Thread: So, terrorists?

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Consider the source gentlemen...consider the source. Pick and choose the information, don’t take it at face value from EITHER side.

So like Thorsen said, before we go figuring out WHY these things happened, lets understand HOW they happened to begin with. After we understand how it happened, then we can start from there and start tying up loose ends. Like I said, first understand WHAT happened that day...then we can start asking who and why.

So here's the thing though. You conspiracy guys have the burden of proof in this discussion. Let me explain.

An event occurs.
It is investigated to understand the event.
A report is published detailing what happened.

That is now the accepted version of what happened, the "official" story. You conspiracy hypothesists are disagreeing with the accepted theory of what happened. That's fine, it's good to be skeptical and question things. However, you can't just:

A. Say we need to find the info for ourselves. We already HAVE the info, we already KNOW what caused the towers to collapse. There are several mountainous reports on it which all detail the very real and proven method of collapse. It is your contention these are false, or inaccurate, but in that case it is on YOU to explain your alternate hypothesis.

B. Debunk the official explanation as a means of bolstering your position. Falsifying the official story is a worthy cause, and it will eventually lead to better understanding, as testing always does. However, disproving the official story does NOTHING to PROVE your story.
This is a common tactic among creationists too, they attempt to disprove evolution as a means to prove their intelligent design hypothesis. That is not valid. If you make a positive claim you must provide positive evidence for it. Subtracting from an opposing theory does not provide any evidence to your hypothesis. If you contend the U.S Government was involved in an inside job attack on itself, then provide EVIDENCE of that. And that doesn't include saying "Who has the most to gain?"

C. Use leading questions or personal anecdotes as evidence. You can't use a clip of someone saying they thought they heard an "explosion" as evidence. It's not evidence, it's hearsay, it's anecdotal and it wouldn't be accepted as evidence by any major institution. You also can't use leading questions and personal disbelief as evidence. Saying "But wouldn't a airliner make a bigger hole?" Is not providing evidence. It's a leading question, a fallacy, and subject to personal opinion. It does not constitute evidence.


Like I said, I LOVE debating. So if you want to represent your side of the argument here then let's go. I am in the passive position here because I accept the generally accepted theory of what happened. It's on you to make the first move and I will respond. We already covered the melting point of steel vs the weakening point of steel. So let's get to something else.

Or not. You're the one with the new theory, if you want people to hear about it then speak up. If not I have nothing to lose, I accept what is largely accepted. I need not promote my beliefs.

Up to you.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Lets not forget that these are office building not warehouses. Those columns that would have to be drilled to place the explosives in are not visible. You have to actually remove drywall to get to it. So i guess they did this in the middle of the night when less people were there. Managed to cut drywall, drill high density concrete, put new drywall up, allow enough time for the drywall mud to dry, and then paint it to match whatever color is there in a manner that it didn't stand out to the people that work there everyday.

These are the uber construction workers. I wonder how much they make a year.

Or we could go with no one had to do the work. The building actually had elfs that lived in the walls and repaired everything at night. What a loss of elvin live 9-11 had.

ORRRR we could go with the buildings GOT HIT BY A FUCKING PLANE. It boggles my mind when people say "Why did the towers collapse?"

You just have to sit there and stare for a second... and then you're like "Hmmm well I suppose the fully loaded passenger jet that ran into it at 700 miles per hour didn't have a bit to do with it..."

PS I know you were joking DG it just made a good segue for me :P

Its pretty clear this isnt going anywhere now so ill throw in my theory.


1 word....








Pokemon

Oh and EDIT to answer your first question. Your position is that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by, or influenced into happening by the U.S. Government. That the WTC towers did not fall entirely as a result of damage from impact by airliners, and that there is a large conspiracy to cover all this up. I base this off your initial post in the thread, your links, and your comment on the melting point of steel.

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Well first of all, what is MY position? Let’s see if you understand that. Secondly, my answer to all your questions is all the way back on page 1 or 2. I must be clairvoyant. There are 2 sides to a story...you believe one side, I believe the other. I’m not here to convince you or anyone else...I won’t change my mind, you won’t change your mind. Like I said...it’s a never-ending story.

That's disappointing. It's up to you. Like I said, we have an official explanation that makes perfect sense and is generally accepted. It seems to me that if you had some conspiracy knowledge you would be interested in convincing people of the truth as you see it.

And as I've said I don't buy all this "We'll never change our minds." crap I hear around here a lot. So what? What's the point of this forum? What's the point of debate? It's not for my benefit or your benefit aside from my personal enjoyment of debate. It's for the benefit of those reading this thread, of anyone who may not know a lot about the subject.

1. Consider the source.

Argument: You: "we already have the info”...Me: Consider the source.
Example: Hitler gives me info that concentration camps don’t exist and never did. I believe him.

That isn't a logical argument. If Hitler told me there were no concentration camps I would ask him for evidence. If he provided a comprehensive independent study detailing that there weren't concentration camps, then I would believe him. It's not a valid argument to say "That source seems untrustworthy/is in on it." You need proof, you need hard data.

2. Debunk the official explanation to bolster my position.

I believe the scientific and technical facts given by the non official story. That’s all I need to debunk the official story. I’m not even going into Why it happened and Who did it.

You've completely missed my point on #2. I wasn't saying you couldn't debunk the official story, I was saying that debunking the official story does not represent any evidence that YOUR version is correct either, only that the official explanation is not correct.

3. Technical and Scientific research is not hearsay nor anecdotal. This is why I redirect you to the ae911truth.com page. And there are many other reports like those in that page.

Again...if you think this is a debate, read my post on page 2.

I am in the process of reading the reports on that page, although I have read such reports in the past. And I agree they are not hearsay and not entirely anecdotal. They do a lot of sort of "soft research" if you will, and I've already seen a LOT of leading questions but some of it is interesting.