Most people don't even know about a third tower demolished on 9-11

does anyone remember the ballot measure that was supposed
to require a new investigation in New York? or did that not make it?

 

I hadn't heard of it. I'd imagine it got squashed pretty quickly though.

- - - Updated - - -

I hadn't heard of it. I'd imagine it got squashed pretty quickly though.

 

Red herring fallacy!

 

so now, can you prove that a building can "collapse"
by descending at free fall acceleration in response
to chaotic damage & fires? and keep its shape while
doing so. how is that done?

 

Strawman argument.

 

I'm not going to answer that. I don't want to play the truther game. All truthers do is use fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. That's why you guys are full of crap. I merely wanted to point out that up until the post I responded to you and Gamolon were talking about and only taking about your No-Plane theory. The entire time you 2 were taking about it he was tearing you apart and finally when he had you all but defeated you abruptly, and without acknowledgement of his argument, changed the subject to WTC7 collapse which had absolutely nothing to do with you 2's conversation so far. This is a pure example of Red Herring Fallacy if ever there is one. Can you deny this? Also, like Hannibal said, Strawman.

 

For you personally, what constitutes PROOF
that there were any hijacked airliners at all?

 

You completely skipped what I said. Just like all truthers.

 

in other words, you have no proof that hijacked airliners
were used as weapons on 9/11/2001,
otherwise, you would have said so.

have a nice day

: )

 

Red herring number 2.

You've jumped from the planes even crashing into the towers the way they did to the way tower 7 fell and now wether or not any planes were even hijacked. Red. Herring. Fallacy. Good day sir.

 

If the "debunker" side were so crazy about
enlightening the lost, you could supply the
essential evidence, problem is, there isn't any
there is no proof that any airliners were hijacked that day.

 

Dodging the topic, casting one red herring after another.
No wonder the truth movement crumbled.

 

Still NO DATA, I wonder why? could it be the fact that
there is NO DATA? where is the INFORMATION
that shuts down the "TRUTH MOVEMENT"?
where is it?

 

Truth movement has been shut down for years. Only the severely uninformed remnants remain.

 

Your opinion ..... not the TRUTH.
the problem here is one of perception
you don't see that there is a serious problem
here, because you have been duped into believing
that story about angry Arabs & hijacked airliners.

Where is the PROOF that hijacked airliners were
ever crashed into the WTC or Pentagon or Shanksville?

 

You're changing the subject and arguing from incredulity again.

 

when I ask where is the INFORMATION
the debunkers say "the info has been posted before"
what you didn't get it then? .... however, what not
even a link or a message number or something?
my take on all this is that the ONLY thing that is
keeping the "angry Arab hijackers" story afloat is
the belief of people who have been duped into
buying the lie and can see no way to extricate
themselves from the position of either having to
go public with changing their minds on so heavy
an issue, or? This is a very heavy thing, I can
see how people struggle with it, but really given
what is most certainly not argument from incredulity
but practical physical reality, that is the total destruction
of WTC 1, 2 & 7 = Controlled Demolition.

You don't like that? OK, go to whatever place you have
to just go and think, and ponder what has happened
and the whole scene here, how the "news" was presented
(etc .... ) just think about it. is that too much to ask?

 

You post ever increasing incredulities.

How about some evidence to back your claims?

 

the total destruction of 3 steel skyscrapers is evidence
however you simply refuse to recognize it as such.

The excuse that the towers fell because of the alleged
airliner crashes, is lame! Why isn't the picture in post
#23 of "FEA data regarding WTC1" just as probable or
plausible as any other explanation?
what are the odds?

 

Argument from fallacy. "Total destruction"
Argument from incredulity. "What are the odds?"

 

Please be so kind as to illustrate how it is
that the Total Destruction argument is "incredulity"
was there, or was there not total destruction of the towers & 7?

also, what are the odds, is totally valid, is the picture
that I referenced in my last any less valid as a possible
out-come of the damage, than say the official story?

and can you support the argument with something
that is a bit more detailed than simply calling my posts
wrong?

 

Total destruction is a fallacy. You've been shown this over and over.

 

OK, where is it documented how much of WTC 1, 2 & 7
were left after the "collapse" 1% .... 2% or? what?
I have NOT been shown any documentation that shows
how much of any of the three buildings remained after the
"collapse" ...... what do you have?

 

You've been shown evidence of survivors in the stairwells that remained intact. You've been directed to photographs of the interior mall of the WTC which suffered some damage, but remained undestroyed.

These things alone prove 'total destruction' to be a fallacy.

 

Part of the problem is it's hard to understand what you mean by "total destruction" and percentages of remains.

If you mean the material remains of the buildings, then the percent will be just shy of the high 90%, the rest being pulverized concrete dust drifting around the city.

Even in a real controlled demolition there is rubble. You seem to be implying there would be no rubble. This is incorrect.