PLEASE PEOPLE!!!!!!!
whats up with the "gibberish" labeling
Can YOU elaborate upon what feature of my last is inaccurate ... or?
I have already tried to assist you several times. But here is one more attempt.
The foundation or base level issue is that you do not present properly reasoned arguments to support your claims.
The structure of such an argument includes:
1) An explicit statement as to what you are claiming backed up by;
2) Identification of all the items of evidence needed to support your claim;
3) Demonstration of the validity of those items of evidence; AND
4) Logical reasoning which shows how the bits of evidence relate to each other and to the ultimate claim.
I have already posed a model reasoned claim in the OP to the thread 'Was "Global collapse truly inevitable"?' You have not commented in any depth on that post. Much of your confusion could be alleviated if you start to employ reasoned argument. A second issue is that you lack focus - referring to many partial truths on most of your posts. I will need to return to that aspect later.
Let me critique the post causing this current confusion and conflict. it is this one:
You mention the tilting of the top of the South Tower, I didn't bring that up at all but
oh well ... the question remains that if indeed there were to have been "cascading failure"
of the floors, then what would have to happen in order to match up with what was observed,
would be for the core & perimeter to have self-destructed in a matter of milliseconds after
each floor had been demolished.
BTW: have you ever seen the Saturday Night Live bit where some character is obviously
making up what he sez as he goes and its all total fake, but its a bit of theater, HOWEVER,
in the explanation(s) from official reporters on the subject, we see some striking similarities.
Note that in the case of the reporter who first viewed the scene at the Pentagon and said
" I don't see a plane crash anywhere around here" ( and in the figure of speech used, it is
inclusive, that is no plane at the Pentagon or anywhere around it ) however after the TV
had cut away from that bit and then returned the reporter was quick to specify that the
aircraft had penetrated the wall and disappeared completely inside ( a totally unprecedented
behaviour for an aircraft crash ... ) anyhow, there are other examples of reversals from people
who first report one thing and then completely reverse their position on the subject a very short
time later. oops!
The official story = FRAUD!
The post has three main sections and I have colour coded them.
Section 1 This colour.
This section should identify what you are claiming. Does it? To me it is very confused. The closest I can identify to a "claim" seems to be that you are alleging that there is some doubt about cascade failures. There is nothing else which appears to be your claim. Let's see:
A)
"You mention the tilting of the top of the South Tower, I didn't bring that up at all but
oh well ..." What are you trying to say? The key words are the "oh well" which dismisses your earlier comments to irrelevancy and announces that the next bit is what you want to talk about.
B)
"the question remains that if indeed there were to have been "cascading failure"
of the floors, then" A clear flag "question remains" that this is want you want to discuss AND the "if there had been" introduces the subject of your claim viz "doubt about cascade failure".
What follows are some issues you want explained in connection with the doubt about cascade failure:
C)
" what would have to happen in order to match up with what was observed, would be for the core & perimeter to have self-destructed in a matter of milliseconds after each floor had been demolished." This is an assertion "what would HAVE to happen" which you are making. Also it seems to be leading to an argument by you that these things didn't happen. So the next paragraph SHOULD explain your reasoning in more detail. Further explanation is what your first paragraph has set the scene for. Does this paragraph make the further explanations???
It definitely does not. In fact you flag it with
BTW: - the BTW clearly signalling that what follows is "By the way" - an aside - irrelevant - nothing to do with the main argument. And you spend the longest paragraph of the post on this "BTW" irrelevant side track.
Section 2 This colour.
"have you ever seen the Saturday Night Live bit where some character is obviously
making up what he sez as he goes and its all total fake, but its a bit of theater, HOWEVER,
in the explanation(s) from official reporters on the subject, we see some striking similarities.
Note that in the case of the reporter who first viewed the scene at the Pentagon and said
" I don't see a plane crash anywhere around here" ( and in the figure of speech used, it is
inclusive, that is no plane at the Pentagon or anywhere around it ) however after the TV
had cut away from that bit and then returned the reporter was quick to specify that the
aircraft had penetrated the wall and disappeared completely inside ( a totally unprecedented
behaviour for an aircraft crash ... ) anyhow, there are other examples of reversals from people
who first report one thing and then completely reverse their position on the subject a very short
time later. oops!"
Well two topics stand out. they are "no plane at the Pentagon" and "examples of reversals". BUT those have nothing to do with the claim you tried to establish in the first paragraph. Why are you taking this side track? What is the relevance of those two features?
And overall your paragraph is confused. IMO there is no wonder that members call it "gibberish". They should also have said "irrelevant."
Then you take a couple of quantum leaps to a conclusion:
Section 3 This colour.
The official story = FRAUD!
Where does that come from? There is no reasoning linking your claim "something wrong with cascade failure" to your conclusion "FRAUD"
If we edit out the irrelevant padding of your post this is what we have which is of some substance:
... the question remains that if indeed there were to have been "cascading failure"
of the floors, then what would have to happen in order to match up with what was observed, would be for the core & perimeter to have self-destructed in a matter of milliseconds after each floor had been demolished.
The official story = FRAUD!
A) You have not proven the required facts of "the core & perimeter to have
NOT self-destructed in a matter of milliseconds after
each floor had been demolished."
B) Even if you proved it would not be sufficient.
C) And "= FRAUD" is a false claim in two ways at least:
(i) It only proves that the small part of the official story is UNTRUE;
(ii) And, even if that small part is
untrue it is a long way from proving the criminal allegation of "FRAUD".
So, in summary Mike2810 is correct with:
you fail to show this is the case.
Sander's comments:
I don't watch SNL anymore since the 80s. The rest is gibberish.
...are irrelvant to your claim AND justified -- respectively.
Finally there is a second foundation error. Lack of focus. You need to determine what your claim is, to assemble evidence and reasoning to support that claim AND avoid both side trips into irrelevancies AND changing the topic part way through the post.
