- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
It was secret for forty years. How long does it need to be a secret before it "counts?" A hundred years? Two hundred?
It may as well still be secret, because the only way you can find out about it is to engage in independent research--something most Americans are too busy or too indoctrinated to undertake.
I can't do the research for you. More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that the government was involved, on some level, in the events of 9/11. The 9/11 commission report and the NIST report have been exposed as frauds by engineers and scientists (These people had nothing to gain by speaking out, unlike the experts who were willing to endorse the official version of events).
Good boy. NIST would be proud.
Let's not forget that the fire was only on a few floors. If the WTC buildings had been rotated evenly over 1800 degree barbecues for 2 hours, then maybe I'd buy the "progressive collapse theory". It's simply not possible for unfocused, random fires on a handful of floors to weaken all the steel, from the basement to the crash zone, symmetrically and cause global collapse.
p.s. it's called a forge. I have never argued that steel is invulnerable to fire.
When you share private information with a friend--that's gossip.
When you murder thousands of innocent civilians, that's a secret. And if you were involved, you're invested in keeping that secret--because you're part of the system that perpetrated it. You benefit from keeping it secret. If you blab, you're taking a risk.
If you think our government can't keep a secret, then what exactly is the purpose of top secret clearances? I suppose the CIA won't mind if I examine their files, since we know all their secrets which they are unable to keep. You think everything they do is legal? How about moral?
p.s. the Government didn't fabricate the evidence of 9/11 - they omitted, destroyed, or distorted the evidence that was present.
Since many of you are familiar with the NIST report and freely refer to it, consider this editorial written by Kevin Ryan.
Mr. Ryan worked at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) -- the company that tested (and disproved) the pancake theory. The progressive collapse theory, which NIST fabricated later, was based on a distortion of data provided by UL.
Although he had recently been promoted, when Kevin Ryan asked too many uncomfortable questions, he was fired.
"All right, since Youtube videos are apparently good enough to provide evidence for this debate, here's one for you."
I prefer to judge evidence by its validity, not by where it came from. I'll even listen to you.
"(...I personally think the prick who made this debate only sees things in black and white, as every idiot does.)"
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. --WIKI
As for your evidence...
Much of it attempts to discredit theories that claim the planes were not real passenger airliners, or were modified in some way. I agreed with most of what they said--I never put a lot of stock in what eyewitnesses saw, because eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. There are some inconsistencies with the planes that this video omitted, but I don't think I had any major objections. In my opinion, whether or not they were real planes is a minor question, compared to the rapid onset of global collapse seen in WTC 1, 2, and 7.
The official collapse theory has already been addressed elsewhere on this page, and multiple sources have been provided. Check it out. NIST's claims of 40-inch bowing were not arrived at by the scientific method. Underwriters Labs got the steel to bow 4 inches (by exposing it to higher temperatures than were present, for longer time periods), and NIST multiplied by ten. The computer "simulation" in the video is completely fraudulent, as is the attempt to measure the bowing of steel from video stills and/or distant photographs.
One of the shortcomings of digital communication is that it can be anonymous and impersonal, and even make people feel isolated from one another.
But that doesn't mean technology is to blame for the disconnection of the masses. Technology demands responsibility. Corporations and institutions have abused that responsibility by using new media to push consumerism, fear, slavery, and ignorance, all of which hinder our ability to participate fully in society. If we don't question it.
One of the really promising things about this site is it provides a free and open forum to share our views, re-evaluate them, consider alternative views, and discover common ground!
Ok, that was a bit of a straw man.
What I mean by equal in other respects is, able to explain the available data equally well.
9/11 commission report fails to explain all the data. 9/11 truth movement via controlled demolition theory, and with the support of many scientists, engineers, and concerned citizens, is able to provide plausible explanations for all the data. If a new, independent investigation were launched and funded properly, I believe it would not reach the same conclusions as the 9/11 commission did. To be blunt, 9/11 commission report defies the laws of Physics - including gravity and conservation of momentum.
The 9/11 disaster was unprecedented - all the more reason to put our faith in objective inquiry and the scientific method.
Someone posted a URL elsewhere in this debate: http://www.ae911truth.org/
I suggest you take a look. 381 architects and engineers have risked their professional reputation to ask for a new investigation. What do they have to gain? Nothing - but they have a lot to lose: professional credibility, maybe a promotion, possibly their job.... It's happened.
Yes, you can find experts who will support the 9/11 commission findings. That shouldn't be surprising, given the amount of institutional pressure to conform to the official story.
Finally, this "reverse scientific method" accusation is absurd.
9/11 truth movement has explored the most likely hypothesis - controlled demolition - and been able to support this theory by taking all the evidence into account.
It is the 9/11 commission that is guilty of a "reverse scientific method," by throwing out the hypothesis that was unacceptable (controlled demolition), and omitting data that did not fit their progressive collapse model (but is consistent with controlled demolition).
Key phrase being "equal in other respects."
According to our President, the terrorists attack us because "they hate our freedom." Accepting this argument is much simpler than getting off your ass and learning the history that the U.S. has in that region. I guess that's why a lot of Americans (probably the same ones that are satisfied with the 9/11 commission report) actually believe that nonsense.
There should have been a proper investigation. Occam's Razor doesn't mean that complicated situations don't exist.
That source you linked to says that the columns fell faster than the surrounding floors: consistent with controlled demolition. In attempting to refute the collapse speed, he actually reinforces the controlled demolition theory. Regardless, no one says it fell at exactly free-fall speed. It fell at "near" free-fall speed. Like, give or take a second...that's pretty close.
This guy also "proves" that the giant pyroclastic flow didn't happen, because pyroclastic flows are a "minimum of 100 degrees C."
Pyroclastic flows, also known as gravity currents, are explained by fluid dynamics. It has nothing to do with temperature, rather with the difference in density between the flow and the surrounding air.
Did you really see explosions in this video?
All you can see is large clouds of grey dust being ejected from the bottom. It actually looks remarkably similar to the giant greyish dust cloud that progressively obscured the upper floors of the WTC towers as they collapsed.
Controlled demolition uses the building's own weight against it, by severing its support columns.
We'd still have air and sea power. We have the most advanced navy and air force in the world. Not to mention nukes. This is a huge deterrent.
As for terrorists, one of the things that inspires people to align with terrorist causes is our actions in the middle east. Withdrawing our armies from foreign lands would make the United States safer from terrorists, as the terrorist ranks would soon dry up with no reason to hate us.
"It will be several decades before we could work ourselves into a position diplomatically that would allow us to remove troops and support from around the world."
I don't think I follow you. Will our allies be angry with us for removing bases from their lands?
I don't think so. They might even be glad that we can begin to lower our deficit by not pouring so much money into military spending. I think our allies would prefer the US have a strong economy than a strong military presence in their country...
In addition, it would improve diplomacy with countries that don't like us so much - like Palestine, Iran...
I'm definitely a PC person because I play games. And there is just plain more software in general for Windows.
However, I think it's no contest from a design perspective. Mac hardware is more standardized (eg, ATI vs Nvidia) and more plug&play;(compare airport to a pc router). MacOS is at least as reliable as XP, probably more - less futzing around, no registry crap -- and then if you consider the lack of viruses that target Macs... Oh and Vista is a total PoS.
Only thing that makes me nervous about Macs is they only have one mouse button. That's just... weird.