers: "what? there's hundreds of tons of it"
Illuminati guy: "oh right, never mind. Hey NIST, when you investigate in two years, DO NOT TEST THE DUST!!! Okay?"
NIST: "why not, now I want to"
Illuminati guy: "because I'll kill your family if you test the dust".
NIST: "got it".
Illuminati guy: "Lowers and Meeker, that goes for you too"
Lowers and Meeker: "whatevs"
Illuminate guy: "and nobody else in the world test the dust either, okay?"
Rest of world: "..."
Illuminati Guy: "And NIST, in your report, make it look like the buildings collapsed by fire"
NIST: "didn't they?"
Illuminati Guy: "Of course they did, just make sure that's the only conclusion okay, or we will kill your family"
NIST: "got it, but what if someone else spots the omission? What if someone else analyzes the fires?
Illuminati Guy: "No problem. Hey, 10,000,000 scientists and engineers, DO NOT LOOK INTO THIS OR WE WILL DAMAGE YOUR CAREERS A BIT!!!"
10,000,000 scientists and engineers: "got it"
Illuminati Guy: "Except for you Richard Gage, but do it with stupid shit like cardboard boxes, and keep saying Pyroclastic Flow, and Nanothermite, so nobody takes you seriously."
Richard Gage: "Got it!"

 

[dnmun]

and we now know from all of these theatre shootings and sandy hook that egocentric psychotics are as common as dirt in our internet utube connected society.

 

[Punx0r]

The over 2,350 Architects and Engineers use the scientific method to weigh evidence of fire vs controlled demolition. A direct video link to this was previously shared.

Irrefutable evidence supporting controlled demolition (and refuting fire) has been given and initial claims have been confirmed even by the determined detractors.

Let's abandon the tactic where you haven't comprehended a single word in this thread that didn't support your existing beliefs and try something else. Detail ONE claim that you believe is "irrefutable evidence supporting controlled demolition". Explain it in terms of "because X (fact), Y (result). Any one you like, but it must be a cogent argument and you must understand it.

let's see if we can keep you on a single subject with static goalposts.

 

[megacycle]

Sure, why employ the scientific method when you can verify accuracy of technical claims based on party political

Are you a scientist?
People look for evidence to justify their conclusions and use data to support there views, you only have to look at the climate change debate for the same kind of discussion, with people adamantly stating they are right, do you really think/feel, everyone views the world, with the same perception.

 

[Punx0r]

People look for evidence to justify their conclusions and use data to support there views

Yes, but that's the opposite of the scientific method.

I'm not a scientist but the scientific method can (and should) be used by anyone. It's what I'd like to try out with eTrike, if we can pin him down to a falsifiable claim.

 

[Ratking]

People look for evidence to justify their conclusions and use data to support there views

Yes, but that's the opposite of the scientific method.

I'm not a scientist but the scientific method can (and should) be used by anyone. It's what I'd like to try out with eTrike, if we can pin him down to a falsifiable claim.

PunxOr, the article you shared above is one of the more convincing proof I have read about 9/11. I think people should take the effort to read it. Several good points that I did not know before hand. Thank you, I hope the article is based on facts, if so, it will be hard to say it is an inside job.

 

[megacycle]

Yes, but that's the opposite of the scientific method.

Exactly and science can be inconvenient and is overriden, by powerful external opinion, changing the goal posts, as the climate change science has been obfuscated by fossil fuel vested interests, so how can there be a proper independent investigation?

It might be better/easier to look at the problem from angles, other than the science involved in building collapse, to get definitive answers to what exactly happened.

 

[Punx0r]

No. Public perception can be influenced by over-riding the science with powerful opinion, but anyone capable of properly assessing evidence will drill down through the BS and find the science (and the truth). That there's so much noise it's hard for the average layperson to obtain the scientific information is not a reason to abandon doing the science. Scientist do science for its own sake, not for audience interest.

 

[nutnspecial]

The official story is 'POUFF' theory, and everybody knows they can trust the talking heads for their science! *sic*



It went POUFF :lol:

 

[Punx0r]

You wrote:

The over 2,350 Architects and Engineers use the scientific method to weigh evidence of fire vs controlled demolition. A direct video link to this was previously shared.

Irrefutable evidence supporting controlled demolition (and refuting fire) has been given and initial claims have been confirmed even by the determined detractors.

I replied with:

Detail ONE claim that you believe is "irrefutable evidence supporting controlled demolition". Explain it in terms of "because X (fact), Y (result). Any one you like, but it must be a cogent argument and you must understand it.

let's see if we can keep you on a single subject with static goalposts.

Your response after eight days of thinking time:

The science has been the point all along. Over 2350 Architects and Engineers have staked their reputation on the scientific evidence.

Much of it is plain and verifiable. It has been repeatedly shown in this thread.

The laws of physics are of utmost significance, as Newton and Galileo would agree!

?

 

[r3volved]

Keeping in mind that you were the one who linked me this site (which I use all the time actually, thanks)...

The science has been the point all along. Over 2350 Architects and Engineers have staked their reputation on the scientific evidence.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

Much of it is plain and verifiable. It has been repeatedly shown in this thread.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

The laws of physics are of utmost significance, as Newton and Galileo would agree!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

 

[megacycle]

Keeping in mind that you were the one who linked me this site (which I use all the time actually, thanks)...

The science has been the point all along. Over 2350 Architects and Engineers have staked their reputation on the scientific evidence.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

Much of it is plain and verifiable. It has been repeatedly shown in this thread.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

The laws of physics are of utmost significance, as Newton and Galileo would agree!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

From the same site: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter. :lol:
It's called cherry picking, just as your above example.

 

[Arlo1]

From this.... [youtube]cO1q3HwB0y0[/youtube]

Tell me WT7 went down from a office fire when something built in china can still be standing after that??

 

[r3volved]

From the same site: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter. :lol:
It's called cherry picking, just as your above example.

What claim am I cherry picking data to try and support?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.html

There are two types of mistake that can occur in arguments:

A factual error in the premisses. As mentioned above, factual "fallacies" are not usually a question of logic; rather, whether a premiss is true or false is a matter for history or a science other than logic to determine.
The premisses fail to logically support the conclusion. A logical fallacy is usually a mistake of this type.
In logic, the term "fallacy" is used in two related, but distinct ways. For example:

"Argumentum ad Hominem is a fallacy."
"Your argument is a fallacy."

Pointing out the three fallacies used in a three sentence repeated reply is not a claim to truth, so how is it cherry picking data?

The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.
My only claims thus far have been about the fallacies of other claims.

 

[joepah]

you guys are very entertaining..

Did any of you graduate with a technical degree from a University?

 

[Arlo1]

It's funny you say that. Luke (live for physics) is one of the smartest on the forum! Yes he did you can ask him as for me well I have an awesome friend who has graduated from electrical engineering and he has a lot to learn so he is helping me and I'm teaching him but officially all I have for training is motorcycle mechanics in college.... Just beceuse you sat in a class room being taught what you can't do doesn't meen you are capable of critical thinking.

 

[r3volved]

Skepticism isn't about education, but I have a three year programming and a three year analyst diploma from two separate colleges and a bunch of programming certifications. I've held several 'engineering' jobs before recently moving into a digital marketing role. Though I pursue jobs for the skills I can apply and the new skills I can learn, as oppose to pursuing more classes to lead to jobs.

I don't stop pursuing knowledge simply because I've received some distinction. I want to believe as many true things as possible and as little false things as possible, I don't care what field of study they fall in - check sources and be skeptical.

How one thinks does not have any direct relation to the distinctions one holds. Someone's distinctions alone have no bearing on the validity of their claim.

 

[Punx0r]

Trolls seeking argument and mocking the laws of physics.

Punx and revolved played this same game in a different thread that used multiple sources to confirm data about LENR. The data conflicted with their pre-conceived notions and they made it evident that they aren't the type to embrace new ideas.

While that is new technology, the importance of the subjects discussed in this thread have been known for hundreds of years and are the foundation upon which our modern lives are built.

Ignorance is bliss tho, rite?

Still waiting...

