Wake Up

[Laukev7]

Appeal to emotion.

You're mixing up your fallacies, skyman. That's not an appeal to emotion, since I wasn't arguing anything, as you admitted yourself.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

oohhh ohhhh ... heated debate here, wonder who's gonna win

come on you know you wanna duke it out

here is me ... click it NOW !!!



who says you can't edit with the gimp ? made this in 5 min ... most of it was finding the image to modify ... what you don't like my masterpiece here

[Pathos]

What kind of explosive set-up can take a shower of burning fuel and hot metal, have several floors taken out of it, destroy a section of the cental column here ALL  of the wiring runs through.  And still explode on command.  All without being detected.

Hell, I'd be impressed if the evil boogeyman government could conspire to deliver my mail correctly.

If there were explosives they wouldn't need to be very close to the impact and I'm sure you can build very resistant explosives these days.

[skyman8081]

You know, that picture DOES look like me, you weaken my argument so you can easily tear it down.  A strawman.

A controlled demolition requires a large degree of engineering, and modification of the structure of the building itself.  You don't just stick a bunch of TNT by a column and hope for the best.

Linear shaped charges don't do their work by blast effects. They actually cut the metal like a knife. A focused jet of molten metal is created by the charge. The jet cuts through the metal. This requires placing the charges at a very specific orientation and distance from the metal. This is where all the prep time comes in. Metal has to be exposed. Holes are cut in beams to allow the charges to be placed. It's not as simple as Hollywood would have you believe.  The way the WTC was designed and built, the charges would have to use valueble office space.  the hell it wouldn't be noticed.  There is no evidence for the WTC to have been demolished by a controlled demolition.

[Laukev7]

There is no evidence for the WTC to have been demolished by a controlled demolition.

No shit there isn't, it was shipped off to China.

[skyman8081]

The steel that was shipped off was steel that could not be identified, NIST took samples from the steel that they could identify from where in the building, and it helped in their investigation of the collapse.  It is the steel from the periphery and stuff that was mangled beyond recognition that got mangled.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Try harder next time.

[Laukev7]

and it helped in their investigation of the collapse.

Whose investigation? The one sponsored by the government? The very same investigation that's being questioned?

[skyman8081]

Look you little shit.  You can disagree with the conclusion, but I am talking about COLD HARD FACTS.  If you want to deny the inclusion of the data that NIST took from the collapse site samples.  Then you have NOTHING but a few pictures to stand on.   YOU CAN'T HANDWAVE AWAY EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF ITS SOURCE!



[SIZE=7000]YOU HAVE PROVIDED ZERO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF THE WTC COLLAPSE BEING A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.  NOW ADDRESS MY FUCKING POINTS.[/SIZE]

[Laukev7]

YOU CAN'T HANDWAVE AWAY EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF ITS SOURCE!

Yes I can. Evidence can be fabricated. The government that conducted the investigation was the same one that fabricated evidence to invade Iraq, and I will only trust the analysis of an independent investigation.

[skyman8081]

Iraq is irrelevant to this discussion.  This is strictly about the collapse of the WTC.  DON'T CHANGE TO THE FUCKING SUBJECT.

Show me evidence of the evidence in question being fabricated.  Not iraq, or any tangential examples, but evidence of the WTC collapse evidence itself being faked.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

[Laukev7]

Iraq is irrelevant to this discussion.

Iraq is irrelevant, but the fact that your government is a bunch of liars isn't. In court, when a person is found guilty of making up evidence, then he is discredited.

Show me evidence of the evidence in question being fabricated. Not iraq, or any tangential examples, but evidence of the WTC collapse evidence itself being faked.

You can't present evidence that they fabricated the evidence unless they make it available. That's the point of an independent investigation.

[Orethrius]

The second-hardest thing to prove is a conspiracy (incidentally, Sauron, for the same reason you cited - absence of evidence be not necessarily evidence of absence).

[offtopic]Anybody care to guess at the hardest?  [/offtopic]

[skyman8081]

Unless you show you show me factual evidence that the evidence that NIST gathered is faked.  IT FUCKING STANDS.  You are trying to send me off on a tangent.  NOW WORK WITH WHAT YOU FUCKING HAVE.

The government lied about something not relevant to this discussion.  Therefore using that is not enout to toss the PHSYICAL EVIDENCE GATHERED.

[Laukev7]

Unless you show you show me factual evidence that the evidence that NIST gathered is faked. IT FUCKING STANDS.

I can't possibly provide you evidence when I have no access to it. You're admitting yourself that I can only look at pictures. I maintain that there are very compelling arguments to be made for controlled demolition, and an independent investigation is needed to verify them.

You've been yelling at me to give you evidence. I'm not the one who came up with the controlled demolition theory, so I'm not the one you should ask for evidence. I'm not an expert, and I don't claim to be. All I can do is search the web for hours for articles, and I can't guarantee that the evidence I will provide will be correct, or will represent the opinions of the experts who analyse the official theory.

You can yell at me for hours to give you evidence or shut up, all I'm going to give you is circumstantial evidence involving political activities. You can type 'shut up' in bold and large characters all you want, but I will remind you that I am currently the one, aside from two other members, who has the authority to arbitrate on who gets to speak.

[skyman8081]

So, you have no information to back up your story.  It rests on the idea that the evidence that is out there is faked, without any proof of forgery.  I can't buy that tale.

Nice appeal to authority there.  Your argument wins because you are a mod. :rolleyes: