Tin Foil Hat Thread on 9/11

[fuji]

Finally:

WTC-7 visibly bulges out at around 2pm in videos and was evacuated by firefighters at 3:30 on the grounds that it looked to them like it was going to collapse. The collapse an hour or so later was a surprise to NO-ONE.

If you think it came down in a controlled explosion how do you explain the VISIBLE signs that the structure was failing an hour and a half earlier?

 

[Mcluhan]

I made a series of points and you responded to them by insulting me so I would say you have not yet come up to my level. Try responding to my points and you might earn back some respect.

Actually that's another twisted piece of misinformation. Here are the facts. I ignored 2/3 of your insults, but responded to a couple. Here's a list of what came out of your mouth. Just in case anyone is confused...

Fuji: 04-09-2009, 04:44 PM McLuhan I don't believe you have a clue.
Fuji: 04-10-2009, 01:43 AM It was not a controlled demolition, you are just farting
Fuji: 04-10-2009, 11:42 AM His primary "information" depends on him pretending to be an engineer,

Fuji:04-10-2009, 01:12 PM Unrelenting bullshit.
Fuji: 04-10-2009, 01:12 PM You are just SO full of shit that I have to conclude you are a troll.
Fuji:04-10-2009, 01:22 PM The answer is that McLuhan is full of shit,
Fuji: 04-10-2009, 01:22 He is making this shit up as he goes along.
Fuji:04-10-2009, 03:53 PM You guys are just so full of shit.

Fuji:04-10-2009, 09:05 PM These are pretty fucking simple quesitons, you would think all the palm readers and astrologists who are putting out this theory would have answers, no?
Fuji:04-12-2009, 01:43 PM You're an ignoramus.

Fuji:04-12-2009, 02:28 PM --maybe you should be masturbating in front of pictures of naked women instead of masturbating over WTC videos--the imaginary fantasies are considered more normal in the case of watching sex porn, whereas in this case it just makes you seem unstable.

Fuji:04-12-2009, 03:55 PM you obviously know fuck all about modern suspension architecture.

Fuji: 04-13-2009, 10:19 PM Actually I've changed my mind. I no longer think you are a complete idiot--now I think you're a troll.

Fuji: 04-14-2009, 02:08 AM You guys were having a little cicle jerk, mastrubating over the fantasy of some sort of conspiracy theory that does not in reality exist.

Fuji: 04-14-2009, 02:27 AM I guess I'm still trying to work out whether you're actually dumb enough to believe the crap you write

Fuji: 04-14-2009, 09:41 AM Not gonna bite, troll, go masturbate somewhere else.

Fuji: 04-14-2009, 02:28 PM you are a time wasting moron.

 

[onthebottom]

Actually that's another twisted piece of misinformation. Here are the facts. I ignored 2/3 of your insults, but responded to a couple. Here's a list of what came out of your mouth. Just in case anyone is confused...

Fuji: 04-09-2009, 04:44 PM McLuhan I don't believe you have a clue.
Fuji: 04-10-2009, 01:43 AM It was not a controlled demolition, you are just farting
Fuji: 04-10-2009, 11:42 AM His primary "information" depends on him pretending to be an engineer,

Fuji:04-10-2009, 01:12 PM Unrelenting bullshit.
Fuji: 04-10-2009, 01:12 PM You are just SO full of shit that I have to conclude you are a troll.
Fuji:04-10-2009, 01:22 PM The answer is that McLuhan is full of shit,
Fuji: 04-10-2009, 01:22 He is making this shit up as he goes along.
Fuji:04-10-2009, 03:53 PM You guys are just so full of shit.

Fuji:04-10-2009, 09:05 PM These are pretty fucking simple quesitons, you would think all the palm readers and astrologists who are putting out this theory would have answers, no?
Fuji:04-12-2009, 01:43 PM You're an ignoramus.

