In bailing out banks the claim is that a financial disaster will be prevented. This isn't true. The debt held by these banks has to go somewhere, it doesn't just disappear. The choice was that either a terrible economic disaster happens now, or that that disaster is put off, multiplied, and left to grow.

Letting AIG go bankrupt would, of course,have caused a massive collapse, a 'tsunami.' Yes, this would suck. It would have been very damaging. But now the US government owns AIG's debt.... and Fannie and Freddie's debt... and A LOT more debt besides. What the Fed effectively is doing is bankrupting the US Government instead of the Banks! The effect of the US govt. declaring bankruptcy would be huge in comparison to AIG or anyone else's collapse.

The buck has been passed. A coming disaster has NOT been averted. The US has stepped out of the way of an oncoming car into the path of a Locomotive. The world can deal with the failure of the banking system. The pieces can be picked up, and eventually within perhaps 20 to 30 years the world can move on. But if the US collapses who knows? The most powerful country in the world with the biggest army and one of the biggest populations... collapsing? Who knows what havoc this might create. Forget about a 20 to 30 year recovery - the world, and the US, would never be the same.

Just because all the data hasn't been explained doesn't mean it was done an inside job. Yes there should be another inquiry if thats what it takes to explain all the data. This debate is about whether or not it was an inside job, not about the merits of another inquiry.

Right. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I agree that saying 'the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom' is wrong. America was attacked because it has never been a popular country in the middle east. The fact is, there was a motivation there, so while saying 'they hate our freedom' is wrong, it doesn't change anything.

Of course complicated situations do exist. Occam's razor is a guide on how to examine two situations which both have varying explanations.

I don't understand what you mean by 'Key phrase being "equal in other respects."'

Why should there be another investigation? Your unanswered questions mainly relate to happenings which are unprecedented, ie. molten steel inside the building. You seem to be forgetting that the entire act was unprecedented. 'No building has ever collapsed in this way' people say, yet the fact is no building has ever been crashed into by a fully laden jet airliner of such a size. Videos are used to compare the collapse of the towers to the collapse of a controlled demolition. 'Look!' People say 'they're the same! and they shouldn't be the same! they should be entirely different collapses! there ought to be no similarities at all!' But hold on for a second. Since no building has ever been crashed into by a jet airliner before, exactly how should we know what the collapse should have looked like? We have nothing to compare this to. Just because the collapse has some elements of a structural collapse caused by controlled explosives does not mean that the collapse was caused by controlled explosives.

I favour occams razor - "When multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities" i.e. "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

The people who believe it's a conspiracy have created an enormous 'tower' of evidence, with each wild hypothesis based on yet another wild hypothesis. It's an enormously convoluted mess. For example I find it extremely unlikely, nigh on impossible, that such a plan could be executed with the utmost secrecy, with everyone agreeing after the fact, and I repeat, AFTER the fact, to keep quiet. So everyone is given as minimal role as possible, yet don't you think that people would realise the part they had played once they saw TV that day? Everyone involved in this 'demolition' and many other planning aspects would suddenly realise what they helped plan for.

I could go on, this is just one example of how such a large and convoluted plan would never remain secret, were it even to get off the ground in the first place.

I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce our emmissions because that would increse them, I'm saying that reducing our emmissions on a personal level doesn't have an overall impact on our emmissions because of the net increase created by economic growth.

Yes we're working on greener technology, but a) The majority of the money saved doesn't go into reinvestment into greener technology, it goes into the CO2 reasing economy as a whole and b) This technology is nowhere near to being a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

It means be wise. It means examine every aspect of your being before you make any decisions regarding the perfect equilibrum on which this site balances. It means...it means 'Hey! We're web 2.0!'

One of the main ways people are encouraged to reduce their CO2 emissions is by constantly reminding them that they are saving money by doing so. This is true. Yet consider what happens when someone 'saves' money. What do they do with this money? They either spend it or put it into a bank (very few people keep their savings at home). Yet by doing either of these things, people in an indirect way contribute again to global warming. Money placed into the banking system benefits the economy, as banks use money to invest. This leads to economic growth, which, at the end of it all, is based upon a carbon based economy which releases CO2. Obviously, purchasing something has a much more direct impact on CO2 emissions - items require CO2 for their production, transport etc.

So it seems that in order to reduce CO2 emissions at all it would be necessary to entirely wean ourselves off oil. No amount of avoidance of CO2 emissions will reduce global warming unless their very source is first eliminated. But the global economy is addicted to oil and fossil fuels. How can we, as a planet, coordinate such a massive project as a conversion to non-fossil fuel CO2 free alternatives? How could countries possibly accept the economic consequences of such an action? We can't and they won't. Any attempts by average people to reduce CO2 emissions are useless, and the problem is nearly impossible to solve on a large scale. What a useless endeavor.

Oh it's a good idea guys, a REAL good idea. Not. What about integrity? What about ideals? What about vision? What about staying faithful to the very things we hold to be true and dear?

A colour scheme would directy impose not only on this site, but also it's inegrity. A change of mind is, as they say, as bad as kicking a baby. So stay true to your ideals. Don't be swayed by those fighting for functionality. Stay true createdebate.com (beta). Stay mostly white.