The statement was not an argument, it was an off-comment after the argument supporting such a statement was made. Ad hominem fallacy is only if an ad hominem attack (which this is, to be fair), is used as an argument. Your failure to grasp this distinction explains the majority of your ad hominem accusations.
There is just so much junk in this thread now, I've really got no time for smart arss comments like "Looney's last name is appropriate.". If I seen an opinionated statement like that, I'm not going to read the rest of it. As I think it as "Looney's last name is appropriate."
The statement was not an argument, it was an off-comment after the argument supporting such a statement was made. Ad hominem fallacy is only if an ad hominem attack (which this is, to be fair), is used as an argument. Your failure to grasp this distinction explains the majority of your ad hominem accusations.
There is just so much junk in this thread now, I've really got no time for smart arss comments like "Looney's last name is appropriate.". If I seen an opinionated statement like that, I'm not going to read the rest of it. As I think it as "Looney's last name is appropriate."
So other people making opinionated statements is not okay, but you can do it? Because you are doing it.
It is the governments claim that the fires were hot enough to warp steel. This does not explain the fact that pools of molten iron metal was found at the base during clean up.
The math is: fire temperature =/= melting point of steel.
Who found these pools, and when? Is there corroborating evidence for their presence? Iron and steel are not the same thing -- which were they? How was their composition determined? Were they maybe another metal entirely? (One alternative has already been suggested in this thread. Did you miss that too?) And how would these pools demonstrate that a controlled demolition, and not anything else, collapsed the towers? Are controlled demolitions more likely to leave pools of molten metal than raging fires? Can you show me other controlled demolitions that left this kind of trace? And can you show me other buildings that have collapsed after being hit by airliners that didn't leave this kind of trace?
These are the sorts of questions you should be asking before you repeat this claim.
"With supporting evidence? Where? Show me."
To what point?
To the point that you will actually be doing your job here. Your repeated refusal to justify your claims makes your position look extremely weak. Do you really not understand this? You are not doing yourself any favors.
"PS: I'm still waiting for that video evidence showing someone detonating the alleged charges in the World Trade Center"
It was your claim that the Rothchild's done this, I have explained you that someone else could have done this, and you agreed. Your argument has been debunked. Why would they be recording themselves doing this?
Maybe someone else recorded them. You're the one who says he needs video evidence to believe things. So why shouldn't I need video evidence to believe the things you say?
In the NIST report. If you think there are no numbers in there, you apparently have not even looked at it. Which is once again unsurprising. But this is what real science looks like.
The paper I linked have been reviews by individual expert peers, hence they are peer-reviewed-papers in a journal. Just not official government papers, or under an organization.
Each journal will have its own bias. We have to argue these.
That's... not really what a "peer-reviewed journal" is. But, y'know, if you want to use the Journal of 9/11 Studies, are you willing to accept papers from the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? Both "journals" are about as ridiculous; hell, one of the papers in the JoD cites a GeoCities website.
Thank you Daniel09DD for your reasonable questions about facts!
"There's not a rapid onset of destruction."
The coulombs gave way at the same time.
"unevenly supported weight at the top of the buildings."
This would make one side fall first
"sudden collapsing of the upper floors."
Here you have used sudden but then, in the above argument you said there was no rapid onset of destruction.
Lateral ejection can be seen 20 to 60 stories down where the floors collapsing did not provide the air pressure.
"Once again, these are not explosions, these are air bursts caused by air compression. "
How do they happen 60 stories below the 'crush zone'?
"7, 8 and 10. Yes, entirely consistent with "the towers collapsed" fact."
Molten steel found at the base is consistent with the 'collapse' story?
How did the steel melt in the 'collapse story'?
Thank you again Daniel09DD, responding to you is quite refreshing, sorry I missed it in all the garbage.
1. There's not rapid onset of destruction. It took 56 minutes for the south tower to collapse after the plain crash, and 102 minutes for the north tower to collapse.
2. No it doesn't, have you seen the blueprints of the buildings' structure? Some previous post in this thread already explained it the physics behind it. Why do you keep beating in the same bush?
3. Sudden collapse =/= sudden destruction. Lateral ejection is expected to happen in lower floors, where the movement of air creates enough pressure to act like a miniature shock have that can break windows.
4. Yes, they do
5. That's not evidence, that's a video with already disproven allegations.
6. Check "Myles Power (powerm1985)" videos on youtube about 9/11. It's a seven episode series (10 minutes each). He disproves with facts, blueprints, physics, quimic experiments, and so on, all the claims you made during these threads, and some more.
That's enough circles around the same argument. There's been nothing productive accomplished here, and continuing to belabor the point is obviously not going to work.
There is just so much junk in this thread now, I've really got no time for smart arss comments like "Looney's last name is appropriate.". If I seen an opinionated statement like that, I'm not going to read the rest of it. As I think it as "Looney's last name is appropriate."
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
So other people making opinionated statements is not okay, but you can do it? Because you are doing it.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
And from the same post...
.
And there were only four sentences in the post!
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Who found these pools, and when? Is there corroborating evidence for their presence? Iron and steel are not the same thing -- which were they? How was their composition determined? Were they maybe another metal entirely? (One alternative has already been suggested in this thread. Did you miss that too?) And how would these pools demonstrate that a controlled demolition, and not anything else, collapsed the towers? Are controlled demolitions more likely to leave pools of molten metal than raging fires? Can you show me other controlled demolitions that left this kind of trace? And can you show me other buildings that have collapsed after being hit by airliners that didn't leave this kind of trace?
These are the sorts of questions you should be asking before you repeat this claim.
To the point that you will actually be doing your job here. Your repeated refusal to justify your claims makes your position look extremely weak. Do you really not understand this? You are not doing yourself any favors.
Maybe someone else recorded them. You're the one who says he needs video evidence to believe things. So why shouldn't I need video evidence to believe the things you say?
In the NIST report. If you think there are no numbers in there, you apparently have not even looked at it. Which is once again unsurprising. But this is what real science looks like.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
1. There's not rapid onset of destruction. It took 56 minutes for the south tower to collapse after the plain crash, and 102 minutes for the north tower to collapse.
2. No it doesn't, have you seen the blueprints of the buildings' structure? Some previous post in this thread already explained it the physics behind it. Why do you keep beating in the same bush?
3. Sudden collapse =/= sudden destruction. Lateral ejection is expected to happen in lower floors, where the movement of air creates enough pressure to act like a miniature shock have that can break windows.
4. Yes, they do
5. That's not evidence, that's a video with already disproven allegations.
6. Check "Myles Power (powerm1985)" videos on youtube about 9/11. It's a seven episode series (10 minutes each). He disproves with facts, blueprints, physics, quimic experiments, and so on, all the claims you made during these threads, and some more.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath