You just refuse to acknowledge that you're pushing a logical fallacy. Incredible.

Btw, how are you going with this?

On Farmer's supposed quotes:

{i]You know as well as I do that you lifted this quote from an article promoting Farmer's book. I was there and I remember your post, so please do not misrepresent what I said any further-it is dishonest. The quotes were merged to provide controversial copy for the back cover. It is a common sales technique where hyperbole is generated by merging quotes to create copy that entices the target audience to buy it. Have you read Farmer's book yet? If so, could you please place the merged quotes in context, for they are obviously not in their original state. I've asked this in three threads and you fail to even acknowledge the question, let alone attempt to answer it.

You should of had more options.

It was a mossad job.

Latest poll results

76.9 % yes it was an inside job.
12.4% say no

The rest are the other choices.

Thank you all for voting.

Polls of any kind are generally bias.

I think most sheeple don't think about it much, and don't really care if the government is totally corrupt, or they expect it is, and just don't want to know the details about it. They are too self absorbed in their own personal lives to give it any thought.

Why should people care? There are far more pressing concerns in the average person's environment than what a minority believes to be true about an incident that occurred eleven years ago. To employ the derogatory label 'sheeple' is unjustified, just because some people don't have the luxury of time, nor the inclination to obsess about such minutiae doesn't make people who don't into automatons. That attitude immediately makes a possible audience immediately hostile to any hypothesis posited. I know as soon as I read such presumptive nonsense, I instantly think, 'Wanker'.

Nutty 9-11 Physics

Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use "Back" to return here.

No amount of evidence will dissuade a conspiracy theorist, but when they appeal to scientific evidence, they're fair game. And the 9-11 conspiracy sites have some very strange science.

9-11 conspirators seem to be a mix of liberals still smarting over 2000 and ultra-conservatives angry that George Bush Jr. hasn't opened the national parks to a land rush. But if Dubya orchestrated a massive conspiracy to bring down the World Trade Center as a pretext for launching a Mideast War, why didn't he pull off the far simpler trick of faking the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Think of it - his biggest political liability could have been avoided with a piddling investment in special effects, Bush would be seen as America's savior, his strategy would be completely vindicated, and he'd be politically unassailable. All it would take would be spritzing an empty factory with the ingredients for nerve gas, with just enough cross-contamination to create a whiff of the real thing. Yet for some strange reason he didn't do it.
Cause and Effect

We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't.

In the case of 9-11, we have planes hitting the World Trade Center and the buildings failing at precisely the level of impact. The observational evidence clearly shows a cause and effect relationship.
It Looks Like A Controlled Demolition

What else is a large building collapse going to look like?

Until 9-11, our only experience in bringing down very large buildings was controlled demolition. The highest buildings (apart from broadcast towers) brought down were in the 30 story range. Once the building starts to fall, the physics is going to be the same regardless of the initial cause. So alleged similarities between 9-11 and controlled demolitions prove nothing. You might as well argue that the collapse of Mount St. Helens in 1980 was set off by explosives because it looked just like a landslide caused by explosives.

One thing radically different about 9-11 is that controlled demolitions always set off charges low in the structure and let the weight of the building do the rest. Nobody ever set off charges high in a building to pancake the stories beneath. So why resort to a radical and unproven method if you want to bring down the World Trade Center?

Probably the most revealing commentary on the controlled demolition theory is Bringing Down The House by Michael Satchell in US News and World Report (June 30, 2003). This article describes the work of Controlled Demolition Inc., far and away the world leaders in controlled demolition, and Mark and Doug Loizeaux, who run it.

Like most Americans, the Loizeauxs were transfixed by the televised scenes of destruction shortly after the first jet struck. But as experts in buildings' vulnerabilities, they knew right away what few Americans realized. "I told Doug immediately that the tower was coming down, and when the second tower was hit, that it would follow," remembers Mark.

Horrified, the Loizeaux brothers watched first responders streaming into the doomed towers and tried frantically, and unsuccessfully, to phone in warnings. In the following days, CDI was called to ground zero to consult on safety and develop plans for demolition and debris removal. What if the twin towers, though badly damaged, had somehow remained standing? Without doubt, the Loizeaux family would have been called upon to bring them down. "Quite simply," says Mark in a rare moment of introspective uncertainty, "I don't know how we would have done it."

