Evidence Or Argument

There is a difference between the two. Argument is when you say "that idea is kooky." Or "you're crazy to believe that." Evidence is when I say "here, look at this video and notice the large ball of now solidified steel. This is proof that steel has been melted. On this video you will hear firemen stating that they saw molten steel running for weeks. It is a well known scientific fact that kerosene cannot burn hot enough to melt steel - especially for three weeks! This is the reason jet engines are made of steel." At this point in a debate if any evidence were to exist to refute these facts then it would be up to a logical debater to bring it forth. Alas there is no one who has yet brought me any credible evidence to make me believe these above facts are not true among others. But I'm still only being argued at. Elemaza has the lastest argument. Here it is:

Elemaza has left a new comment on the post "Our Troubled Masters":

Tomas:

Life is too short for me to waste an hour and a half of my time watching this piece of scurrilous anti-American propaganda. Suffice it to say that I have seen bits and pieces of it over the years and find it asinine. This "evidence" wouldn't get past any well-educated person with a high school degree.

Firstly you will note that Elemaza has refused to examine my evidence like the molten steel question. Rather, she uses argument and accuses me of spreading "scurrilous anti-American propaganda." The "bits and pieces" of evidence she has not addressed is my evidence about the steel and again relapses into still more argument. Then she questions my intelligence without giving evidence of cool melting steel and still we have more argument. But I don't wish to argue even though I can be very good at it and even to the point of being cruel and hurtful. That's not what motivates me - the truth is.

Then Elemaza offers two sources which she claims as reliable:

Here are two reliable sources that state the counter arguments much better than I can say briefly. They don't take anywhere as long to watch/read as the conspiracy video:

I can see why as well. Here are her sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Origins_and_reception
http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html


wikipedia, which I constantly hear Cubans like my friend Larry Daley complain about for in accuracy, states nothing about steel melting at 1800 degrees. The maniacworld site is what is known as a hoax site meant to confuse, divert and minimize the question at hand. Again this site gives no proof about a cooler melting point of steel. Elemaza has again resorted to argument of an entirely different question, about which she is wrong as well by the way. There have only been three steel framed buildings that were alleged to have been brought down by fire and they all fell on the same day as fast as the rate of gravity could pull them down by free fall. But here we have another argument even though the very first debating point is not address by Elemaza.

Then Elemaza continues:

I am not a structural engineer, are you? I studied structures as part of my architectural studies. The last video has excellent explanations about how structures fail, and how it is not necessary for steel to melt to cause structural failure. You can clearly see the bowing of the columns in videos just before the collapse.

As to the idea that all that concrete from the collapse "disappeared"--then what exactly was the acres of rubble that took over a year to clear and cart away--chopped liver?

Now I've got better things to do, like finish yesterday's painting so I can post it. Put this silly conspiracy to rest and go play with your children.

Elemaza questions my education but I never claimed to be involved in any way with engineering - she did. However, because I am not an engineer I thought it might be worth an hour and a half of my time to listen to what the head of this group of structural engineers and architects had to say on these questions. Elemaza unfortunately states that she didn't have time for it though. As you can read apparently there was time to pen ample argument however. Next Elemaza argues about concrete disappearing even though I never made that assertion. I stated the floors were missing or in other words in a pulverized state. If Elemaza wanted to refute this she might of sent me one picture of floors pancaked together like you will see in the Mexico City earthquake where floors actually did pancake down. Instead she argues incorrectly that I am asserting there was no rubble where the World Trade Center buildings were demolished. Again more argument about an incorrect assumption.

Elemaza sums up her argument that she has better things to do than argue. I am certain she does and I don't fault her for trying to talk some sense into my head for believing the truth about something that she cannot even contemplate or investigate it is so horrible. However, Elemaza if you ever get a bit of time please address the original debating point about the PRESENCE of molten steel at the demolition site. Specifically, do you acknowledge that there was in fact molten steel or do I need to bring you more evidence if you have the time available to look at it? Then we can address the question of how steel can "run like lava out of a volcano" according to firemen on location - for three weeks! I completely agree with you that there has been no credible evidence of a rogue government conspiracy anywhere - in the MSM. However, if you can get by the hoax sites there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the Internet - but you have to look.

As far as argument goes I have no time for that either. As for my children playing with me - they are adults for the most part and play games that don't interest me. I'm happy just to get a meal in with them once in a while.