CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
9/11: Gvt. Conspiracy or Terrorist Attack?
There is stilll a ongoing controversy over 9/11 and the circumstances surrounding 9/11. Do you think that the government had anything to do with 9/11 or do you think it was a terrorist attack resulting from foreign dispute? Please state your reasons.
You gave no supporting reasons or evidence. I can do it too: It was a terrorist attack, it wasn't a conspiracy. The aim of 9/11 was to being the war against the U.S. The terrorists did it on purpose.
yeah, i agree with Aidar's opinion! The main aim was a war against Islam. These people are called "freemasons" (illuminati). Their main aim is to get the world, and make a New World Order. They almost won Russia by alcoholism, because nowadays, there are thousands of russian people, who are suffering from alcohol, smoking that were invented, spread by "them". They get African countries by starvation and east asia by disasters that everyday killing millions people. So, they can't win islamic countries. Because their religion is very strong to succumb any bad habits, like alcoholism. So "they" begin to do anything to make a reason to destroy, to war with islamic countries. Now, they are fighting with Afghan military, with Iraq, Iran.. So, 9/11 was a conspiracy against Muslims, not terrorists!
I would love to refute this video but there is nothing to refute. The video merely expresses a belief but does not provide any evidence for why I should accept this belief.
I know it wasn't MY government. What constitutes a government? How much territory, how large of a demographic must a cabal control, and for how long? How elaborate must their bureaucracy be? for them to achieve "government" status?
This is complicated question, I think Conspirasy, because Terrorist attack is very bad because many people may suffer. Conspiracy is less harmfull. And I think Conspiracy people plan it more herder than Terrorist attack
Of it was conspiracy.Do you believe that that it was terrorist attack? if yes, you are fool. I have got a good reason for my opinion. That day, when everything has been searched out, police found the passport of that terrorists. How I can believe to this? Because everything in airplane was burned out and to ash,even some strong metals were had been melted,but the passport of that terrorist was there, it seems FUNNY isn't t?
That is conspiracy THEORY propaganda BS. Tell me where I can find the proof of that claim. You are a fool if you believe everything you read on line. I guaranty your sources are not credible.
One can't help but wonder who really benifited from the 9/11 incident, the U.S Government just used the word "terrorism" to allow them to make any military procedures they want.
It wasn't terrorist attack. Look the facts are lots of people heard explosions in the basements, people said that they were blown of there feet in the basement and there was something about a fire or something like that before the planes hit. Also loads of people who had evidence died suddenly.
As far as secrets go, the more people that are involved in a secret the more likely it is to be exposed. This is why conspiracy theories are generally believed to be nonsense. The sheer level of cooperation, and the sheer number of people who would have to be involved in something like the 9/11 attacks makes it incredibly implausible. You would need a super-competent government (during Bush presidency?) and every single person involved would have to be morally bankrupt. Again this is ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda publicly took credit for the attack.
9/11 truthers say that passenger planes couldn't take down the trade towers, that you need planted demolitions. If that is the case then why go through the trouble of flying a MOTHERFUCKING PLANE into a building? Not to mention you would have to guide a plane going some 500+ miles an hour into the specific floor on the specific side of the building in which the explosives where planted and to detonate them at the exact moment the plane collides....TWICE! and you would have to find a government agents who are willing to do that. This is profoundly absurd.
Even more absurd is the notion that a government which is willing to commit this heinous murder of thousands of it's own citizens, is letting a couple of stupid college kids ruin everything by posting a video on YouTube with spooky music. If their theory was correct then the Government wouldn't flinch killing them as well.
The whole thing is a huge load of conspiracy BS, In my humble opinion.
the more people that are involved in a secret the more likely it is to be exposed.
It has already been "exposed" that the official story about how all this went down is entirely implausible. You disagree? then how do you suppose that building 7 pancaked into it's own footprint so neatly? What possible comment could you give about what Silverstein said here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
No..."pull it" isn't a demolition term...lol
No Airliners ever hit building 7 So explain that one!
every single person involved would have to be morally bankrupt.
That's not true.
Again this is ignoring the fact that Al Qaeda publicly took credit for the attack.
Ever heard the terms "disinformation" or "theater"
If that is the case then why go through the trouble of flying a MOTHERFUCKING PLANE into a building?
Shock and awe baby!
Not to mention you would have to guide a plane going some 500+ miles an hour into the specific floor on the specific side of the building in which the explosives where planted and to detonate them at the exact moment the plane collides....TWICE!
In order for the buildings to have imploded as they did, explosives would need to have been placed throughout the building. The explosives were not set off immediately as the Jets hit the building, they were set off only seconds preceding their near free fall speed collapse. And yes to think that these explosives were set off by a Jet slamming into them is ridiculous.
you would have to find a government agents who are willing to do that.
You aren't very good at imagining alternative possibilities are you?
If their theory was correct then the Government wouldn't flinch killing them as well.
That's your best argument IMO.......Perhaps the perps don't really care if "the government" gets blamed by people who really aren't in a position to do anything about it.
The whole thing is a huge load of conspiracy BS, In my humble opinion.
You didn't express a humble opinion, you expressed smug certainty.
The level of cooperation, competence, secrecy and immorality simply did not exist. You're talking about cooperation between multiple agencies many of whom don't actually like each other. The people who believe in conspiracy theories are the people who believe the government is super-efficient at getting stuff done. We are to believe that government that can't figure out who is gaming the welfare system is somehow able to pull off this stunt without anybody finding out? We must also believe that not a single moral individual was involved in the whole goddamn thing.
And again, the pilot of the hijacked aircraft would have to know where the explosives were planted and to fly the aircraft accordingly. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to fly a plane into a building if it is rigged with explosives, you could simply blame the bombs on terrorists. If there were any bombs. There were no bombs. No one saw any explosives come into the buildings. No one saw any bombs go off before, during or after the aircraft collision. No one from inside the building reported any bombs. Nor were any explosive materials found in the wreckage. There is no evidence now or ever that the 9/11 attack was the result of a demolition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There would be no purpose to flying a plane into the middle of nowhere, and no purpose to destroying building 7. Both would simply create unnecessary risk, unnecessary cost and wouldn't contribute to such a conspiracy in any manner.
No Airliners ever hit building 7 So explain that one!
I would have to iterate that all of this stuff you are saying has been debunked time and time again. Popular Mechanics, a science and technology magazine has gone through the evidence and debunked the myths surrounding the 9/11 truther movement.
If we look at some of the earlier zeitgeist movies, which in fact promoted the 9/11 truth conspiracy, the director Peter Joseph has since publicly distanced himself from the 9/11 truth movement. Whatever steam the "inside job" conspiracy had initially has since fizzled away in light of much of the debunking that has been done.
And Again, I will say it because it is worth saying. Al Qaeda publicly took credit for the attack. Unless of course they are "in on it" too. Haha!
"And Again, I will say it because it is worth saying. Al Qaeda publicly took credit for the attack. Unless of course they are "in on it" too. Haha!"
I don't beleive it was a govgernment conspiracy but i do beleive there are seruious questions that haven't been answered, i think at the very least there was very serious (possibly intentional) negligence, a full exaplanation for building 7 has never been given, vene in the video you providede it provides no explanation as to why it collapsed in the manner in which it did, many structural engineers have said it simply wouldn't have collapsed this way unless it was a controlled demolition. Then there is the issue of the fighter jets, and why they weren't sent into the sky as required to shoot down the planes, i have heard the usual explanations that supposedly debunk this but i honestly don't buy them for second. gore Vidal wrote a very nice polemic on this : http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html
Then theres the pentagon, im not even going to get into it, i don't buy the conspiracy theory bs but i do think the the public was kept in the dark, it may just be negligence or it may be something more sinsiter i.e. the government knew about the attacks and decided not to prevent them, and were thus complicit in them.
Then there is the issue of the fighter jets, and why they weren't sent into the sky as required to shoot down the planes
"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic
flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent."
~Popular mechanics
a full exaplanation for building 7 has never been given, vene in the video you providede it provides no explanation as to why it collapsed in the manner in which it did
"NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."
The level of cooperation, competence, secrecy and immorality simply did not exist. You're talking about cooperation between multiple agencies many of whom don't actually like each other.
Cowardice, greed, and intellectual laziness, make people who otherwise disagree miraculously "co-operate"
The people who believe in conspiracy theories are the people who believe the government is super-efficient at getting stuff done.
Traditionally governments are super-efficient at shaping public opinion. Releasing propaganda that the least brightest (largest demographic) can comfortably parrot is "stuff" they get done quite well. By the way which of the well known conspiracy theories is most convincing to you?
Ever read Eisenhower's farewell address?
We must also believe that not a single moral individual was involved in the whole goddamn thing.
Shutting people up is easy, and doesn't require killing them.
And again, the pilot of the hijacked aircraft would have to know where the explosives were planted and to fly the aircraft accordingly
That's just retarded. Do you know anything about how demolition explosives work?
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to fly a plane into a building if it is rigged with explosives, you could simply blame the bombs on terrorists.
You don't understand much about how misdirection works do you?
There is no evidence now or ever that the 9/11 attack was the result of a demolition.
So than where is the extraordinary evidence that shows that professional demolition teams are wasting their time by carefully placing explosives? You see in order to get a building to fall into it's own footprint neatly, simultaneous explosions need to occur at key structural support positions in the building. Let's suppose that your job was to level a building the size of one of the towers but you were only allowed to place explosions at the bottom floor. What do you think would happen? I can tell you two things that wouldn't happen. 1. The building wouldn't fall straight down into it's own footprint 2. It would not fall at anywhere near free fall speed.
I would have to iterate that all of this stuff you are saying has been debunked time and time again. Popular Mechanics, a science and technology magazine has gone through the evidence and debunked the myths surrounding the 9/11 truther movement.
They were debunked and the debunkers were counter debunked. The nice thing for me is that I don't have to consult an "expert" every time I go about forming an opinion.
Whatever steam the "inside job" conspiracy had initially has since fizzled away in light of much of the debunking that has been done.
Oh it's all ancient history now!
And Again, I will say it because it is worth saying. Al Qaeda publicly took credit for the attack. Unless of course they are "in on it" too.
How did you come to believe that there really is an organization called Al Qaeda? Oh I forgot you don't answer questions.
Cowardice, greed, and intellectual laziness, make people who otherwise disagree miraculously "co-operate"
Even when it means committing mass murder against one's own people? But you can hope upon a miracle if you like.
Traditionally governments are super-efficient at shaping public opinion.
No, not really. If it was, then we wouldn't see nearly as many revolutions as we do, if that were the case. At least not to the extent that you are speaking of.
Shutting people up is easy, and doesn't require killing them.
People have died for far less. You have a conspiracy involving a couple thousand people, and someone is going to speak up. This is why conspiracies generally don't happen in real life and when they do, they are almost always foiled for this very reason.
“Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.” ~Benjamin Franklin
That's just retarded. Do you know anything about how demolition explosives work?
Well if you plant explosives in every other floor, and detonate them the collapse is going to begin at the top and not at the impact site. Clearly we can see from the videos that the collapse begins at the impact site.
That's a flat out lie.
Okay then can you produce these explosives? Any security video footage of them being placed in the building? A witnesses from inside the towers with cell phones? Blueprints? E-mails from the demo team? Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to rig buildings of that size for controlled demolition without anybody noticing? Now try doing it three times.
What do you think would happen? I can tell you two things that wouldn't happen. 1. The building wouldn't fall straight down into it's own footprint
And is that your professional opinion? Buildings that suffer from an internal structural failure especially those caused by fire, nearly always fall straight down. Have you ever seen a building collapsing from fire fall sideways....ever?
Skyscrapers are made up of mostly empty space anyway, reduce the structural integrity and they will fall down. Even so, had it been an "inside job" there would be no motivation for it to fall straight down, or sideways or any other direction for that matter.
It would not fall at anywhere near free fall speed.
Yes it would. This is actually what happens when you have a progressive structural failure. One floor gives way, causing the next floor to give way, causing the next floor to give way and so on. This is sort of a pancake effect. Soon you have a multi-ton freight-train diving straight towards the ground.
The L'Ambiance Plaza was a 16 story tall building and collapsed in only 5 seconds, which is near free fall speed. Whats more is that it fell straight down in precisely the manner that the trade towers fell and it was an entirely accidental collapse.
How did you come to believe that there really is an organization called Al Qaeda?
Even when it means committing mass murder against one's own people? But you can hope upon a miracle if you like.
I don't hope for these kind of miracles. It's just an unfortunate reality that we can rely on people to stand by and do nothing while horrendous things occur under their nose. We can rely on news organizations to pander to the larger demographic that isn't interested at all in deep analysis. We can count on the economic interests of the power elite being prioritized ahead of everything else in politics (and of course journalism).
If it was, then we wouldn't see nearly as many revolutions as we do, if that were the case.
You are one of those naive enough to think that revolutions are anything but abrupt changes in the form of misgovernment. You don't realize what a government is.
You have a conspiracy involving a couple thousand people, and someone is going to speak up.
People have spoken up. It's not a question of "Was there a conspiracy" it's a question of "Which conspiracy theory do you find most convincing."
This is why conspiracies generally don't happen in real life and when they do, they are almost always foiled for this very reason.
What a line of crap.
“Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.” ~Benjamin Franklin
Cute. Who is saying there's a secret that's been kept?
Clearly we can see from the videos that the collapse begins at the impact site.
Post it
Okay then can you produce these explosives? Any security video footage of them being placed in the building? A witnesses from inside the towers with cell phones? Blueprints? E-mails from the demo team?
You've got Silverstein admitting that a "Decision was made to pull it". Sure the manner in which they fall is pretty convincing evidence alone, but come on how do you explain his comment away?
Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to rig buildings of that size for controlled demolition without anybody noticing? Now try doing it three times.
Anyone of consequence noticing?
And is that your professional opinion?
Yeah, it's my professional opinion.
Buildings that suffer from an internal structural failure especially those caused by fire, nearly always fall straight down.
You are talking like what happened here isn't historically unprecedented.
"Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse."
had it been an "inside job" there would be no motivation for it to fall straight down, or sideways or any other direction for that matter.
Destruction of evidence.
Yes it would. This is actually what happens when you have a progressive structural failure. One floor gives way, causing the next floor to give way, causing the next floor to give way and so on. This is sort of a pancake effect. Soon you have a multi-ton freight-train diving straight towards the ground.
Hogwash
The L'Ambiance Plaza was a 16 story tall building and collapsed in only 5 seconds, which is near free fall speed. Whats more is that it fell straight down in precisely the manner that the trade towers fell and it was an entirely accidental collapse.
It's not a reasonable comparison.
Is this some sort of joke?
I wanted to point out that this is a matter of whose stories you believe.
It's just an unfortunate reality that we can rely on people to stand by and do nothing while horrendous things occur under their nose.
This refers only to the bystander effect a phenomenon that refers to cases where individuals do not offer any means of help in an emergency situation to the victim when other people are present.
This is fundamentally different than what I am speaking off. I am talking about a conspiracy, in which this person is not a bystander but actively involved, when no one else is aware of what is going on. The bystander effect would not apply in that situation.
You are one of those naive enough to think that revolutions are anything but abrupt changes in the form of misgovernment. You don't realize what a government is.
If a nation revolts against it's government then the propaganda failed.
People have spoken up.
Like?
It's not a question of "Was there a conspiracy"
Most certainly it is. You have an evidentially unsubstantiated claim of a conspiracy held by a fringe group. Until someone can prove that 9/11 was an inside job, then it is a question of whether there was a conspiracy.
You've got Silverstein admitting that a "Decision was made to pull it".
Listen to his statement, he says that a lot of lives were lost (referring to the effort of firefighters to contain the blaze) and so the decision was to pull it....ie to pull the firefighters to safety.
Sure the manner in which they fall is pretty convincing evidence alone
Perhaps to someone who is not an expert in structural engineering. This however is not evidence.
Anyone of consequence noticing?
Anyone at all...
You are talking like what happened here isn't historically unprecedented.
Buildings collapsing from a structural failure caused by fire is not unprecedented. That the trade towers were steel frame is of no consequence in regards to this fact. The jet fuel inferno was able to reach temperatures not possible in most other cases.
Destruction of evidence.
This is mere conjecture.
Hogwash
Denial is not a rebuttal.
It's not a reasonable comparison.
You said that a building that collapses straight down would not reach anywhere near free fall speed. You were wrong, I have provided an example where exactly this has happened and it wasn't the result of a demolition.
Your argument is falling apart.
I wanted to point out that this is a matter of whose stories you believe.
Yes, you can believe the engineering and aviation experts or you can believe a couple of college kids who made a YouTube video.
This refers only to the bystander effect a phenomenon that refers to cases where individuals do not offer any means of help in an emergency situation to the victim when other people are present.
Contrastingly you might consider how it's quite common for a court of law to consider someone an accessory to the crime if they neglect to report it.
This is fundamentally different than what I am speaking off. I am talking about a conspiracy, in which this person is not a bystander but actively involved, when no one else is aware of what is going on. The bystander effect would not apply in that situation.
OK....It's obvious that every single individual who holds a government position could not possibly have been "actively involved" in the conspiracy.
You do agree that a conspiracy by "X group" was required to carry out the attack right?
"logical traps are hard to expose without the aid of yeses and nos." ~atypican
If a nation revolts against it's government then the propaganda failed.
I didn't say that propaganda never fails.
Like?
If you really want me to make a list, start responding to questions I ask.
ie to pull the firefighters to safety.
He referred to the firefighters as "it". Yeah OK you find that to be a convincing explanation. Very telling
Perhaps to someone who is not an expert in structural engineering. This however is not evidence.
That the trade towers were steel frame is of no consequence in regards to this fact.
Just keep thinking that parroting Popular Mechanics makes you sound like you understand physics and structural engineering if you like. You aren't fooling me.
Denial is not a rebuttal.
If all you say is "Dogs don't skydive" all that statement warrants in response is "Yes they do" Think on that for a bit...
You said that a building that collapses straight down would not reach anywhere near free fall speed.
Don't lie about what I said.
Your argument is falling apart.
No it's not. The texts between us reveal clearly enough the one who doesn't want their flawed logic exposed. I'll give you a hint. It's the guy who ignores the others guy's questions more often. :)
Yes, you can believe the engineering and aviation experts or you can believe a couple of college kids who made a YouTube video.
News flash mister false choice provider, there are more people to consult with than that. I can have conversations GASP! with other experts rather than just read articles on the Internet.
The 1933 business plot to create a military coup within the United States involved a handful of wealthy business men and a military vet, and guess what? Someone spoke up and the whole plan was exposed before it could even get started.
You do agree that a conspiracy by "X group" was required to carry out the attack right?
X group being Al Qaeda, then yes.
I didn't say that propaganda never fails
No, you said that government is super-efficient at molding public opinion. The frequency of revolutions around the world speaks otherwise.
If you really want me to make a list, start responding to questions I ask.
In other words: Nobody has spoken up, but it helps your argument if you pretend that people have.
He referred to the firefighters as "it". Yeah OK you find that to be a convincing explanation. Very telling
No, he referred to the firefighting effort as "it".
Which statement is more logical:
A) "A lot of lives were lost therefore we should blow up the building"
or
B) "A lot of lives were lost therefore we should prevent more by pulling the firefighters out of there"
If you chose A then insert foot into mouth.
One side of building 7 was actually sagging before it collapsed. Many witnesses were actually anticipating it's collapse.
You can see WTC 7 is smack dab in the middle of Ground zero, and it received more fiery debris than any other building.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
This is another conspiracy theory deception. The petition only asks that there be an independent investigation by a non-governmental body. Nothing within the petition actually states that it's signatories believe 9/11 was an "inside job". Many people believe that there should be an independent investigation who don't buy the "inside job" conspiracy. Yet this is exactly how the petition is used by 9/11 truthers.
Creationists did the same thing when they made a similar petition that said that we should consider all possibilities regarding the origin of life. They reported the petition as "Scientists who doubt the evidence for evolution".
Don't lie about what I said.
In your own words...
atypican: "It would not fall at anywhere near free fall speed."
Since you admit that, if you are reasonable you will also admit that regarding the attacks on 9/11, it's not a question of "was there a conspiracy?" but "who was involved in the conspiracy?"
How did you come to believe that the only people who were involved with the attacks were members of Al Qaeda?
The frequency of revolutions around the world speaks otherwise.
What happens often are that certain political organizations (read:goverments) overtake others. What happens often is that an exchange of dictators is referred to as a revolution.
In other words: Nobody has spoken up, but it helps your argument if you pretend that people have.
No I actually want you to respond to my requests. SO now I will give a few examples of people whose conscience wouldn't allow them to remain silent, or take part in a cover-up
Barry Jennings
Beverly Eckert
William Rodriguez
Anthony Saltalamacchia
Kenneth Johannemann
Salvatore Giambanco
Hunter S Thompson
Ok there's a few...
See how that works? You answer questions of mine, I do the same.
No, he referred to the firefighting effort as "it".
I don't seem to be able to find the full interview to better judge the context. So when I do I will comment further.
Which statement is more logical:
A) "A lot of lives were lost therefore we should blow up the building"
or
B) "A lot of lives were lost therefore we should prevent more by pulling the firefighters out of there"
Of the two statements you presented, "B" is the most logical. If you can get me to agree that his comments weren't referring to a controlled demolition I will discontinue bringing it up. I don't know who placed the charges but I am still convinced that the buildings were not brought down by impacts from Airliners or the resulting fires.
Many people believe that there should be an independent investigation who don't buy the "inside job" conspiracy..
Are you part of that group?
In your own words...
atypican: "It would not fall at anywhere near free fall speed."
Thank you. Earlier you claimed that I stated "that a building that collapses straight down would not reach anywhere near free fall speed." which is lying about what I said.
If the airliner impacts and fuel fires were able to cause the buildings to collapse, The collapses wouldn't have been complete, they would not have fallen at near free fall speed, and the support structure's failure would not have been symmetrical. They wouldn't have imploded and fallen straight down.
How did you come to believe that the only people who were involved with the attacks were members of Al Qaeda?
Because there is no evidence of anyone else being involved.
What happens often are that certain political organizations (read:goverments) overtake others. What happens often is that an exchange of dictators is referred to as a revolution.
Happens often? Prove it.
Barry Jennings
Beverly Eckert
William Rodriguez
Anthony Saltalamacchia
Kenneth Johannemann
Salvatore Giambanco
Hunter S Thompson
I haven't been able to find information on all of these people but from what I have been able to gather, these are mostly 9/11 survivors who happen to also believe the "inside Job" conspiracy.
Of the two statements you presented, "B" is the most logical. If you can get me to agree that his comments weren't referring to a controlled demolition I will discontinue bringing it up.
You're asking me for negative proof. You are asking me to prove that something WASN'T the case when you have provided no evidence that it WAS the case. The burden of proof rest upon you to show that it could only be referring to a demolition.
The collapses wouldn't have been complete, they would not have fallen at near free fall speed
Evidence?
and the support structure's failure would not have been symmetrical
You are arguing against the facts. The building did fall straight down and there is no evidence anywhere that demolitions were planted in the buildings, or that demolitions caused the collapse. You are attempting to infer that demolitions were planted, despite the fact there is no evidence for this, and it would be incredibly implausible to extensively rig all three buildings without anyone noticing. These buildings are MASSIVE, and it would take an incredible amount of work to accomplish this in broad daylight never-mind in secrecy.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Providing a ton of terrible evidence does not make up for the lack of quality evidence, I'm sorry.
Because there is no evidence of anyone else being involved.
It's ironic that your unquestioned, trusted sources whose stories you regard as being evidence laden, have so clearly proven a negative to you.
Happens often? Prove it.
I have only appeals to logic at my disposal, and you seem determined to avoid that avenue of proof.
The burden of proof rest upon you to show that it could only be referring to a demolition.
To try assigning burden of proof here is just silly. Also silly is that you expect me to prove a negative as well. ie that he couldn't have meant anything but to demolish.
The truth is that when I heard his statement it stood out to me because I was already convinced that the buildings were demolished in a controlled fashion. I certainly don't want you to think that if you were to prove to me that Larry Silverstein did not mean demolish when he said that, I would somehow be able to ignore all the other glaringly obvious evidence, and believe instead the kooky conspiracy theory that you do.
Evidence?
I can present a series of logical statements. But if I go to the trouble of that I would want you to take part by answering "agree" or "disagree" to each component.
You are arguing against the facts.
No I am arguing against interpretations.
there is no evidence anywhere that demolitions were planted in the buildings
.....more evidence that someone has proven a negative to you. LOL
it would be incredibly implausible to extensively rig all three buildings without anyone noticing.
evidence?
These buildings are MASSIVE, and it would take an incredible amount of work to accomplish this in broad daylight never-mind in secrecy.
Thinking that the demolition of these buildings took a great amount of secrecy and planning makes a whole lot more sense than thinking Airliner impacts and fires would cause the complete and symmetrical implosion of modern steel framed skyscrapers.
And I think the extraordinary claim that is missing the extraordinary evidence is that airliner impact/fire caused three buildings to implode.
Providing a ton of terrible evidence does not make up for the lack of quality evidence, I'm sorry.
I never claimed it did. I am simply trying to persuade you to think logically about it. Your aversion to logical discourse is becoming more and more apparent.
It's ironic that your unquestioned, trusted sources whose stories you regard as being evidence laden, have so clearly proven a negative to you.
I don't require evidence to say that something isn't the case. The burden of proof rests on the person making the affirmative claim. If I told you that Santa Claus doesn't exist, would you then exclaim "You can't prove he doesn't?!", I certainly would hope not.
If you had evidence that others (i.e. US Government) were involved in the airline hijackings, then you would have presented it by now. It's as simple as that.
To try assigning burden of proof here is just silly.
No it's not, especially when the burden of proof really does rest upon you.
Also silly is that you expect me to prove a negative as well. ie that he couldn't have meant anything but to demolish.
Well this is what your argument necessarily requires, because if "Pull it" had meant something else then it wouldn't constitute evidence of a demolition.
Considering the fact that WTC 7 was sagging long before it collapsed and the fact that "pull it" typically refers to the act of pulling one building away from another using cables, I find a demolition unlikely and evidentially unsubstantiated. If you have reason to believe otherwise please present it now.
The truth is that when I heard his statement it stood out to me because I was already convinced that the buildings were demolished in a controlled fashion
I don't think I need to point out that this is confirmation bias, But I will anyway.
I certainly don't want you to think that if you were to prove to me that Larry Silverstein did not mean demolish when he said that
I don't need to prove anything. You were the one citing his statements as evidence of your "inside Job" conspiracy theory, it is your prerogative to show that his statements do support your claim and it's NOT my prerogative to show his statements don't support your claim.
I cannot disprove what hasn't been proven to begin with. That you even have to resort to ambiguous statements to support your argument, I think, shows how weak of an argument you actually have.
I would somehow be able to ignore all the other glaringly obvious evidence
So glaringly obvious that only the intellectually astute such as yourself and other conspiracy theorists are able to accept it, no?
To say that it looks like a demolition is not evidence, it is conjecture, and so far that is all you have been able to provide. Why should I waste my time arguing against such non-arguments?
I can present a series of logical statements. But if I go to the trouble of that I would want you to take part by answering "agree" or "disagree" to each component.
By all means, go right ahead. Just know, that if you are using invalid logic, I will be the first to point it out. Many arguments can have all true premises with a false inference.
evidence?
Wait? What? Is this a serious request? You want evidence that strategically placing and rigging thousands of pounds of explosive materials in two of the largest and busiest buildings where terrorist attacks have occurred before (1993 truck bombing) within one of the busiest cities in the Nation without anybody noticing, is implausible?
Thinking that the demolition of these buildings took a great amount of secrecy and planning makes a whole lot more sense than thinking Airliner impacts and fires would cause the complete and symmetrical implosion of modern steel framed skyscrapers.
No, it doesn't. For one your conclusion necessarily entails the US government pulling off the most elaborate conspiracies of all time. The same government which could not keep it's nuclear secrets um.....secret. The same government which plunged itself into a financial crisis due to it's own incompetence. The same government that that can't keep track of who is or isn't gaming the welfare system. You haven't even given me sufficient reason to think the US government is even morally capable of intentionally committing such a crime against it's own citizens. Was there not a single decent person involved in the whole conspiracy?
And I think the extraordinary claim that is missing the extraordinary evidence is that airliner impact/fire caused three buildings to implode.
The evidence is in the 2 year long investigation that was done, you just chose to deny the evidence. And for the sake of my sanity stop calling it an implosion, you are presuming the very thing in question.
When it comes down to it, you are perpetuating a grand conspiracy theory with little more than conjecture. To say that the US government pulled off the most elaborate conspiracy of all time resulting in the death of thousands of it's own citizens requires more evidence than what you have.
I don't require evidence to say that something isn't the case.
Admitting the problem is a good first step.
The burden of proof rests on the person making the affirmative claim.
So then I will clarify the claims I AM making.
1. There is a reason why demolition teams need to place charges in multiple locations THROUGHOUT a structure. There is a reason why the standard procedure is not to just set charges on a few floors and let gravity do the rest. The reason is because large portions of the building will remain intact and do to uneven structural RESISTANCE, the buildings will by no means fall at near free fall speed, or straight down.
2. It doesn't take advanced knowledge of structural engineering, or physics to realize that the manner in which the buildings fell is not consistent with the asymmetrical damage that was a result of an airliner impact and the subsequent fires.
3. I have no way of knowing with reasonable certainty who all was involved in the demolishing of the 3 buildings, but I have not seen (and if you are fair minded you will admit that neither have you) evidence that logically rules out the possibility that some people who held government positions were involved in the plot. You speak of the US Government like it is this monolithic entity that either was or wasn't involved. My claim is that this absolutist type of thinking, and whole hearted acceptance of false choice scenarios is something wise to mature past.
If you had evidence that others (i.e. US Government) were involved in the airline hijackings, then you would have presented it by now. It's as simple as that.
Fair enough. I am just a member of the general public. I am not classified to review certain evidence, so I (just like you) have to work with what I do have access to.
the burden of proof really does rest upon you.
This is nothing more than your opinion.
if "Pull it" had meant something else then it wouldn't constitute evidence of a demolition.
agreed
WTC 7 was sagging long before it collapsed
evidence?
the fact that "pull it" typically refers to the act of pulling one building away from another using cables, I find a demolition unlikely and evidentially unsubstantiated.
Admitting for the sake of argument that you are correct about Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment not referring to an intentional demolition does not make the rest of the video evidence any less compelling.
This is confirmation bias!