So according to the world experts on building demolition:

* It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall
* They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in a controlled demolition.

Of course, you can always claim the Loizeaux brothers were in on the plot. Some sites link to a story about Controlled Demolition later being charged with illegal campaign contributions, which certainly proves something. Or other.

Actually, the collapse doesn't look like a controlled demolition. Real controlled demolitions try very hard to avoid flinging debris far beyond the building itself. They blow the lower stories and the center of the building to cause the building to collapse in on itself. The collapse of the World Trade Center doesn't look remotely like a controlled collapse, apart from stuff falling down.

Implosion World, a site dedicated to controlled building collapse, agrees http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm)

DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”? No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled [emphasis added] fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.”

Check out the videos of the demolition of the Stardust Hotel in Las Vegas. Fireworks. Big pyrotechnic countdown clock. None of that on 9/11. Not even remotely similar. Silly? Yes, but still above the intellectual level of most 9/11 conspiracy theories. I mean, the similarities the conspiracy buffs point to are on the same level of superficiality as whether or not there were fireworks.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm




Neither Tower went down like this!
Each one started to collapse from the point of Impact,regardless of the Conspiracy-Theorists claims!

Latest poll results

76.9 % yes it was an inside job.
12.4% say no

The rest are the other choices.

Thank you all for voting.

Why should people care? There are far more pressing concerns in the average person's environment than what a minority believes to be true about an incident that occurred eleven years ago. To employ the derogatory label 'sheeple' is unjustified, just because some people don't have the luxury of time, nor the inclination to obsess about such minutiae doesn't make people who don't into automatons. That attitude immediately makes a possible audience immediately hostile to any hypothesis posited. I know as soon as I read such presumptive nonsense, I instantly think, 'Wanker'.

I didn't actually say that people(or sheeple) SHOULD CARE. I simply said they don't care.

By using the term "sheeple" I am referring to the people who go about their lives self absorbed and barely aware of what is going on in the world. Some are more aware, some are less aware, but sheeple are swayed, guided and molded by everything they hear on television or are indoctrinated by universities, schools and the military. They seldom use common sense and don't think for themselves.

Using a term like "sheeple" is about the same as you who use terms like "twoofer" or "truthers" towards people who dare to question the official version of 9-11. Therefore you are in the same boat, creating a hostile audience right off the bat. Hense one thinks instantly "Wanker."

P.S.
So just to put this in perspective, the destruction of the twin towers and other buildings is what you describe "an incident that occurred 11 years ago?"

...so since it was so long ago, I guess you are saying that it should be ignored, or forgotten in spite of all the suspicious circumstances and unanswered questions, and that we "truthers" should stop asking questions and join the ranks of the sheeple who accept the official version or the sheeple who stopped caring.

I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on mass murder and terrorism.

silly,isn't it,that a Real Demolition with Explosives looks so unlike how the Towers went?

From a truther on JREF:

"It looked exactly like a controlled demolition in every respect, so it can only possibly have been a controlled demolition, and the fact that it didn't actually look very much like a controlled demolition at all just showed that it was an unconventional controlled demolition, because the conspirators wouldn't have been stupid enough to make it look exactly like a controlled demolition in every respect."

"Precise" contradiction, very impressive!

I could only come up with such garbage after severe head trauma.

From a truther on JREF:

"It looked exactly like a controlled demolition in every respect, so it can only possibly have been a controlled demolition, and the fact that it didn't actually look very much like a controlled demolition at all just showed that it was an unconventional controlled demolition, because the conspirators wouldn't have been stupid enough to make it look exactly like a controlled demolition in every respect."

"(They fell)through the path of greatest resistance (at) the speed of gravity"

Latest poll results

76.9 % yes it was an inside job.
12.4% say no

The rest are the other choices.

Thank you all for voting.



Who can defend the official version of 911 and keep a straight face at this point?

Who can read one of your posts and keep a straight face at this point?