The cause was obvious to all. Bloviating over a lack of an aircraft investigation is just silly. The cause was obvious to all, but 9/11 truth. Have you asked the relevant agency? I'll wager you haven't bothered, and you expect others to do it for you. Have you asked the relevant agency? I'll wager you haven't bothered. Have you asked? Most institutions and agencies don't take 9/11 truth seriously, so why should they publish that which is obvious? Your objections are silly.
The cause being obvious to YOU is not a detailed forensic airplane crash investigation. I could say the same thing, there is no need to investigate the collapse of the 3 towers on 9/11 because the cause was an obvious CD. You can keep repeating this "obvious" manure all you want but what's obvious is that the failure to investigate per SOP was deliberate and what's also obvious is that you're just an apologist.
Did you miss the fact that planes struck the towers? Let me help you: https://youtu.be/OGW5JfV34Ng Obviously, you are just flinging poo around indiscriminately to see if any of your garbage claims stick. Unfortunately on Planet Reason, people don't need an investigation into the plane strikes as they were obvious. Only a retard could dispute it. No planes = no braynz. P.S. Have you investigated this subject with Boeing, the airlines or the insurance companies? Of course not, for it's easier to sit in the basement making (*)(*)(*)(*) up, than it is to do any proper research. That is why 9/11 truth wallow in their own stupidity. 9/11 truth: Failing at everything for over fifteen years.
So why on earth did Congress fund NIST to conduct an investigation (which was never done but took 7 years) into how and why the 3 towers collapsed, if planes hit towers, towers caught fire, towers dropped? It was OBVIOUS they collapsed, right? What a waste of time and money. Ditto with all airplane crash investigations, it's OBVIOUS the plane crashed. Ditto with murders, it's OBVIOUS they were murdered. Go discuss "basic logic" with kindergarten mentality. Only it has a lot less to do with kindergarten mentality and a lot more to do with just plain rabid defense/protection of the OCT pretending to discuss serious issues on a kindergarten level. Investigations be damned, Bush never wanted one either, it was OBVIOUS.
That's right, you've never read the report. See the following: "The goals of the investigation of the WTC disaster were: To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster. To serve as the basis for: improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used; improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials; recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices; and improved public safety. The specific objectives were: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed; Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location, including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency response; Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7; and Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision. That pretty well demolishes the rest of your garbage post.
Unfortunately your garbage response doesn't answer why investigate "why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed", which was the first and primary objective if it was OBVIOUS why and how they collapsed. Even Sunder proclaimed "the OBVIOUS stares you in the face".
Read the rest and comprehend, as you intentionally avoided the rest in order to troll. Don't bother responding if you're just going to post such low level dreck. You really try hard to miss the point don't you? From a recent statement by the AIA: "The Board has concluded that this matter has been investigated thoroughly by competent authorities with reasonable conclusions, and does not warrant further investigation. It therefore does not support this resolution." What a nice way of saying 'go away, crank!'
The official reports also contain that infamous line " Total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" Really guyz?
Nothing like [IL]Logic in a logic thread! burden of proof You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one. katz thats all you are going to get from the posers is one shovel full of (*)(*)(*)(*) after another. waste of font ink.
No. Revise comprehension. Let's have a look at what he said: "The official reports also contain that infamous line " Total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" Really guyz?" The words, "really guyz" suggests disbelief over the previous statement. Got that much? Therefore, I asked him to disprove the statement, which by implication meant that if he didn't believe the statement, could he possibly demonstrate why? A simple enough exchange, that didn't require any further elaboration to be understood by anyone with an IQ above that of a garden slug. However, predictably you chose a completely bizarre and inane interpretation, and ran with it without sparing a thought about your own lack of skill in the area of logic. Thanks for proving Jay's point. LOLOL Your posts are ridiculous as usual, but I don't think you actually believe your nonsense, and I go with the 'Poe' consensus as posited on other sites you frequent.