Detail ONE claim that you believe is "irrefutable evidence supporting controlled demolition". Explain it in terms of "because X (fact), Y (result). Any one you like, but it must be a cogent argument and you must understand it.

let's see if we can keep you on a single subject with static goalposts.

 

[nutnspecial]

X = POUFF

Y = Not a good enough explanation



There are so many tangents that all throw up flags if you are skeptical of the happenings. If you want to believe POUFF, we're not stopping you, or even trying to change your mind, that's all you guys.
If you can't see anything wrong in the footage, that's on you.

Did any of you graduate with a technical degree from a University?

The point is, the couple thousand archs and engnrs prob did, by definition of their titles.
Truth is based on many informed sources, and is sometimes a good idea to consider over that single source that may be the guvmt, church, etc.

 

[megacycle]

My only claims thus far have been about the fallacies of other claims.

To what end? What are you trying to prove?

Pointing out the three fallacies used in a three sentence repeated reply is not a claim to truth, so how is it cherry picking data?

While those three statements are true, when you take those three statements out from the rest of the statements made, eg a small amount of data from the main bulk of statements made and imply that this leads to a conclusion, in this case that etrike is incorrect in an overall conclusion, then that would be cherry picking and a form of ad homiinem too.

The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

Hasn't he done this ad infinitum, that is linked you to the places where the facts and science are?
You could say this was an 'appeal to authority', but that's a joke, because most often you would supply citations and links to back up a claim, when the science is complex, otherwise we'd all have to be all knowing.

B.tech Electrical Engineering.

 

[r3volved]

To what end?
Fallacious claims, even if founded and rooted in truth need revaluation. You can't keep using fallacious arguments as proofs - reevaluate and restate without fallacy. It doesn't mean his overall claim is false, it means his supportive arguments are not strong.

The statements you've quoted of me are in context to punx0r's questions directly proceeding my statements. They are in context, not cherry picked. If anything, I would have thought you'd gone towards the fallacy fallacy, but I'm not providing proof to any particular claim, I'm showing the falsifiable limitations to the provided claim.

 

[megacycle]

To what end?
Fallacious claims, even if founded and rooted in truth need revaluation. You can't keep using fallacious arguments as proofs - reevaluate and restate without fallacy. It doesn't mean his overall claim is false, it means his supportive arguments are not strong .

That's true and he's already linked to the facts and science, so the rest of arguments are bump and fill and circular.
You need to go back look exactly at what he linked, analyze it and counter with correct facts and science.

 

[markz]

You need to go back look exactly at what he linked, analyze it and counter with correct facts and science.

Or - You need to just keep drinking beer! As others say "Its time to move on in life!"

 

[nutnspecial]

Is that symbolic for head-in-sand? ^^

You need to go back look exactly at what he linked, analyze it and counter with correct facts and science.

Or I would say, at least link other sources that 'debunk' the 'truther'. There are hours and hours of valid hypothesis debunking the official. It starts to become way too obvious when you can look at both sides without prejudice or preconception, at least to 1/2 this country, and higher percentages in the others?

no way in hell those planes and resulting fires brought those buildings to dust. Personally I don't think the official antithesis is much more plausible either. There's so little chance that could have been accomplished with conventional demolishion methods, although it seems more likely than fire and some miracle of physics.

Dr Judy Wood is my go-to for people like we have here. She just observes the 'facts', and tries to prove NOTHING.

 

[megacycle]

Or - You need to just keep drinking beer! As others say "Its time to move on in life!"

Yeh weekend, crack a few and resign ourselves to it not being an open and shut case.

Or I would say, at least link other sources that 'debunk' the 'truther'. There are hours and hours of valid hypothesis debunking the official. It starts to become way too obvious when you can look at both sides without prejudice or preconception, at least to 1/2 this country, and higher percentages in the others?

I'd rather base a solution built on social science, with the fact that governments sacrifice their own citizens, with false flag events, have happened before and been covered up, there's a lot of non scientific facts that would add up to a very strong case for government involvement and if that's the case, those buildings didn't just need to be hit by planes, the best plan would be to ENSURE they were totalled, for maximum effect, with the minimum damage to surrounding buildings and an easier clean up process and look how efficient all that was.