9/11, The argument rages

"[1] The FDNY is not in your “truth movement,” [2] and they disagree with your “piddly little ‘Office Furnishings Fires’” crap, as do the videos and other eyewitness accounts. [3] Are all of them in on the plot too, along with 200+ NIST engineers and countless others? [4] You have no evidence except for a column cut with an oxyacetylene torch, [5] no perp or plausible motive, so you resort to misrepresenting the owner’s PBS statement, [6] and secretly blowing up hi-rises in Manhattan is so absurd that it’s beyond impossible."~Albury Smith, government stooge

Here we have a quick procession of 6 separate points in one single paragraph, mixing a blend of contexts and blurring it all together as if it actually makes sense as a whole.

To address these 6 points:

[1] The FDNY is not in your “truth movement,”

– What is the context for the use of the term, FDNY {New York Fire Department}?

Agent Smith seems to mean the official organ itself. But in a larger context the “fire department” is composed of thousands of individuals that may have such a variance of opinions as to make the assertion that they have no sympathies, spoken or reserved as to the veracity of the official story, that such an assertion becomes an example of a sub set of Argumentum ad Numerum. This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it. As it is used here, these “sheer numbers” have no statistical proofs, and one is left to assume that all of the members of the fire department toe to the official story line. Thus the logical fallacy.

As to the FDNY itself as a department of the New York City government, there is a conflict of interest, as it cannot officially disagree with the employer due to complex and powerful political considerations. The FDNY then, is part of the structure of the system of authority being appealed to in Agent Smith's argument. This argument is a proclamation that it is proper for an authority to police itself. As is shown and will be showing, there is evidence that destroys the official story, which means that at some higher level at the interface between the FDNY and the political apparatus of the city government there are indeed those willfully covering up the truth.

This then introduces us to the issue of “peer pressure” and the tacit 'conspiracy of silence' from the fear of loosing ones personal livelihood. It is well known that there were implicit gag orders put upon the members of the fire department and other first responders in the aftermath of the event.

But the peer pressure assumes itself in most instances simply do to the assumption of a 'standard line' being taken from the top authorities. Some testimonies taken of the first responders have such dialog as, “well, at first I thought I had heard a bomb go off. But now I realise it must have been other concussion sounds in the collapse...”

It is rare in such institutions for someone to insist on being the 'odd-man-out', or to speak up and become the dreaded 'whistleblower'. Most people have a very well taught understanding of the personal troubles that can ensue if one does not 'go along to get along'. Culturally this is one of the strongest lessons one learns in life.

– This is a mixed conundrum of assertions. As illustrated in the discussion of [1], the “they” who “disagree” are an unknown quantity. That the official stance of the NYFD would certainly qualify as “they” who “disagree”, their veracity is in question for the reasons stated above.

2] “and they disagree with your “piddly little ‘Office Furnishings Fires’” crap, as do the videos and other eyewitness accounts.”

As for the “videos and other eyewitness accounts,” this is an assertion based on a cherry picked selection of videos and eyewitness accounts. Taken as a whole, all of the videos and eyewitness accounts shows there is a controversy presented, that when taken together shows evidence that overwhelms the accounts chosen by Agent Smith and the sources he relies upon.

[3] "Are all of them in on the plot too, along with 200+ NIST engineers and countless others?"

– This rhetorical question falls squarely into the class of 'Argumentum ad Numerum'. Plus it asserts the false assumption that “all of them” have any knowledge beyond their particular job description that would give them the perspective of the higher authorities for whom they work. This is one of the attributes of a technological system based on compartmentalization of knowledge and access to it. This is very much the same sort of system of hierarchy used in the military and the system of “the need to know”. If it is outside of ones department there is no compelling 'need to know' and such knowledge is considered a 'distraction' from the subject's job description. The same sorts of penalties are implied here as in the situation of not 'going along to get along'. This is all well understood within a corporatist system, whether articulated within this context or not.

So, essentially Number 3 is a rhetorical trick of inserting cognitive dissonance into the argument.

[4] “You have no evidence except for a column cut with an oxyacetylene torch..”

– This assertion is directly contradicted by the prior FEMA report:

The FEMA report, in an appendix written by three professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This appendix reported that a piece of steel from WTC 7 had melted so severely that it had gaping holes in it, making it look like a piece of Swiss cheese.

When asked whether it had carried out tests for explosives on 911, NIST said it had not. When a reporter asked NIST spokesman Michael Newman why not, he replied:

“Because there was no evidence of that.”

When the reporter asked the obvious follow-up question, “How can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?”

Newman replied: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.”

This argument put forth by Newman is not only circular logical fallacy , it is obviously disingenuous and a willful lie. It is pure propaganda.

What explains the chemical evidence of thermite, an incendiary material found on the ends of steel beams and in the leftover dust? FEMA documented in Appendix C of its BPAT Report “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” This is clearly not a feature of gravitational collapse, or of hydrocarbon fuel or office fires. NIST summarily dismissed this key evidence when they took over the investigation.

[5] “no perp or plausible motive, so you resort to misrepresenting the owner’s PBS statement,”

This is a reference to Larry Silverstein the owner of WTC 7 who declared intention to ‘PULL it” on an interview on PBS. The controversy over this statement has run deep, but the simple assertion that Agent Smith's opponent in the debate this dialog is drawn from is a 'misrepresentation' is a bold one - which must ignore very clear common usages of syntax and twist them into strange forms to deny that Silverstein did say what he said in clear language. Claiming it has been 'misrepresented' is the actual stretch in interpretation.