False Dilemma.LinuxOnly wrote:this is precisely your problem. your foundation is unsound. you confuse most likely with most popular. the most likely explanation for any terrorist attack let alone one as large as 9/11 is that it was the job of one of the major govt intelligence services known for terrorist activities, like the cia, kgb, mi6, or israeli mossad.globetrotter wrote:
I don't "believe 'official lies outright'" I look at the most likely explanation, think it out for myself, and conclude (in one example you listed above) that WTC happened as it appears.
You cannot write one sentence without logically erring. Unbelievable. And for the FOURTH TIME, you do not refute a single point I make and just ignore them. Clearly you DO NOT know a thing about logic or logical fallacies.
I don't mistake most popular for most likely.
You assume that because someone agrees with the pov of those you disagree with, that it is because I "listened to what they told me" and believed it without introspection. You are, again, engaging in a logical fallacy. In the first sentence. A stunning continuation of this CT'er flaw that is without letup. If I am not with you, I am against you. If I believe as 'The Official Version' says, then I must be doing so due to popularity.
False Dilemma.
This time the fallacy is that you assume because something is popular, that it therefore must be false or not the most likely reason. You disregard how the conclusion was reached.
I came to the conclusion myself. Watched all of your 'proof', read the websites, watched multiple impact videos 200+ times. Learned about the design of WTC 1, calculated the amount of energy required to melt one pound of steel. It is, btw, considerably LESS than the KE of one of the jets and it's fuel load. It is, therefore, entirely within the realm of easily explainable Physics that the melted steel was due to the energy of the jets upon impact and the burning jet fuel.
And for the 5th time, I do not watch TV. Therefore your continuing assumption that because I conclude different than you that I:
1) I am doing so because the theory is popular
and
2) I am doing so because I watch TV and I am brainwashed.
You continual assume that you are posting information I have not read, or that you are englightening me with facts, ideas and information that I do not know.
This is, to repeat, not true.
I read your support, facts, posts and info as you or Mr. S. post, and within seconds I always find something that sets off an internal mental alarm that says:
"Excuse me, but that is in error and here is why..."
What is more likely? An international conspiracy requiring the silence of millions of people and the coordination of thousands, or 19 Islamic men decide to kill some infidels? It is a simple test and whether one idea is popular or not is an illogical and invalid reason to dismiss it for consideration.
Remember that Islam has been at war with The West since before the USA existed. Before Western Europe existed. Before the Renaissance. Before any justifiable reason due to geo-political concerns.
Since 610.
So what is more likely?
That they continued a war that is 1401 years long, or that there was an international conspiracy of massive scope?