Fuji:04-12-2009, 02:28 PM --maybe you should be masturbating in front of pictures of naked women instead of masturbating over WTC videos--the imaginary fantasies are considered more normal in the case of watching sex porn, whereas in this case it just makes you seem unstable.

Fuji:04-12-2009, 03:55 PM you obviously know fuck all about modern suspension architecture.

Fuji: 04-13-2009, 10:19 PM Actually I've changed my mind. I no longer think you are a complete idiot--now I think you're a troll.

Fuji: 04-14-2009, 02:08 AM You guys were having a little cicle jerk, mastrubating over the fantasy of some sort of conspiracy theory that does not in reality exist.

Fuji: 04-14-2009, 02:27 AM I guess I'm still trying to work out whether you're actually dumb enough to believe the crap you write

Fuji: 04-14-2009, 09:41 AM Not gonna bite, troll, go masturbate somewhere else.

Fuji: 04-14-2009, 02:28 PM you are a time wasting moron.

ahem.....

Originally Posted by Mcluhan

Ad hominem abusive

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's. Another example is calling conspiranoia to a conspiracy theory that one does not like.

Examples:

* "You can't believe Jack when he says God exists because he doesn't even have a job."
* "Candidate Jane Jones's proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

Ad hominem circumstantial

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

On the other hand, where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[4]

Examples:

* "Tobacco company representatives should not be believed when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."

* "He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!”

* "What do you know about politics? You're too young to vote!"

Mandy Rice-Davies's famous testimony, during the Profumo Affair, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?", is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point is that since a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false, his denial, in itself, carries little evidential weight against the claim of an affair. Note, however, that this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial; it does not bolster the original claim. To construe evidentiary invalidation of the denial as evidentiary validation of the original claim is fallacious (on several different bases, including that of argumentum ad hominem); however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he could only be more likely to deny an affair that never did.

Ad hominem tu quoque


Ad hominem tu quoque (lit: "You too!") refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way.

Examples:

* "You say that stealing is wrong, but you do it as well."

* "He says we shouldn't enslave people, yet he himself owns slaves"

[edit] Guilt by association
Main article: Association fallacy

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

This form of the argument is as follows:

Source A makes claim P.
Group B also make claim P.
Therefore, source A is a member of group B.

Example:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist"

This fallacy can also take another form:

Source A makes claim P.
Group B make claims P and Q
Therefore, Source A makes claim Q.

Examples:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and they believe in revolution. Thus, you believe in revolution."

A similar tactic may be employed to encourage someone to renounce an opinion, or force them to choose between renouncing an opinion or admitting membership in a group. For example:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable. You don't really mean that, do you? Communists say the same thing. You're not a communist, are you?"

Guilt by association may be combined with ad hominem abusive. For example:

"You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, and therefore you are a communist. Communists are unlikeable, and therefore everything they say is false, and therefore everything you say is false."

A reductio ad Hitlerum argument can be seen as an example of a "guilt by association" fallacy, since it attacks a viewpoint simply because it was supposedly espoused by Adolf Hitler, as if it is impossible that such a man could have held any viewpoint that is correct.

Inverse ad hominem

An inverse ad hominem argument praises a source in order to add support for that source's argument or claim. A fallacious inverse ad hominem argument may go something like this:

"That man was smartly-dressed and charming, so I'll accept his argument that I should vote for him"

As with regular ad hominem arguments, not all cases of inverse ad hominem are fallacious. Consider the following:

"Elizabeth has never told a lie in her entire life, and she says she saw him take the bag. She must be telling the truth."

Here the arguer is not suggesting we accept Elizabeth's argument, but her testimony. Her being an honest person is relevant to the truth of the conclusion (that he took the bag), just as her having bad eyesight (a regular case of ad hominem) would give reason not to believe her. However, the last part of the argument is false even if the premise is true, since having never told a lie before does not mean she isn't now.

Appeal to authority is a type of inverse ad hominem argument.

 

[fuji]

...

Another content-free post where you avoid responding to any of my points and instead concentrate on ad hominems.

 

[Mcluhan]

Another content-free post where you avoid responding to any of my points and instead concentrate on ad hominems.

Just so you are informed, i'm not even reading your posts from above point forward. Say whatever you want. You're getting no more eye-time from me. None.

 

[Malibook]

Can't we all just get along?

 

[papasmerf]

Can't we all just get along?

Get along what??????????


I would like a tall beer

 

[Aardvark154]

I'm still curious why my friend understood what Fuji was talking about and why Protoss says he doesn't?

Protoss is it perhaps because you just plain don't want to understand?

 

[fuji]

I'm still curious why my friend understood what Fuji was talking about and why Protoss says he doesn't?

I believe Protoss is a P.E. but I suspect his area of specialization is far from structural engineering. Perhaps he is a computer, chemical, or mechanical engineer. At any rate he would therefore not be expected to understand things such as tube structure design.

I also think he and Mcluhan are acting more from a religious impulse than from a rational point of view: They decided what they wanted to believe and THEN went looking for justifications. Mcluhan in his case directly admitted that, saying he came to his belief while drunk one night watching television and since then has been working to justify his new found creed.

 

[Mcluhan]

I think the original intent of this discussion was to debate only the circumstances around the WTC attacks wrt what actually brought them down.

Protoss

This fellow David A. Johnson is interesting (and rare). He brings a bit of history to the conversation.

# Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit, which in our system is almost impossible to finance through public bond issues.

So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.

When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur.

Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out.

What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.

But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation."

 

[Asterix]

I'm still curious why my friend understood what Fuji was talking about and why Protoss says he doesn't?

Protoss is it perhaps because you just plain don't want to understand?

Beats me. I thought his explanation of how WTC was constructed made perfect sense and was pretty much what I already understood.

 

[Mcluhan]

Beats me. I thought his explanation of how WTC was constructed made perfect sense and was pretty much what I already understood.

A genuine article of understanding here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

 

[fuji]

A genuine article of understanding here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

LOL. "Journal of 911 Studies"???? Genuine????

Let's see, written by "Eric Douglas, R.A."

R.A., wtf is an R.A.? Realty Agent? Registered Auditor? Why would I care what an auditor thought of a building design???

Tell me when you've got something published in a proper peer reviewed journal by a real expert. Enough with the fakes already!

Mcluhan perhaps you think I am just being insulting by saying that but honestly the scientific community uses peer review for a reason: To sift out the bullshit.

At any rate it sounds like Aardvark's friend, also a P.E., understood what I was saying, and a few other people do. You and Protoss plainly have religious reasons for refusing to admit that you know exactly what I am telling you.

This is why I suspect you are a troll. You are smart enough to comprehend what I'm telling you, but it's more fun for you to pretend that you don't I suspect.

 

[Asterix]

A genuine article of understanding here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

What exactly is an R.A.? The only thing I could find is Resident Assitant.

 

[Protoss]

A genuine article of understanding here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

Thanks for that one Mac I hadn't seen it in my travels. The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a great peer-reviewed electronic-only journal. Very conveniently open access with lots of relevant papers to the ongoing investigation. Easy to miss these during a search

 

[fuji]

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a great peer-reviewed electronic-only journal.

LOL. Yeah, and I'm the King of Thailand.

 

[OnTheWayOut]

LOL. Yeah, and I'm the King of Thailand.

What do you do with the pretty Thai maidens when you're done with them??? I'd like to order a JJ lookalike please.

BTW, I think RA = Retarded Assholes or the like

 

[Asterix]

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a great peer-reviewed electronic-only journal.

Which pretty much parrots their self-description in the opening line on their website. Peer reviewed by whom? A look at the writers of the articles lists the usual suspects from Steven Jones on down.

 

[papasmerf]

Mac is relying on sidewalk engineers. They have no vested interest so they have no liability in formulating their hypothesis.