Eng108(2). Follow the instruction to write 200words response.

User Generated

daarqhpngvba

Humanities

Description

Eng108(1). Follow the instruction to write 200words response.

All the work must be original.

Turn it in report is required

Any kind of plagiarism will not be tolerated.

Thank you

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Explosive Evidence Aaron Crippen All Sections 2323 unread replies.2323 replies. In class Monday we watched the first twenty minutes of a video entitled9/11: Explosive Evidence--Experts Speak Out (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. . It relies mainly on ethos and logos to make its case. Below are the claim and supports on WTC 7 in the video. Claim: "How do 2 planes bring down 3 skyscrapers?" [Two planes could not bring down three skyscrapers.] Part 1: "A Third High-Rise Came Down That Day" Part 2: "Destruction of Evidence": 400 truckloads a day were sent to China for recycling Part 3: "A Federal Investigation that Ignored the Facts": NIST did not test for explosive residue and denied that anyone heard explosions Part 4: "Fully Engulfed in Fire?": collapse of a steel-frame building due to fire was unprecedented Part 5: "47 Stories in 7 Seconds": free fall acceleration was impossible without the aid of explosives Part 6: "Unnatural Symmetry": the damage was asymmetric but the fall was symmetric Part 7: "Experts Agree" Post a reply to this post in which you answer the following: What are the most compelling parts of the argument in the video? What are the least compelling parts? Why do you think so? Are you persuaded by this piece of video?
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello there, here is the ...


Anonymous
Really useful study material!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags