Then you should know the basic facts about who and where they found the 2nd engine allegedly ejected from the 93 crash site.
This sure says a lot about you, hanging out on a public forum debating the events of 9/11 with all us wackey people. I wouldn't call it being smarter, more like I aint got no life. Mushrooms...sheesh!
No doubt they are symbols, I need evidence for the claim that they were chosen as targets BECAUSE they were symbols with NO care about the death toll. You like to argue in fallacies, don't you?
Terrorism is largely about symbolic and disruptive attacks. Terrorists do not seek traditional military victories of decimating an enemy's supply lines or ground troops, they target positions which will demoralize the enemy and harm their "will to fight." It's a basic tenet of terrorism, and it's what happened here. On 9/11, the terrorists knew that their attacks would cause "lots" of deaths, and would hit major symbols of America. We gather this from many of the publications of Al Queda. We gather this from all of the evidence in the Moussassi trial, where the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Moussassi, along with the other (dead) hijackers, were involved in the terrorist conspiracy to attack the U.S. on 9/11. Et cetera. There is ample evidence from which to draw the conclusion as to why terrorists chose those targets. It even comes down to the fact that, from a practical sense, they are easy to hit. WTC sticks up above the skyline, easier to strike with a plane, and the Pentagon is to this day one of the largest man-made structures in the world. It's called deductive reasoning. If 9/11 Deniers like you were capable of it, your "movement" wouldn't exist. LOL... Ironic much? You can't point to any fallacies I've committed, whereas I can't even keep up with all of those committed by the deniers. Humorous if not tiresome.
And ALSO largely about death tolls. Yet it was claimed THIS time it WASN'T at all about death tolls. Now, you are using a generalization here.. Trying to say that one specific incident of terrorism must fit this arbitrarily defined broad category even though motives and reasoning and objectives behind attacks can always vary.. Once again a fallacy. Even if so, inflicting many casualties will do this as well.. It makes sense they ALSO chose the WTC to inflict lots of casualties. But I'm being told that is DEFINATILY not true. So they KNEW they would cause "lots" of deaths and yet they couldn't have possibly planned it that way? Okay show me one publication that ever says they never set out for a death toll and plan attacks to have a decent death toll or didn't do that for 9/11 at least. Go on I'd like to see. Yeah, living and dead HIJACKERS.. NONE of THEM picked the targets, did they? I don't know why you keep citing the trial of a convicted wannabe HIJACKER as proving or confirming anything about the actual planning and plotting of the attack.. Fair dues it might prove a good bit about the MEANS of attack, which is hijacked airliners being used as weapons, which I do not dispute, but proves nothing about who put together the plan, what their reasoning was or anything else. But if you've "gathered" this from the Moussaiu trial as you claim, then I ask you to please specify the exhibit or two from that trial that sheds the most light and is the most compelling about who actually planned the attacks and why. There'd better be a GOOD etc. to follow because you've got nothing so far. Wow there's ample evidence so how come you've not told me what a single piece of it is yet? So I'm disputing the claim that they were definatily chosen because of symbolic value alone, you decide to argue with me about it, and now you're offering ANOTHER possibility for why they might pick the targets? Thank you! Of course that is possible as a consideration, the plausibility let's say of novice pilots hitting them. Incidentally I completely agree here. You've not shown any deductive reasoning yet.. But since you can't say what the actual evidence is, go ahead and do now finally provide deductive reasoning. Premise A, premise B and conclusion about why they chose the targets which MUST follow. You joking? I dispute that the targets were selected ONLY considering symbolic value and you say I need help with the idea that they are symbolic at all? A misrepresentation like that and you don't think that's highly erronious? Not only that, your argument in and of itself is a fallacy.. Because something has a property than this means that this is WHY that something is considered. Alex went to his chippy and bought fish and chips.. Fish and chips contain high ammounts of sodium.. Therefore, Alex only bought the fish and chips because he needed a salt fix.
Where are you Hannibal? As I said that link doesn't go to the July/August issue of your skeptics magazine nor any 9/11 related content. Where's the stuff you wanted us to have a look at?
Looks like you waited to long, the next issue is out. It's understandable; the real world left 'truthers' behind years ago.
Yes: The erroneous misrepresentation is, as always, all you. I never said the targets were selected "only" considering symbolic value. Usual 9/11 denier tactic: When what your opponent says is irrefutable, claim he said something else, and refute that.
In traditional military tactics, decimation is not the goal. Attrition to the point of annihilation if neccessary, is the typical method. Sheesh!
It was fangbeer who said it was ONLY considering symbolic value and not the death toll. I made it CLEAR AS DAY stating MULTIPLE times what EXACTLY the claim was that I was disputing and why. You butted in when I CLEARLY asked Fangbeer for proof of his claim about WHY the targets were chosen, who chose them etc. trying to intimate I must be slow to not know that the WTC and Pentagon are symbolic. Why? If what you're saying now is true, that you DON'T believe death toll would never be considered and never argued this, then WHY ON EARTH did you butt in when I was disputing that very claim.. If anything you should have said, yes Fangbeer why on Earth do you say death toll couldn't possibly be considered? INSTEAD, you decided to argue with ME who was asking for evidence of that claim, in what looks like you supporting that claim on Fangbeer's behalf by proxy because he sure wasn't. When I CLEARLY said I was disputing the claim about death toll never being considered, AGAIN, you AGAIN came back to ARGUE with me, claiming like there was proof in AQ brochures and the OJ Simpson trial and such. You then said THIS: "Terrorism is largely about symbolic and disruptive attacks. Terrorists do not seek traditional military victories of decimating an enemy's supply lines or ground troops, they target positions which will demoralize the enemy and harm their "will to fight." It's a basic tenet of terrorism, and it's what happened here." This in response to me disputing the impossibility of them considering casualties. Now let's make this real simple now.. Fangbeer's claim: "They were terrorists. They chose their targets for symbolic reasons. They attacked symbols of America's wealth and power. The death toll was an ancillary side effect. They care less about how many people they kill and more about how many people they demoralize." Do you support this statement as true or no? If yes, then nobody is misrepresenting you at all and it's only you trying to haul away some goalposts.. If no, then WTF are you trying to argue with me about when I called Fanbeer on this claim? BTW NOTHING you've said is "irrefutable", try tooting your own horn all you want but all you said is the usual hollow unsubstantiated speculation.. No actual evidence to back up your claim so there's nothing there to even refute. Even you can't answer the simple question.. When talking about why the targets were chosen, nobody has even bothered answering who chose the targets.
What so these amazing articles aren't even available to read anymore? They're so good they pulled them?
I'm quite sure you could locate them if you wanted. You had a month to check it out, but your local library could most likely find one for you.
No my local library does not have this magazine I'm afraid.. What's going on here? The content isn't provided for free on the www? Sounds like the only way to get the stuff is to buy the magazines? I don't know if I can trust snake oil salesmen, you know?
Your local library will have access to the archive of the magazine, and you will be able to read it for free. Do some legwork, 'truthseeker'. Edited to add: The host website will have the archive from this issue up in a few weeks. Feel free to read it at your leisure.
For 35 years they have been debating the UFO, Psychics, Man on the moon, crop circles conspiracies. Now they have jumped on the 9/11 bandwagon. Sounds like a bunch of scientists who have run out of research money and need to kill some time and earn some pocket money until their place at the government tet is open again. Me thinks them dipping into the 9/11 issues is going to have some of them changing their tunes
Maybe they would have the guts to talk to the people who were on the scene. 'Truthers' certainly don't.
The credibility issues found with Hannity's alleged talks with strangers, are of no more consequence of meeting somebody in a bar who tells you whatever you want to hear after you buy them a drink.
Are you questioning the veracity of suede? That's his story, you know. No one has to take my word for anything, the contact info of the people who worked the scene has been provided several times. 'Truthers' will do anything to avoid contacting them.
What part of NO they don't, don't you understand? I know what periodicals they have and they DON'T have that one. How do you know anyway? What's my local library? Why are you being all pompous and condescending? Yeah after they've sold all the current issues for cash.. Snake oil salesman per your definition it looks like.
I have to take your word for it that this issue about 9/11 represents "excellent research"... Seeing as you can't even see it without paying for a subscription. Seems like this website you linked to doesn't even display the current issue. That's for paying customers only.. They're saying right now the web version of March/April will soon be available.. I don't think I missed the boat like you're trying to pretend, I don't think this content has ever been displayed yet.. Because they didn't seem to shift it for another current issue. So you're just linking us to this website probably because it's your favorite magazine and you're trying to promote it.. Peddling snake oil.
Silly truthseeker, go up to the desk and ask the nice librarian to order it for you. Libraries have access to such things. No charge. Or simply wait for the archive to appear on the website. Must 'truthers' be spoon-fed everything?
