Reply #13: You've got a point...and it's actually about logic

[TrogL]

(edited for spelling and clarity)

You're right, if there are multiple arguments I need to address each on its own merits so I'll read the rest of the article even if I do intend to take it with a grain of salt.

Here's the basic problem with controlled demolition theories - they contain a logical fallacy.

They're pretty much going with "if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck".

Or in other words, if it looks like a controlled demolition building falling down, it's controlled demolition.

Let's put this in the form of a syllogism.

Buildings brought down by controlled demolition fall straight down.
The towers fell straight down.
Therefore the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

That's the fallacy of the undivided middle.

Here's another simple example:

All computers contain a power supply.
My soldering iron contains a power supply.
Therefore, my soldering iron is a computer.

See the problem? It's the same structure.

I'm also alarmed by complaints about the buildings' "free-fall-speed". At what other speed did they expect them to fall? Gravity works.

Finally, whoever wanted to create terror didn't need the towers to fall down at all. That was a bonus. To impress their followers, all they had to do was give the appearance of "striking a blow". Understand me clearly - the actions of September 11th were horrible and I spent the entire day crying. Be that as it may, as soon as the first aircraft changed course, as soon as the first person got a boo-boo on their elbow whoever caused this achieved their primary objective. Reaching NY was a bonus. Actually hitting the towers was a bonus. The towers falling down was a bonus. And Dubya and company milked it for all it was worth. Hell, they probably Let It Happen On Purpose but I can't prove that either.