The circular "Logic" of "Truthers"

[SDuderstadt]

"Truthers" are always claiming that since buildings like the WTC have never collapsed in the manner they did before, that proves they could not have collapsed other than "controlled demolition".

Let's extend that argument out a bit. Let's say I COULD provide an example of the same thing happening two years prior but none prior to that. Wouldn't that then mean that 1st occurrence could not possibly have happened that way? Or, does that simply prove that there can be a first time for everything?

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. the argument doesn't have to be that poor

It can be stated that buildings similar to the WTC towers have survived greater damage than the damage to the towers prior to their collapse. If that were true, it wouldn't prove CD, but it would be salient.

It seems, however, that the buildings said to be "similar" aren't all that similar, so the argument isn't very good.

I wouldn't say that your version is a straw man: I'm pretty sure I've seen arguments that bad.

[rollingrock]

2. Straw man

there are dozens of valid reasons that have been presented on this board time and again, including the lack of precedent, that supports the case for controlled demolition. you act as if the lack of precedent is the only one--that's called a logical fallacy.

Don't you OCTers ever have anything valid or worthwhile to say?

[SDuderstadt]

3. "you act as if the lack of precedent is the only one"

I was only talking about this one for now. I'm not sure how you deduce I had a duty to produce every goofy question "truthers" throw up in my example. More importantly, you're a "no-planer". Bye.

[Realityhack]

4. Please take a critical thinking class so you can stop embarrassing yourself.

It is not a logical fallacy it is called discussing a specific argument rather than all arguments.

[rollingrock]

10. Logic 101

The OP is a straw man because no one is claiming that the lack of precedent alone is proof of anything. Comprende?

[chrisa]

9. I haven't seen anything valid or convincing.

Just a bunch of self-appointed experts and their websites. Don't even get me started on Alex Jones and his legion of truthers. If 9/11 is such a conspiracy, why didn't the government shut his site down and arrest him? That seems like a simple task compared to a plot involving 1000s of people.

And controlled demo wouldn't be possible. The building would need to be prepared for weeks to fall perfectly without crashing into buildings around it, unless of course you get that pancake effect of floors falling on one another, increasing in weight and downward force each time.

[Kalun D]

12. B-CUZ

""If 9/11 is such a conspiracy, why didn't the government shut his site down and arrest him?""

Because the gov doesn't have the resources to go after people who stay below a certain hit count. If you go over then you get censored. And Jones has gone over on YouTube and he has been censored on YouTube because of it. The main place to see this is on the TV. You see 911 truth everywhere else but the seldom on TV. Because the TV has a large hit count.

""And controlled demo wouldn't be possible. The building would need to be prepared for weeks""

the building was rented out. When you change renters you often remodel. Entire floors where remodeled. Why couldn't you plant wireless demolition devices then? There were power shut downs, which would disable cameras. There were times when the sniffer dogs where called off. One of the security firms was linked to one of the Bush boys.

[SDuderstadt]

14. "Why couldn't you plant wireless demolition devices then? "

Talk about farfetched. Do you honestly expect us to believe the "perps" were just lucky enough that the right strategically-placed tenants would move out and enough of them to make it work? Instead of the typical "truther" , " Well, it COULD have happened this way" bullshit, why don't you research move-outs And demonstrate precisely how it could have happened?

The rest of your goofy claims (power-down etc.) are already debunked.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html

[chrisa]

16. Re; B-CUZ

Because the gov doesn't have the resources to go after people who stay below a certain hit count. If you go over then you get censored. And Jones has gone over on YouTube and he has been censored on YouTube because of it. The main place to see this is on the TV. You see 911 truth everywhere else but the seldom on TV. Because the TV has a large hit count.

Yet they could perpetrate the biggest terrorist attack in US history?

And Alex Jones' site probably gets tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of hits per day. They certainly know about him.

the building was rented out. When you change renters you often remodel. Entire floors where remodeled. Why couldn't you plant wireless demolition devices then? There were power shut downs, which would disable cameras. There were times when the sniffer dogs where called off. One of the security firms was linked to one of the Bush boys.

