I agree. And the refusal to supply any sources, or even try to find a source, makes it sound invented.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

I hope you meant that as an addition to what I was saying, because I'm guilty of no such fallacy.

I have another refute to this statement. Imagine the size of the plane. Planes travel at hundreds and hundreds of miles an hour. Such a mass at such a speed must have imparted a great impact on the building. Now think, you claim "people Felt explosionS". Ok so when the first plane hit, because the tower didn't fall down, the energy supplemented by the plane to the building must have gone somewhere. Energy from the inertia of the plane traveled down building 1, and sent a shock wave from the base. This explanation allows for your argument to be true for feeling explosions, but it doesn't mean that there were explosions in the basement of tower 7.

Yes you are. Hence why I quoted you.

And just to anticipate a possible response, I'll post another fallacy:
Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.

Because you said basically anyone could say the opposite of Darkling and get away with it because it was so "easy", it fell into the fallacy.

No, I wasn't saying that it was true, I was saying that he could make up any 'fact' like that just as well as I can and it doesn't make it true. I wasn't actually saying what I said would have any evidence in it.

And I wasn't actually saying that everyone saying it was false would make it true that it was false.

I suppose when you read it with that in mind, it is easy to tell how you meant it, but with the first post alone, it could be taken either way.

Its still falling into the fallacy. It would have been better to hit the fallacy with hard facts then to pose an antithesis to the argument.

No it doesn't. It would if I had said or had said it as if my random example conjecture (written specifically to mock his own) would make what he was saying was false or that it had any truth to it at all. There was no such implication and no meaning behind it at all.

Well I have to disagree, just because it makes a difference of who did the killing doesn't mean it was terrorists alone. I haven't done too much research yet at all, but in revelation where the anti-christ is appears, and a society described as the NWO appears, the 9/11 attacks make perfect sense. Those in the NWO create a conflict; like say a terrorist attack, or the Great Depression (to get everyone ssid), and then they hide themselves behind the solution to the conflict. I'm in highschool and I'm in IB, which is International Baccalaureate, and it's main 'focus' is internationalism. Well, what do you think a proposed solution to 9/11 attacks will be? Sit and watch? Kill them all? No i don't think either of those will be the 'solution'.

According to the bible, the NWO is going to happen, so there's not exactly a reason to fight it, its going to happen, but I just want everyone here to have an open mind and know that something may be going on, besides the usual terrorism.

Here are some links to some sites regarding weapons confiscated from Afghanistan. You really think.. Russia, or China is giving these people these types of things? They don't just appear out of nowhere. I have a suspicion that this has been a complete setup by the NWO.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020323/ai_n12606420
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48613,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html

Quote from last link:

It was clear to ME what Kaias was saying and it's not a freaking fallacy. Maybe not a great argument, but not a fallacy. A topic inevitably gets weighed down and off-topic (at the least) with constant fallacy accusations and I don't think people should go so far out of their way to make them.

Edit: Well I just read the whole topic and I can see how such a discussion as we had here on this last page seemed like nothing. I feel like I just deleted more than 20 posts. With very minimal fines. Be thankful. And learn to debate. Keep your posts on-topic, relevant, structured, and lastly, don't get involved in stupid spam wars for several pages without anyone actually saying anything. This doesn't need to be a tl;dr because people don't know how to conduct themselves in SD.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 6 2008, 3:14 am by Dapperdan.

I don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy.
but... I do find it odd that Bush completely ignored the UN and sent our troops into Iraq alone. (With maybe a few British, but just a few)

Whoever still believes the 9/11 WTC or pentagon attacks were controlled demolitions, government planned attacks, or unrealistic/unscientific. please let me know. I'll happily prove to you why what happened has happened.

I said it about 3 times. If I said my source was Zeitgeist, I would be laughed at.

(And by the way, thanks for the minimal fees. I really don't want to go back in the hole.)

the youtube videos concerning the 9/11 conspiracy ( i have watched all 19 of them ) have interviews, and clips from more quotable references than u-tube. people on sight, people being interviewed by reporters and independent investigations groups, have said that they heard explosions. All of the windows of the first floor (ground floor, more rather) were shattered, the glass was on the outside of the building. A bomb had gone off on that bottom floor, a plane 89 floors up couldn't have done that to 3' inch windows... there's a clip of the inside of the ground floor after the plane hit. there were bombs in the 911 incident, whether or not they were government related or part of the terrorist's plot is for the audience to guess, as of now you cannot say with an absolute tone that the bombs belonged to one side or the other.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 6 2008, 6:39 am by midget_man_66. Reason: spelling errors

You know where those explosions came from? Like I said in my first post, a building is literally crawling with pipelines, utilities, electrics, plumming, and many many things gas and diesel related. One probably doesn't know this because they're hidden behind the dry-walls of the buildings. If the walls and columns start buckling, so will all these hidden and flammable mechanical devices and systems. And once you start throwing in fire, it's going to cause some problems. Just because many people say they've heard explosions doesn't translate into there being bombs. When you describe something, people will use figures of speeches like similes, metaphors, etc.

And the ground floor's columns hold the most weight and undergo the greatest axial/shear stresses. Like i said in my first post, a building wasn't designed to withstand giant airplane crashes. So once you throw in that airplane, it's bound to mess up pretty much the entire building's stress, strain, and force measurements, thus making the design unsafe. In the realm of structural engineering, even the slightest tweak to a beam or girder on the 100th floor can drastically affect the mechanics of a beam or girder on the ground floor; every component of a structure or system is dependent of each other. The physical damage from the falling debris/airplane or the fire that burned for hours alone wouldn't necessarily cause the buildings to collapse, but once you combine these two elements, it can easily cause the ground floor's members to fail. Once the columns and walls cave in, so will the windows but since they are much more brittle than steel or reinforced concrete, they will shatter.


The more of these videos I watch, the more retarded I find them. It's like a bunch of kinder gardeners trying to do calculus. These people are claiming this and that while lacking even the simplest of engineering mechanics knowledge. Like that one video, number 8. Sure they've probably gotten the fact that steel can't be melted by the orange flames that we see, but they start derailing once they start claiming that fire alone can't make the building collapse, therefore it has to be a bomb. Many of these people have gotten the facts right, but they're not using them in the right way or they are applying them in totally wrong cases. I suggest that everyone start here. Once people are well educated in these topics, they will realize that there's more to a collapse of a building than simply fire.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 6 2008, 8:04 am by MillenniumArmy.

Someone killing 1000's of innocent people? Sounds like a terrorist to me.
Admittingly not doing enough research? So where does this info come from?
I wasn't aware the Great depression was a terrorist attack from the NWO??
Grats.
That's a negative.
If that's what it takes. America was founded on rights and liberties. The right to worship stops when your religion allows for you to suicide bomb other people, and actually rewards it. It's nonsensical. Because of Americas foundation, it doesn't matter where you are from, here in USA, or off in some dirt pit in the middle east or asia, we're gonna hunt you down and give you justice. Anyone ever said the line to you "you hit me, I'll hit you 10x harder" ? A classic strategy to discourage negative acts toward that individual. And since you asked my opinion, because terrorists took 1000's, we should send the message, and take 10k back.
Well everyone is entitled to their opinion too, but the paradox remains, not "killing them all"(the terrorists), is sitting and waiting for the next attack, yet "killing them all" could result in innocent casualties.

This isn't bible class. Idk where the bible came from because the Islamic, the terrorists, use the Koran. Besides the point, Nostradamus already used up this gig, so if you're trying to predict the future just vague enough to seem prophetic, someone will see through it.

As for this last little bit I'm a little confused of the point? So we haven't found anything? That only means we aren't looking in the right places. I do know we have raided plenty of ammo sheds, with literal tons of ammunition supplying the Jihad and other 'terroristic' based groups, which is enough for me to sleep good at night.

Overall, regarding your post and my comments, terrorists are people who impart fear into a people by force, violence, and killing for a specific purpose. By the definition of terrorism, 9/11 is classified as a terrorist attack. I don't think we need to "kill them all", unless by them we mean terrorists. These people(if i go as far to call them that) don't have any 'moral' bounds to our culture. They don't think like you and me. They will kill innocent at the drop of a hat and not lose a wink of sleep, just an arm or a leg(ok, bad pun). They will fight all opposition, with conviction that they are truly doing God's will by killing His creations.(and for those that don't believe in God, it will be even easier to find a hint of madness in it)

Are you basing your knowledge on physics or what? No one has really gone and tested crashing a giant, loaded plane into a building, so with the thousands of variables, how accurate are your modules to predict the effect on the ground floor? Like I said earlier, it's pretty easy for me to simulate the effect in my head: a massive object at high end speeds hitting a stationary object will have an equally massive energy transfer that has to go somewhere, that somewhere being down the tower. As for people hearing explosions, what do you imagine a craft careening into the side of a building sounds like? Sound vibrations could have easily been sent down the main building supports and beams(as solids retain sound better than air), all the way down to the bottom floor. Just my take on it based on common sense.

[edit] I like millenniums idea better lol.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 6 2008, 8:07 am by Jello-Jigglers.

Oh and one important thing I forgot to mention.

It doesn't matter if fire can melt steel. A temperature change itself will create what's called a thermal effect on a structure. When a material is heated, it undergoes thermal strains and it will elongate and vice versa for temperature drops. According to Engineering Mechanics, thermal strain is defined by: d = A*T*L where d is the displacement of the material, L is the initial length, T is temperature, and A is the coefficient of thermal expansion (and this particular variable varies with the material). This change in length will create a misfit, which is equivalent of construction workers forcing members that are fabricated either too long or too short into place. Forcing something into place can be dangerous because you might accidentally put a member under a stress or strain much greater than its yield or maximum capacity (and when such cases do arise, that's where the construction company call up on the engineering firms to check and see if it's safe to force these things in).

People are gravely misled because they think that only when steel melts would it affect the structure and leave it vulnerable to collapse and failure. Any engineer will know that just slight temperature changes will affect a building's components.

Hmm.. From every source I've came across, gas lines were cut once the building was impacted... Which could explain why there were no 'explosions' after the plain impacted..

And may I ask you how you know this following quote is true?
It kind of sounds like an observed opinion to me.. Are you a Sociology major, and do you have the credentals to prove the quote? Just a few questions..

......Didn't the building collapse from the floors where the plane hit? That's what every single video from anywhere has shown to me... So why are you saying the floor beams collapsed if the top half of the building fell upon the lower?



Hmmm... Doesn't this quote: basically state that A/C units, heaters, computers, etc.. can cause this 'thermal effect'? Well, using that logic and reasoning couldn't one say that a simple tempurature change within the building would cause a 'thermal effect' on the structure E.G. Someone changing the A/C a notch up/down?

....That's honestly what it sounds like to me.



And honestly, I really don't see why people debate this anymore, what use is there to it? For people to go google things and seem like they know what they're talking about? To talk crap on people who stick to their beliefs and opinions?

What good can come of discussing something that has little truth behind it in the beginning?