But he was telling you to prove it, a dn you respond with disprove it. He was right you come back with the usual fallacies and bs that has been debunked years ago
yeh who needs an investigation. you had it all, damn thing fell down. nothing more to know. good call - - - Updated - - - yeh investigation was a total waste of time and they proved it too, they didnt find a damn thing!
No he wasn't. Are you drunk? Read it again and lay off the sauce. Remember, if he exhibits disbelief regarding a statement, the burden is on him, not me. Moreover, arguing from incredulity is fallacious, therefore an invalid question. In addition, he wasn't 'telling' anyone to prove it, as no-one in opposition has that responsibility. It is up to him to state the reasons why he disagrees with supporting evidence. Why do you fail at the simple stuff all the time? It's tedious dealing with someone so obviously confused about how the world works. The rest was just garbage because your initial assumption is logically unsound.
well there are literally thousands of bonafide citations out there for burden of proof, get one that matches the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you are pumping.
Ok, you ARE drunk. Have fun with that, as you haven't got a clue. I have no responsibility in answering such a sweeping question, as the burden lies on him. I am not the individual expressing disbelief, nor did he address me, so your claims are specious as ever. I need only to refer him to the original reports and if he can't figure that out for himself well...I should begin invoicing truthers for my time. LOLOL
QUOTE=Kokomojojo;1066229560well there are literally thousands of bonafide citations out there for burden of proof, get one that matches the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you are pumping. I'm waiting [video=youtube;73tGe3JE5IU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73tGe3JE5IU[/video]
Yes, there are, like rationalwiki for a start: "Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to prove the evidence presented is not adequate." He posted an argument from incredulity, that is a given, therefore, where does the above state I have the onus to respond to a fallaciously presented case? Not that he actually presented a case at all, just a sweeping question addressed to no-one in particular, and you know this. 1). He stated disbelief over the reports, not I, therefore I don't have the burden. I presented no 'new claim' while his disbelief suggests he may, and you know this. 2). He presented no evidence to support his disbelief, therefore, I have nothing to respond to, and you know this. 3). I have the onus to disprove his evidence, but he did not present any (see point # 2), and you know this. You are expecting me to take this course and it is fallacious. You're embarrassing yourself. I suggest that if you eventually reach college, it would be a good idea to do an introductory subject on Logic through the Philosophy Dept.
awe and you had to cheat. try this: burden of proof From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about burden of proof as a philosophical concept. For other uses, see Burden of proof (disambiguation). In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi (shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat)) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position. Holder of the burden When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[SUP][1][/SUP] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[SUP][4][/SUP] While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] You assume the proposition to be true, you took up the argumene when you demanded him to DISPROVE it. Stop back peddling. His objection was the result of your acceptance words of a psychic as bonafide evidence of a collapse. The burden in the case of official reports ALWAYS lies with agency that created the report and/or those who would defend its contents as you did by demanding he 'disprove' it. I fully expect however that is much too complicated to mean anything. Now had you agreed with him or (*)(*)(*)(*) and moved on then that might change the situation. You want to litigate on behalf of the gubmint then dont dodge when people expect you to prove the gubmints bull(*)(*)(*)(*). That said if you aint got the goods dont stick your nose where it shouldnt be stuck. That means this post just proved you wrong in case you dont know.
Only one FTR survived and here is the link to the NTSB forensic analysis report. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf So yes, it has been shown to the world and it was available on the links that I provided earlier. If you refuse to read the links then that it not my problem.
The NIST reports provided detailed engineering studies that explained the building collapses. - - - Updated - - - Denial of reality doesn't alter reality. The NIST report does explain why the buildings collapsed.
That makes sense to someone with an engineering background. The Murrah building in Oklahoma City did not suffer a total collapse after the original collapse initiation by the domestic terrorist bomb. The original WTC bombing back in the early 1990's did not cause any collapse at all. It all depends upon the extent of the damage and the strength of the remaining supports.
