CreateDebate


Debate Info

22
24
Nomengayture Scientific smartness
Debate Score:46
Arguments:39
Total Votes:71
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Nomengayture (20)
 
 Scientific smartness (17)

Debate Creator

FactMachine(411) pic



Was 9/11 an inside job?

Alex Jonemclature here with commiewars.com and I wanna know the TRUTH about 9/11

Nomengayture

Side Score: 22
VS.

Scientific smartness

Side Score: 24
2 points

Democrats are the alien party. Republicans are the illuminati party. Not because of left vs right because of truth.

Anything that happens while Republicans are in power is either covered up or is inside job orchestrating.

Side: Nomengayture

9/11 was the most patent false flag attack in the world history of false flag attacks. You lower the bar of intelligence even by asking the question of whether it was an inside job. A great many of Bush's staff were former members of PNAC, which was the far right American think tank first responsible for positing the ultra aggressive foreign policy strategy we are now seeing in the Middle East. These men were/are, simply put, Nazis. Just as the Nazis burned down their own Reichstag to give themselves justification to hunt Communists, so PNAC planned 9/11 to give themselves justification to hit the Middle East. You can read in depth about PNAC and their infamous RAD policy document here:-

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/stockbauer1.html

The clues to the 9/11 deception lie scattered all over the internet, in university text books and in scientific journals. They can be unearthed and studied without difficulty. The only difficulty, in fact, is overcoming your own indoctrination when you read them. Let me start you off with a few brief examples:-

1) The FEMA metallurgy report.

The analysis performed on the WTC steel by Professor Jonathan Barnett proves that it was attacked by some form of munition, because it was riddled with holes and had been severely eroded/melted by something containing high concentrations of sulfur. See:-

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403apc.pdf

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

https://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

2) The hijacker's VISA applications.

Investigating the attacks, political journal National Review obtained copies of the VISA applications for 15 of the 19 named hijackers, and in the process found that all 15 should have been refused entry to the United States.

A new report accuses the State Department of staggering lapses in its visa program that gave Sept. 11 hijackers entry into the United States.

The political journal National Review obtained the visa applications for 15 of the 19 hijackers — and evidence that all of them should have been denied entry to the country.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130051&page;=1#.UM4YG9RWWw

3) Niaz Naik.

The former Pakistani foreign secretary claims he was told by top-level American officials at a UN meeting in July 2001, that military action would be taken against Afghanistan by October that year.

US 'planned attack on Taleban

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/southasia/1550366.stm

4) Military grade munitions.

Professor Niels Harrit published a peer-reviewed paper in 2009 proving the existence of high-energy thermite residue in four out of four WTC samples.

http://benthamopen.com/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

5) Many bin Laden experts reject the post 9/11 video tapes attributed to him as frauds. Indeed, all corners of the Asian press and even much of the mainstream American press believed bin Laden to be dead by, at the latest, early 2002.

Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's religious studies' department and the foremost Bin Laden expert, argues that the increasingly secular language in the video and audio tapes of Osama (his earliest ones are littered with references to God and the Prophet Mohammed) are inconsistent with his strict Islamic religion, Wahhabism.

He notes that, on one video, Bin Laden wears golden rings on his fingers, an adornment banned among Wahhabi followers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--U- S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html

6) Basic Newtonian mechanics.

Consider the case of the north WTC tower. It was 110 floors high, weighed half a million tons and was impacted between the 93rd and 99th floors. The plane which hit it was relatively tiny in comparison and the building itself was impacted high above its own centre of gravity. It is quite simply mathematical nonsense that the top 17 floors of the 110 floor WTC building contained enough weight to crush the remainder of the building below it. Were this the case then the building would not be upright in the first place. It's a total contradiction of physics. The resistance to gravity gets stronger the closer you get to the ground, which is why we chop trees at the bottom, why houses of cards fall and why we demolish buildings by taking out their foundations. The idea that we collapse objects by attacking the top of them is the complete opposite of the way physics actually works.

Besides which, also consider that each of the WTC buildings were surrounded by a perimeter of 47 steel support columns. Given that the buildings collapsed symmetrically, one is forced to conclude not only that all 47 of these support columns failed, but that they all failed at precisely the same instant, thus accounting for the symmetry of collapse. The likelihood of that is astronomically low without the use of explosives or incendiaries to cut the columns.

Once a person understands that high grade military munitions were used to facilitate the collapse of the WTC buildings, it becomes glaringly obvious that it was a military operation, not a terrorist attack.

Side: Scientific smartness
2 points

Very interesting read, nce documented arguments, thumbs upp!

Side: Scientific smartness

Very interesting read, nce documented arguments, thumbs upp!

Thanks brother. Sorry for the underlined parts. It happens when you post any links which contain underscores for some reason.

Peace.

Side: Scientific smartness
EldonG(541) Disputed
1 point

I don't know that you're wrong, here, but have you seen the way these buildings were actually built? The architecture was literally unique, and much like an arch, each part depended on the structural support of the others. It was done this way to keep it light enough, and allow for sway in high winds. I actually remember these things from when they were built.

They were strong, but once integrity was broken, they were terribly weak.

Side: Nomengayture
1 point

I don't know that you're wrong, here, but have you seen the way these buildings were actually built?