Because they would need to place charges on the whole building, not just certain parts. This was take weeks, not just a ocuple of days where charges could be planted. Demolition is a huge process to get buildings to fall perfectly. WTC's footprint collapse was more of a product of its height, shape, and structure than other causes.

[Kalun D]

17. HIT COUNT

It's always a numbers game. If your message is not getting exposed to enough of the population to make a difference in changing a majorities mind then they are not going to waste the money suppressing you.

I think Jones intentionally does some stuff to make himself look loony so he doesn't have mass appeal. The people who get really serious about total accuracy and mass appeal are the ones that get censored/taken out.

""And Alex Jones' site probably gets tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of hits per day.""

according to Alexa, Jones gets about 480,000 hits per day. That's .16 % of US population. A drop in the bucket when the concern is a majority of public opinion. IOW, he's a small fry as far as the Gov is concerned.

the only time Jones has approached a million per day is on YouTube and that video got taken down that day.

""They certainly know about him.""

Of course they do, but they also know he's not a current threat.

""Because they would need to place charges on the whole building, not just certain parts.""

WTC 1 and 2 were unconventional top down demolitions, they didn't need to do the entire building, you get an upper section started and take out key core columns and gravity does the rest.

WTC 7 was more conventional bottom up. Not a public building so the agencies that have offices there like the CIA could have done whatever they wanted.

""This was take weeks, not just a ocuple of days where charges could be planted""

Silverstein owned the buildings for 6 weeks before the attacks. "Coincidentally" the first time they had been privately owned in their entire history. Wouldn't it be easier for a private owner to do whatever?

[lovepg]

13. Yet the buildings fell into there own footprint???

WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES AND WITH NO PREPERATION???????
A lot of companies who make there living claiming to be he only ones to be able to get buildings to fall this way with all there expertise and skill and planning should be sued for fraud because all you really need to do is start the buildings on fire and the structural damage the fires cause to the steel will make them collapse into there own footprint. Oh and maybe a jet needs to be flown into at least some of them LOL!!!!
But i think will start my own" plane and a fire" demoltion company.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Well, if you're going to start your own...

"plane and a fire demolition company", make sure you learn how to spell "their" (not "there") properly for your brochures. And if, as you claim, WTC 1&2 fell in "there own footprint", why were the adjacent buildings damaged so badly in their collapse?

[whatchamacallit]

5. Wow talk about circular logic...

Apply that brilliant "first time for everything" insight to the notion of a government false flag operation while you're at it. Not surprisingly, there's a lot more historical precedence for that then 3 buildings falling straight down into shredded rubble on the same day.

[SDuderstadt]

7. I forgot...are you a "no-planer"?

n/t

[rhymeandreason]

6. Thank you for pointing this out. Your remarks remind me a little of

Dan Quayle who also had an uncanny logical and rhetorical gift.

I have made good judgements in the Past. I have made good judgements in the Future.

Dan Quayle

[rollingrock]

11. lol

I wouldn't be surprised if Dan Quayle came up with the official story too.

[chrisa]

8. Logical fallacies

For example: "Since these few people said they never saw a plane, this is 100% evidence that a plane never hit the WTCs or Pentagon!"

"There's no evidence that a plane DID hit the Pentagon!" (There is)

"Operations Northwoods, (a plan drafted by some nutjob in a back room that was laughed at by anybody with an IQ over 12), proves that 9/11 is a conspiracy!"

"Thermite was found!" (I haven't seen a single source that isn't a fly-by-night, or agenda website that has this)

"A missile hit the Pentagon! A plane couldn't possibly cause that damage!" (They're aircraft experts now)

"Prove that the government didn't perpetrate 9/11!" (My favorite - the burden isn't on us - you're the ones with the outrageous claims)

"Look at my grainy footage! You can see bombs exploding!" (Hmmm. Grey pixels. So convincing)

"But but... Mr. X said that the government did it! He's a real scientist!" (Turns out most 'sources' of truthers don't even exist)

"WTC 7 falling is absolute proof that 9/11 was an inside job!" (How? Was "Bush Wuz Here" written on the walls?)