@servant-of-Wiser, If you're looking for comments on the 9/11 video, I recommend you this documentary.

It is one of the richest and most scientifically rigorous docs exposing the major problems with the official version. It fully demonstrates that the airplane crashes and the resulting fire could have not naturally caused the collapse of the three WTC towers (Yes, three! for WTC 7 also collapsed in the evening) but it was a preplanned controlled demolition orchestrated by big business and their agents in US government that brought the buildings down.

It features dozens of eye witnesses, experts, researchers and even some former US officials!

If you have comments, you may take the discussion to a separate chat room, for past experience shows that not all users are interested in political discussions in the main room.

@infatuated Your use of expressions like "scientifically rigorous" in this context is either ignorant or willfully deceptive. I made it 7 minutes into that and counted over half a dozen formal logical fallacies and even more non-sequitur statements and bogus premises. There are indeed an assortment of issues with the "official story", but describing of a collection of conspiracy theory propaganda that way is a linguistic travesty and casts significant doubt on your credibility.

@Caleb, I'd be more than happy if you explained some of those logical fallacies, but I think you're passing too early and premature judgements. Your perceived "logical fallacies" I'd reckon would be resolved once you realize the full and actual implications of the narrator's statements as his arguments are fully unraveled by the end of the video. So be patient and watch it in full. Perhaps then we can discuss our differences.

@infatuated I can only assume you mean "reveal" rather that "unravel" — because "unravel" is exactly what happens to arguments built on false premises and logical fallacies. No matter what conclusion he tries to bring it around to (and even is some conclusions happen to be correct) the underlying argumentation completely unravels given where he started from.

If you're trying to say it's okay to start with a fallacious line of reasoning because of where it ends up, then no we're not going to have a conversation because that's absurd and I have much better ways to waste time.

No, you misunderstand and misinterpret me. First off I don't know which fallacies you are even claiming! You didn't give any example! (Please do!) Second, I said what you have perceived as fallacies could be simply because of not correctly understanding all the intended implications of the statements.

Let me give you an example! If I say "person A is away," it can imply a whole range of secondary connotations depending on the listeners' presumptions. Is person A not in close distant? Is he not in sight? Is he not in the room? Not in hometown? Not in country? Not in this world? So there will be ambiguities until the later statements uncover more information.

So that said, I think any further argument over this would be pointless since you didn't offer any specific example neither you are in a right position to do without yet knowing about the thesis and arguments in the video.

@infatuated Your example is in no way an example of a logical fallacy.

Whether the conclusion is factually true or not is a secondary concern; fallacious arguments are fundamentally unsound by the very nature of how they're presented.

Sure and that's the point! If one claims that I had said that "Person A has traveled abroad" because I said "Person A is away" that would be a logical fallacy but one that I never made!

"Person A is away" is simply a statement of fact. it is in no way fallacious in and of itself.

Yes, but "in and of itself"!

whether person A is away is irrelevant. Or what is meant by "away".

"The sky is green." is also a factual statement. It's factually untrue, but it's also not a logical fallacy.

Yes, it is irrelevant and that's why that does not indicate any fallacy.

Well, I agree with you!

so....what? you decided to prove that there's no logical fallacies by giving an example of...not a logical fallacy?

I was trying to say how imposing unintended implications on "away" can wrongly lead to assumption of fallacy.

so you went out of your way to refute a fallacy that nobody even pointed out?

(ironically, a straw man argument is an informal fallacy)

No, I was trying to say how assumptions of fallacy rise when one is not yet familiar with full/real implications of statements. And this happens a lot in discussions when sides come from very distant opinions.

And 9/11 debate is a prime example of such situations: 9/11 truthers vs official version advocates who already presume that the other side are but "a bunch of conspiracy theorist crackpots"! Prejudices work that way!

if an argument is presented so poorly that you need an hour and a half long video to decide if it's logically sane (rather than, say, basic critical literacy) that says far more about the the video than about the subject.

There are hardly any arguments presented in first 7 minutes of the video! And I didn't claim any! As of then, there's only recounting of the events and official positions and highlighting the strange reactions (or maybe non-reactions) by Bush and his security team! That's pretty much all as for first 7 minutes as far as I remember.

don't look at me; i couldn't even pay attention that long. the whole thing what i saw was just a mess.

What was a mess in particular?

the whole thing what i saw

Be specific!

why?

i really don't care about 9/11 one way or another.

hehe! Is it really so unclear "why?"

Oh, alright!

So perhaps you'd better never got into the discussion in the first place!

i didn't get into a discussion of 9/11. i got into a discussion of logical fallacies.

if you're not interested in discussing that, then yeah, i probably better never got into it.

Yes, but logical fallacies in the context of a discussion about 9/11. And you did also comment on the video before even having watched and more strangely you even declared the "whole thing is mess" without having watched even one tenth of "the whole thing"!

no. no i did not declare that.

Alright.

if you're just going to lie about what i said, then yeah i really have no reason to keep talking to you.

back on ignore you go.

Well, everyone can hopefully read our exchange and see who lied and who didn't.

@servant-of-Wiser, The topic is controversial but what makes you think it is stupid?! Have it been really stupid, there would not have been so many researchers, professors and US former officials commenting on it! I would argue this is one of the most vital political subjects of our contemporary history! There's the legitimacy of an exceptionally consequential political narrative at stake here with far reaching and even revolutionary implications!!

Remember we as muslim Ummah along with other segments of humanity are still suffering from the consequences of what happened on 9/11. Mid East was torn apart under the policy of war on terror, millions have perished, millions displaced, muslims have been facing an unprecedented wave of vilification, harassment and persecution under the pretext of US corporate media and government claims about what happened on 9/11.

So we really need to take this topic seriously. And for those who are open minded enough to look at the evidence with an open mind the truth shines as clear as day light: the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is a blatant chicanery. And the evidence for big business, Mossad and US government involvement are overwhelming!

Well, I meant no fight. I only replied to his statements! And intended to offense. But probably there was some miscommunication since he accused me of lying about what he said!

Sure! But that requires us to carry and express some genuine respect and good will towards each other!

If we sound demeaning or feel scornful towards each other there will be no real unity.

But as for miscommunication, I also noticed Caleb had misinterpreted my first reply. By "unravel" I had meant: "to understand or explain something that is mysterious or complicated" whereas he seemed to have taken a different, secondary meaning of the term: "if a system, plan, organization etc unravels, it starts to fail. "

Anyways, I assume if he has watched through at least half an hour of the doc, he must have most probably changed his mind.

Wa alaikum assalam! But as for your question, the skies of humanity I think are very pitch dark! It's been so for centuries! And will be so until the advent of the Savior when there will be real light!

@infatuated "until the advent of the Savior..." \\\\\\\ until we receive light from the creator...

Yes, and that would be realized through the Savior. At least that's what we as Shias believe.

@infatuated until the advent of the Savior"\\\\\\\\\\\\\ until the creator sends the saviour....

Sure! But the Savior is the manifestation of the highest Divine will!

He is inheritor of all Prophets! And he is the one who will illuminate the entire Earth with Divine Light!

@infatuated sure, only if the creator wills...

True!

I do my best :)

@infatuated I did not miss-understand you. I corrected your incorrect use of English, suggested the correct term for what you meant, and expounded on how the term actually applied. Ironically your diction error was a bit of a Freudian slip, you just didn't don't know how close to the mark the error was.

It was not a diction error. I perfectly knew what "unravel" meant when I used it and there was no misspelling either. But like I said, the word has different meanings (or applications) and I think that caused confusion.

ldoceonline.com/dictionary/unravel