Eldon, it doesn't matter how a building is built. The laws of physics don't change lad. You are being fooled by one of the right wing's red herrings.

The architecture was literally unique, and much like an arch, each part depended on the structural support of the others.

God, you people are just so infuriating. Explain what you believe was wrong with the "structural support" of the 93 floors underneath the point of impact? There should have been nothing wrong with it because the heat from any fire would have moved upwards, not downwards. Hence, you have exactly the same question to answer. How was the weight of the top 17 floors sufficient to crush the 93 floors of resistance it was resting on top of?

The way you have been fooled into not questioning the things you are told, even when they are so patently false, is just absolutely fucking terrifying. You are quite literally taking a giant piss all over the laws of classical mechanics. Just because somebody uses the words "structural support" or "structural integrity" blah blah blah, does not necessarily mean they are not bullshitting you.

Side: Scientific smartness
FactMachine(411) Disputed
1 point

How does it feel to be the left wing Alex Jones? You should start a radio show, what do you think about fluoride?

Side: Nomengayture
0 points

You need to grow up mate.

"Curiously, according to motions from (Zacarias) Moussaoui unsealed in Federal court, he wished to testify before both a grand jury and the US Congress about the 9/11 attacks, claiming to possess information that the US government permitted the attacks to happen. That request has so far been refused." (Ahmed 2005, p204)

"Expert analyses of the visa-application forms of 15 of the 9/11 terrorists (the other four applications could not be obtained), show all the applicants among the 15 reviewed should have been denied visas under then-existing law. Six separate experts who analyzed the simple, two-page forms came to the same conclusion: All of the visa applications they reviewed should have been denied on their face." (Ahmed 2005, p217)

"As noted by former Assistant Attorney Mary Schiavo -- formerly Inspector-General at the US Department of Transportation... -- in the last 30 years there have been 682 hijackings in the United States which have been responded to in accordance with the appropriate FAA procedures. Indeed, in the calendar year prior to 9/11, fighter aircraft were successfully scrambled on 56 occasions in response to such emergencies, within minutes.

Air traffic controllers routinely request fighter craft to intercept commercial planes for various reasons when problems faced cannot be solved through radio contact...

As a matter of standard operating procedures, no approval from the White House is required for interception. On the contrary, interception occurs on the basis of established flight and emergency response rules." (Ahmed 2005, p267)

"Newshouse News Service disclosed that 'September 11 was Day II of Vigilant Guardian', an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide." (Ahmed 2005, p304)

"US intelligence expert James Bamford notes that Vigilant Guardian 'was designed to create a fictional crisis affecting the United States and test the network of radar watch stations around the country.'" (Ahmed 2005, p304)

"NORAD was also involved in a third exercise on the morning of 9/11. Citing 'an on-the-record statement from someone in NORAD,' US journalist and former LAPD investigator Michael Ruppert reports that, 'on the day of 9/11 the Joint Chiefs and NORAD were conducting a joint , live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner...'

Several NORAD officers involved in the NEADS war game including Gen. Larry Arnold responded with the initial conviction that the FAA's hijack notification was part of the planned exercise...

In that context, if NEADS officials did not know whether the Boston Flight 11 hijacking was part of their exercise, clearing the "scripting" for their exercise did not preclude hijacking scenarios -- and on the contrary probably did include them...

'In the two years before the Sept 11 attacks,' reported USA Today, 'the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.' Most remarkably, 'One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center.'" (Ahmed 2005, p306)

"The implication, of course, is that any Joint Chiefs-NORAD exercise on 9/11 would have to be conducted solely on specific instructions from the president and/or the secretary of defense." (Ahmed 2005, p308)

Indeed, it is hard to see how such a large number of war games and exercises involving key US agencies -- including the CIA, the NRO, NORAD, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, FEMA and the DCANG unit at Andrews Air Force Base -- could all have been planned and/or implemented on or around September 11, 2001 by complete coincidence." (Ahmed 2005, p313)

AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd.

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is a bestselling author, investigative journalist and international security scholar. He is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization among other books. He writes for the Guardian on the geopolitics of environmental, energy and economic crises on his Earth insight blog.

Side: Scientific smartness
xMathFanx(673) Disputed
-2 points
1 point

Bwahahahaha! LMAO ROFL (crying)....

Your trolling is shit, implies that you are a moron, and is confirmed by you spamming YouTube links faster than a Trump supporter who has been assaulted with a series of political facts. All the science is on my side. There are entire academic journals dedicated to scientific research regarding the events of 9/11:-

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Side: Scientific smartness
1 point

I think that if 9/11 was an inside job that we'd never be able to prove that it was an inside job so then that means the only conclusion we can end with is it wasn't an inside job.

Side: Scientific smartness
1 point

I think that if 9/11 was an inside job that we'd never be able to prove that it was an inside job so then that means the only conclusion we can end with is it wasn't an inside job.

That's retarded. Whether or not you can prove something has no correlation to whether or not it is true. It can be proven that the government lied about a number of key issues, such as how the towers collapsed. That is good enough to put them on trial.

Side: Nomengayture
dingdong(50) Disputed
1 point

But if something is true and you can't prove it then all we can do is assume you are wrong.

Side: Scientific smartness