Invitation to Logic Exercise for 9/11 Critics

[msheekhah]

http://divinelotus.freehostia.com/WordP ... wer-video/

This is an article I posted on my church blog. Now, go through all of the videos and watch the evidence pointed out.

Then, once you are done, continue with the article. I have a logical proposition for you.

Once you have read the logical proposition, looked at my justification for invalidating the postulate on which 9/11 conspiracy critics base their logic, I want you to justify your position by basing your arguments on postulates that can then be examined for similar discourse.

Those of you with the logical fortitude to try it, please accept this challenge.

Sincerely,

Rev. Mark Anthony Collins
Church of the Divine Lotus

[aggle-rithm]

http://divinelotus.freehostia.com/WordP ... wer-video/

This is an article I posted on my church blog. Now, go through all of the videos and watch the evidence pointed out.

Then, once you are done, continue with the article. I have a logical proposition for you.

Once you have read the logical proposition, looked at my justification for invalidating the postulate on which 9/11 conspiracy critics base their logic, I want you to justify your position by basing your arguments on postulates that can then be examined for similar discourse.

Those of you with the logical fortitude to try it, please accept this challenge.

Sincerely,

Rev. Mark Anthony Collins
Church of the Divine Lotus

This is a false dilemma. "Either the media are completely objective and completely free from outside infuence, or they are controlled by the government." Doesn't hold water.

Even if you could prove that the media was controlled by the government, it would not prove that 9/11 was an inside job. Just because there COULD be a coverup doesn't mean there IS a coverup.

[chipmunk stew]

I reject your postulate that critics rely on the news media to the exclusion of independent investigation/verification.

[msheekhah]

That's not what I said. I said, when looking at the evidence that 9/11 theorists give, the justification for dismissing physics professors, demolitions experts, and eye witness testimony is generally given that the media would accurately report it if there was a conspiracy.

http://divinelotus.freehostia.com/WordP ... wer-video/

This is an article I posted on my church blog. Now, go through all of the videos and watch the evidence pointed out.

Then, once you are done, continue with the article. I have a logical proposition for you.

Once you have read the logical proposition, looked at my justification for invalidating the postulate on which 9/11 conspiracy critics base their logic, I want you to justify your position by basing your arguments on postulates that can then be examined for similar discourse.

Those of you with the logical fortitude to try it, please accept this challenge.

Sincerely,

Rev. Mark Anthony Collins
Church of the Divine Lotus

This is a false dilemma. "Either the media are completely objective and completely free from outside infuence, or they are controlled by the government." Doesn't hold water.

Even if you could prove that the media was controlled by the government, it would not prove that 9/11 was an inside job. Just because there COULD be a coverup doesn't mean there IS a coverup.

[msheekhah]

The NIST report debunks the "official pancake theory" that the 9/11 comission gave. That's the government debunking the government.

Then, experts in controlled demolitions, as well as physics professors, have gone on record to say that the 9/11 twin towers collapse had to be the result of controlled demolitions, specifically thermate.

However, NIST did not share all of this scientific data for peer review, which is necessary for its conclusions to be considered scientific. The experts in demolitions and the physics professors were all forthcoming with their analysis and the data on which it was drawn.

So, from a scientific proceedural standpoint, the NIST report is not scientific, while the "conspiracy theorists" are... because of the necessity for open peer review to be considered a scientific report.

I reject your postulate that critics rely on the news media to the exclusion of independent investigation/verification.

[chipmunk stew]

The NIST report debunks the "official pancake theory" that the 9/11 comission gave. That's the government debunking the government.

The Commission Report did not include an analysis of structural performance. Perhaps you are referring to the FEMA report issued in May 2002 that recommended further study, which NIST then took up. NIST discovered that the likeliest scenario was a progressive collapse that was technically not a "pancake" collapse. It is a subtle correction that does not alter the fact that structural damage and heat initiated the collapses.

Then, experts in controlled demolitions, as well as physics professors, have gone on record to say that the 9/11 twin towers collapse had to be the result of controlled demolitions, specifically thermate.

Experts in controlled demolitions are in near-unanimous agreement that the collapses were the result of structural damage and heat. In fact, I know of none that accept the thermate hypothesis. Names? Steven Jones' and Judy Wood's work is nearly unanimously rejected by their academic and professional...I hesitate to say it...peers.

However, NIST did not share all of this scientific data for peer review, which is necessary for its conclusions to be considered scientific. The experts in demolitions and the physics professors were all forthcoming with their analysis and the data on which it was drawn.

NIST's investigations have been thoroughly transparent. They've solicited public input at every step of the way. Pieces of their results have been replicated and verified by individuals, by independent engineering groups, and by university physics and engineering departments. (Example: http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/ )

Neither Jones nor Wood has submitted any of their 9/11 work for peer review. Informal peer review has uncovered major flaws in their primary assumptions, in their representation of data, in their test protocols, and in the logic of their conclusions.

So, from a scientific proceedural standpoint, the NIST report is not scientific, while the "conspiracy theorists" are... because of the necessity for open peer review to be considered a scientific report.

By your own definition (which I disagree with, but it's your definition) none of the work of the "conspiracy theorists" is scientific.

I reject your postulate that critics rely on the news media to the exclusion of independent investigation/verification.

[Ignatz]

...

Then, experts in controlled demolitions, as well as physics professors, have gone on record to say that the 9/11 twin towers collapse had to be the result of controlled demolitions, specifically thermate.

Could you name a few of these "experts in CD" that agree, on record, that the Twin Towers were CD'd with thermate?

[Anti-sophist]

The NIST report debunks the "official pancake theory" that the 9/11 comission gave. That's the government debunking the government.

False. NIST debunks "pancaking" as the mechanism for collapse initiation. The actual collapse, after initiation, can still be described as pancaking.

when looking at the evidence that 9/11 theorists give, the justification for dismissing physics professors, demolitions experts, and eye witness testimony is generally given that the media would accurately report it if there was a conspiracy.

False. Generally the dismissal is based on pointing out the logical fallacy, mathematical mistakes, or bad science in the conclusions. Rarely is it based on a presumption that the media would be reporting it, if it were true.

[Ignatz]

No offers of CD experts willing to testify about CD by thermate? Thermite would do, or a nano-variation even .....

...

Then, experts in controlled demolitions, as well as physics professors, have gone on record to say that the 9/11 twin towers collapse had to be the result of controlled demolitions, specifically thermate.

Could you name a few of these "experts in CD" that agree, on record, that the Twin Towers were CD'd with thermate?

[Thermate]

the lack of a valid, thorough investigation/inquiry along with the near total destruction of scene of crime evidence should be enough to point you in the direction of the truth. to be honest anyone who doubts 911 was an inside job just hasn't done/seen enough research on the subject.

don't forget the official story is also a conspiracy theory and one for which they have far less (zero?) evidence...

[Anti-sophist]

the lack of a valid, thorough investigation/inquiry along with the near total destruction of scene of crime evidence should be enough to point you in the direction of the truth. to be honest anyone who doubts 911 was an inside job just hasn't done/seen enough research on the subject.

don't forget the official story is also a conspiracy theory and one for which they have far less (zero?) evidence...

How come all these "free-thinking" "do-your-own-research" "truth"-seekers all repeat the same stupid tired lines? The real conspiracy is why all the conspiracy theorists sound exactly the same... obviously shills for someone. The only question is who...

Since you are a parrot for someone far smarter telling you what to think and say, feel free to repeat the standard CT gibberish response to the following question:

What, exactly, did you find non-thorough or invalid about NISTs 12,000 page report on the collapse of WTC1 and 2.

[Thermate]

How come all these "free-thinking" "do-your-own-research" "truth"-seekers all repeat the same stupid tired lines?

You mean this one?

"don't forget the official story is also a conspiracy theory and one for which they have far less (zero?) evidence..."

stupid and tired? or clearly obvious?

What, exactly, did you find non-thorough or invalid about NISTs 12,000 page report on the collapse of WTC1 and 2.

"fire did it"

[Patrick Brown]

the lack of a valid, thorough investigation/inquiry along with the near total destruction of scene of crime evidence should be enough to point you in the direction of the truth. to be honest anyone who doubts 911 was an inside job just hasn't done/seen enough research on the subject.

don't forget the official story is also a conspiracy theory and one for which they have far less (zero?) evidence...

How come all these "free-thinking" "do-your-own-research" "truth"-seekers all repeat the same stupid tired lines? The real conspiracy is why all the conspiracy theorists sound exactly the same... obviously shills for someone. The only question is who...

Since you are a parrot for someone far smarter telling you what to think and say, feel free to repeat the standard CT gibberish response to the following question:

What, exactly, did you find non-thorough or invalid about NISTs 12,000 page report on the collapse of WTC1 and 2.

Balls!

Who told me that the thermite (nano-thermite) could have been placed inside the columns? Hey! Hey!

Who told me that the very fine dust of nano-thermite could account for the flash fires that burnt the cars etc. Hey! Hey!

Some of us are thinking for ourselves and it's beginning to worry you isn't it my little lackey shill?

Sniff ... The ... Foot

[Anti-sophist]

What, exactly, did you find non-thorough or invalid about NISTs 12,000 page report on the collapse of WTC1 and 2.

"fire did it"

At least you admit that your entire opinion on the issue is based on zero analysis. That's refreshing.

Who told me that the thermite (nano-thermite) could have been placed inside the columns? Hey! Hey!

Who told me that the very fine dust of nano-thermite could account for the flash fires that burnt the cars etc.

That's a good question, considering there is utterly no evidence, at all, it was. How do so many "free-thinkers" independently come to believe the same thing, despite zero evidence. Talk about a coincidence. The answer, of course, is they all read the same website written by the same small group of crackpots.

Sniff ... The ... Foot

You seem to be obsessed with feet. It's a bit strange, friend.