I admit my susceptibility to confirmation bias. Will you?
You were the one citing his statements as evidence of your "inside Job" conspiracy theory, it is your prerogative to show that his statements do support your claim and it's NOT my prerogative to show his statements don't support your claim.
I still think these buildings could not have been brought down without the help of "inside" operatives. And you are not obligated to convince me otherwise. I am not capable of assigning any "burden of proof" on you.
I cannot disprove what hasn't been proven to begin with.
When a proposition is said to have been "proven", it should be understood as just another way of saying that a specific class of people are convinced of it's veracity.
That you even have to resort to ambiguous statements to support your argument, I think, shows how weak of an argument you actually have.
If I have made an ambiguous statement please copy and paste it and I will be happy to clarify, despite that I am in no way obligated to.
So glaringly obvious that only the intellectually astute such as yourself and other conspiracy theorists are able to accept it, no?
Everyone (You included methinks)who doesn't know exactly how events transpired, can rightfully be labeled a conspiracy theorist. Do you understand that? Do you ever concede anything in an argument?
Why should I waste my time arguing against such non-arguments?
If you think I'm not a worthy debate opponent, it's of course your prerogative to leave me with the last word. :)
Wait? What? Is this a serious request? You want evidence that strategically placing and rigging thousands of pounds of explosive materials in two of the largest and busiest buildings where terrorist attacks have occurred before (1993 truck bombing) within one of the busiest cities in the Nation without anybody noticing, is implausible?
I consider that airliners leveling the buildings to be the more implausible of the two conspiracy theories.
For one your conclusion necessarily entails the US government pulling off the most elaborate conspiracies of all time.
Oh right, that false choice again... that either "The US Government" was or was not involved. If you are going to charge me of being ambiguous, I am going to counter that your capacity for nuanced thought is lacking.
Was there not a single decent person involved in the whole conspiracy?
The only logical way to believe otherwise, is to consider those whose involvement was forced.
The evidence is in the 2 year long investigation that was done, you just chose to deny the evidence.
I can remember reading a pamphlet left on a table at a coffee shop I used to frequent, immediately prior to 9/11. It was about the patriot act legislation, and the tone was of an urgent warning. It stated that what the attack was to be, was unknown, but that what was known was that this legislation would be quickly passed with next to no debate. It talked about how a climate of panic would be necessary for it slip through. Then I watched it happen. This was perhaps the start of my cognitive bias. lol
To say that the US government pulled off the most elaborate conspiracy of all time resulting in the death of thousands of it's own citizens requires more evidence than what you have.
What do you think Abraham Lincoln was talking about when he said: “You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
It isn't a problem, it is what rational people do.
1. There is a reason why demolition teams need to place charges in multiple locations THROUGHOUT a structure. There is a reason why the standard procedure is not to just set charges on a few floors and let gravity do the rest. The reason is because large portions of the building will remain intact and do to uneven structural RESISTANCE, the buildings will by no means fall at near free fall speed, or straight down.
Not to say that they couldn't just place demolitions on a few floors, the reason they don't is because the goal is to minimize debris and thus minimize damage to surrounding buildings and for the safety of any bystanders.
2. It doesn't take advanced knowledge of structural engineering, or physics to realize that the manner in which the buildings fell is not consistent with the asymmetrical damage
The aircraft collision is not what caused the collapse, the collapse was caused primarily by the resulting fires. Fire as you know tends to spread, the interior acted like a tinder-box, and the heat would radiate outwards weakening all of the support beams. Even if only a couple support beams went out the added pressure on the other already weakened beams would cause them to give way immediately after.
You need to put this "asymmetrical damage" argument to rest.
3. I have no way of knowing with reasonable certainty who all was involved in the demolishing of the 3 buildings, but I have not seen (and if you are fair minded you will admit that neither have you) evidence that logically rules out the possibility that some people who held government positions were involved in the plot.
It has not yet been ruled out....therefore it happened that way!
Sound like a valid argument to you? It shouldn't because this is an argument from ignorance.
Fair enough. I am just a member of the general public. I am not classified to review certain evidence, so I (just like you) have to work with what I do have access to.
Excuses for why one doesn't have evidence, is not a substitute for actually having evidence. That you don't have evidence, to me, means you have little reason to believe it in the first place.
This is nothing more than your opinion.
No, it's not. You make an affirmative claim then the burden of proof is on you. This is not a matter of opinion.
Admitting for the sake of argument that you are correct about Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment not referring to an intentional demolition does not make the rest of the video evidence any less compelling.
So we went from "Pull it means demolish it" to "even if it didn't mean that I have other evidence".
Looks like we are making progress.
I admit my susceptibility to confirmation bias. Will you?
Everybody is susceptible to confirmation bias, but unless you can show a specific occasion in this particular discussion where I have fallen victim to it, then it's a moot point.
I still think these buildings could not have been brought down without the help of "inside" operatives.
Unless you have specific evidence to support this, then it is mere conjecture.
I am not capable of assigning any "burden of proof" on you.
Where I have made an affirmative claim, go right ahead.
If I have made an ambiguous statement please copy and paste it and I will be happy to clarify, despite that I am in no way obligated to.
I'm referring to "Pull it" which is an ambiguous statement that could have multiple meanings. That the 9/11 truth movement relies on this as evidence I think is indicative of how weak their claims really are.
Everyone (You included methinks)who doesn't know exactly how events transpired, can rightfully be labeled a conspiracy theorist. Do you understand that? Do you ever concede anything in an argument?
That Al Qaeda 'Conspired' to bring down the trade towers by definition is a conspiracy, but it is a conspiracy that we are well aware of, and as I stated in the very begging that conspiracies if they are real generally don't stay secret for very long. They were able to keep their plans secret, because the people they were keeping their plans secret from live halfway across the world in another country.
I consider that airliners leveling the buildings to be the more implausible of the two conspiracy theories.
Right...right, because A hundred ton 747 loaded with jet-fuel flying 500+ miles an hour into a building causing an inferno leading to the collapse of an office building is more implausible than government agents flying a 747 into a building just for the hell of it, when really it is several tons of explosives nobody saw being snuck into not 1 but 3 busy office buildings without anyone noticing, that caused the collapse, which also involves a massive government cover-up. It is CLEARLY the first one which is more implausible.
Oh right, that false choice again... that either "The US Government" was or was not involved. If you are going to charge me of being ambiguous, I am going to counter that your capacity for nuanced thought is lacking.
Well ignoring the fact that all your posts thus far have been labeled "Gvt Conspiracy", and the fact that you subtlety accepted that you believe multiple government agencies were involved, and that you have precisely ZERO evidence that any government agency is involved...Ignoring that, we must also assume that there is absolutely no government oversight. Some government agencies must answer to others. So apparently they are competent enough to pull of the most elaborate conspiracies in history, but not competent enough to realize that several agencies are doing nefarious things behind their backs?
Your argument is untenable.
The only logical way to believe otherwise, is to consider those whose involvement was forced.
So a decent person is forced to aid a heinous crime, and they did not snitch to the government agencies that were not involved, or didn't snitch to congress....why exactly?
I can remember reading a pamphlet left on a table at a coffee shop I used to frequent, immediately prior to 9/11.
Prior to? Do you mean subsequent to?
It was about the patriot act legislation, and the tone was of an urgent warning. It stated that what the attack was to be, was unknown, but that what was known was that this legislation would be quickly passed with next to no debate. It talked about how a climate of panic would be necessary for it slip through. Then I watched it happen.
Hell, I could have told you that. That people will forgo some liberty for security is as old as civilization itself. This doesn't require a conspiracy.
What do you think Abraham Lincoln was talking about when he said: “You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
Speaking of Abraham Lincoln, did you know he suspended Habeas Corpus during the American Civil War? History repeats itself....or was he in on the conspiracy too??
It isn't a problem, it is what rational people do.
That you haven't noticed any evidence supporting the widespread suspicion of US government agents being involved in the 911 conspiracy is apparent. Your reasons for not noticing the evidence may be entirely rational.
Saying that you don't suspect any government involvement is one thing. Denying that it is possible however, is not rigorously rational. Claiming that people who do have that suspicion, do so without evidence, just because you don't find the evidence compelling, just shows that you don't understand the subjective nature of evidence, and that you too are limited by the possibly faulty subjective assessments that you make.
You need to put this "asymmetrical damage" argument to rest.
That would be convenient to your position and catastrophic to my position that they were controlled demolitions. No way!
It has not yet been ruled out....therefore it happened that way!
Sound like a valid argument to you? It shouldn't because this is an argument from ignorance.
It has not been ruled out, so no reason yet to lay to rest my strong suspicion. That's my operating logic on the matter.
Excuses for why one doesn't have evidence, is not a substitute for actually having evidence. That you don't have evidence, to me, means you have little reason to believe it in the first place.
You and I are (I suspect) looking at much the same evidence and drawing different conclusions.
Oh that's fantastic, a still picture. There is no way to tell when in relation to the complete and instant collapse the kink became apparent.
Unless you have specific evidence to support this, then it is mere conjecture.
The evidence I find conclusive..you do not. The evidence you find conclusive...I do not. What should we do about that? my suggestion is that we find as many things that we can agree on if we want to proceed by the rules of logic.
That the 9/11 truth movement relies on this as evidence I think is indicative of how weak their claims really are.
I can see how you think that this statement by Silverstein is weak evidence, but I don't think it makes the other evidence less compelling.
Unless you have specific evidence to support this, then it is mere conjecture.
So I am not a full blown conspiracy theorist? Whew! lol
Right...right, because A hundred ton 747 loaded with jet-fuel flying 500+ miles an hour into a building causing an inferno leading to the collapse of an office building is more implausible than government agents flying a 747 into a building just for the hell of it, when really it is several tons of explosives nobody saw being snuck into not 1 but 3 busy office buildings without anyone noticing, that caused the collapse, which also involves a massive government cover-up. It is CLEARLY the first one which is more implausible.
Red herring
you subtlety accepted that you believe multiple government agencies were involved
Explicitly I will state that I strongly suspect that operatives within multiple government agencies were involved.
you have precisely ZERO evidence that any government agency is involved
I can only present evidence that shows why I so strongly suspect what I do. I can tell you why I believe what I do. I can't guarantee that you will draw the same conclusions I do from it but I won't hesitate to be frank.
we must also assume that there is absolutely no government oversight.
You yourself admit great governmental ineptitude. I don't think that absolutely no government oversight is necessary, just widespread incompetence.
So a decent person is forced to aid a heinous crime, and they did not snitch to the government agencies that were not involved, or didn't snitch to congress....why exactly?
The desire to stay alive and having living family members would shut me right up, I don't know about you.
Prior to? Do you mean subsequent to?
No, I mean prior to.
did you know he suspended Habeas Corpus during the American Civil War?
I've heard that story.
History repeats itself
No but it rhymes.
or was he in on the conspiracy too??
I don't think Lincoln was a war racketeer but as a wise man once said "I only know what I read in the papers"
My Mom has completely flipped her political views, and you would most certainly consider her a conspiracy nut. Anyone in your family done that?
"No, you said that government is super-efficient at molding public opinion. The frequency of revolutions around the world speaks otherwise."
I don't beleive that all governments are super-efficient at molding public opinion but yours most certainly fucking is, the thoughts of the entire american population are well under control, you included.
Vladimir Putin speaking after the digusting US backed invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia's US puppet dictator Mikheil Saakashvili: "As far as the perception of these events by the general public goes, it depends not only on Politicians but also how artful they are in controlling the mass media, and our american colleagues do this a lot better than we do, and there is lot we can learn from them"
BTW i also agree fully with atypicans response on this piont, i think that is exactly what is being played out in Egypt right now i.e. the US has allowed the Egyptians to remove the hated figure Mubarak and pur him on trial but this is this is about all that has really changed so far.
Well, the extent to which people are brainwashed by propaganda is unknowable because we cannot objectively distinguish thoughts that one genuinely believes and thoughts that are arrived at only through subtle manipulation. Furthermore government is made up of the same people it is said to be brainwashing, so is it really brainwashing or simply proselytizing?
I'm going to be completely blunt. It takes a whole lot of doubt of one's own government to think that a tragedy like this was actually an inside set-up that involved a supposedly loyal government committing an enormous amount of murder against it's own citizens. While Bush may not have been a great president, I honestly can say that there is no reason to believe he would allow such a procedure to go through and then promptly lie about it. Now I'm not going to debate any of the science behind the explosions and the like. Because this whole issue boils down to trust. It makes me sick to think that you are accusing the American government of killing it's own citizens just for the reason of going to war. There needs to be extremely solid and convincing evidence for one to even think about such a conspiracy. This is America, not North Korea. The government is not out to "get you." I am so disheartened by your assertions that I am not going to reply to any dispute this argument receives. Because I don't give a shit about any of what I know you're going to say. Clearly you have no love for your country.
If the federal government can't accurately know whether someone is dead or not, then the 9/11 government conspiracy is hogwash. Dead
When the government wrongly declares 14,000 people dead, there is something really bad about your effectiveness and efficiency. Dead
The government is stupid enough not able to pay social security checks or know who is living or dead, so the idea that the federal government could put something together elaborate as an 9/11 conspiracy is laughable.
Congratulations but please note that I haven't debated the subject much yet so it's interesting to me. There are a crap load of debates at this site that are not interesting to me at all, but why do you suppose it is that I don't pop in and voice my opinion about how uninteresting they are?
Whether you are growing tired of 9/11 stuff, then that's merely your opinion. That does not change the fact that it still is and still will be one of the major controversies that exists in our society. And you did mention you created 300 intense debates but how relevant are they to provide education on the position and progression of societal and philosophical development?
Which I am sure you agree that all 3 collapses DO at least look exaclty like controlled demolitions. You must admit there is compelling evidence to cause a reasonable person to suspect that they were brought down by means more precise than "airliner impact/fuel fire"
2) The buildings would not fall straight down
Right because in order for steel framed buildings such as these to fall straight down it would require balanced breaches to the integrity of the building which the impacts and fuel fires would clearly not cause.
3) The buildings would not fall near free fall speed
Or as soon after the impacts
4) Silverstein said "pull it" regarding WTC7
Which is by no means crucial to the broader argument, but I await further clarification. I know that to "pull" a building is demolition term.
5) WTC 7 came down. Explain that
I focus on that since lots of people think the jet fuel fires were somehow hot enough to cause the structural failure of the steel. I am arguing with people who over-rate a handful of untrustworthy "experts"
All of which have been explained by myself and others numerous times, and he has continually ignored all counter-evidence.
That's a lie. I've only debated this subject here with you. And I don't ignore your explanations. I challenge you to refine them, and you decline.
1) This is not evidence.
The videos of the buildings falling ARE evidence, that (like all evidence) is subject to interpretation.
2) and 3) the L'Ambiance plaza did both of these things and it was not a demolition.
and I am sure anyone reading can Google that to see it's not a fair comparison.
4) Silverstein was referring to pulling the firefighters away from the blaze.
Maybe so. I am not convinced yet.
5) The debris from the twin towers started large scattered fires within the building, in addition to unusual architectural design.
That is an explanation satisfying to only the shallowly curious.
Which I am sure you agree that all 3 collapses DO at least look exaclty like controlled demolitions.
1) And Alpha Centari looks smaller than the moon.
Right because in order for steel framed buildings such as these to fall straight down it would require balanced breaches to the integrity of the building which the impacts and fuel fires would clearly not cause.
2) You have no evidence for this claim. Steel frame or not, you put enough pressure on the frame of a building and those beams will fold like a napkin.
The buildings would not fall near free fall speed Or as soon after the impacts
3) The buildings were burning for considerable time before they began to fall. The L'Amiance Plaza did fall at a near free fall speed and it was not a demolition.
I know that to "pull" a building is demolition term.
4) "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition.
WTC 7 came down. Explain that. I focus on that since lots of people think the jet fuel fires were somehow hot enough to cause the structural failure of the steel. I am arguing with people who over-rate a handful of untrustworthy "experts"
5) The WTC 7 collapse has been explained, the problem is that you don't accept the explanation. This however is not reason for why I should not accept the explanation.
But this happened here on earth and we have video from all sides.
2) You have no evidence for this claim.
None that you aren't thoroughly prepared to ignore, that is.
Steel frame or not, you put enough pressure on the frame of a building and those beams will fold like a napkin.
That enough pressure can cause the beams to fold I can agree with. All three buildings symmetrically imploding is not a result of the folding of support beams under unevenly distributed! pressure.
3) The buildings were burning for considerable time before they began to fall.
That speaks nothing to the speed at which they fell.
The L'Amiance Plaza did fall at a near free fall speed and it was not a demolition.
I am starting to wonder if you might be a chat bot, and I am the fool trying to actually have a conversation with it. lol
4) "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition.
Pull is also used in the slang phrase "pull your head out of your ass"
There is evidence that people on the ground knew the building was coming down.....how do you suppose they knew that?
Watch the segment between 2:09 - 2:31 and be conspicuously silent yet again like when I asked if you thought the events of 9/11 deserved to be independently investigated.
5) The WTC 7 collapse has been explained, the problem is that you don't accept the explanation. This however is not reason for why I should not accept the explanation.
Im glad that you are at least willing to admit that your intellectual considerations on this matter consist of "accepting the explanation."
But this happened here on earth and we have video from all sides.
You are missing the point. Just because something looks a certain way, does not mean that it is, especially when you hold no expertise on the matter.
None that you aren't thoroughly prepared to ignore, that is.
Adhom
That enough pressure can cause the beams to fold I can agree with. All three buildings symmetrically imploding is not a result of the folding of support beams under unevenly distributed! pressure.
Once again stop using the term implode, you are presuming the very thing in question.
And no, it does NOT --I repeat-- NOT require a perfectly even distribution of pressure to achieve a pancaking affect. How even it must be is mostly dependent upon the ratio of the Floor height to floor Area, as well as a number of other factors. If it did require an entirely even distribution of pressure then pancaking would never occur except under demolition conditions which we know to be false.
That speaks nothing to the speed at which they fell.
Wasn't meant to. You said it would not happen so quickly after the impact and my response was that it didn't happen quickly.
I am starting to wonder if you might be a chat bot, and I am the fool trying to actually have a conversation with it. lol
I will continue to bring up the L'Ambiance Plaza until you acknowledge that your statement was incorrect. Ignoring contradicting evidence is not a debate tactic that I will accept.
Pull is also used in the slang phrase "pull your head out of your ass"
Here you are again doing the same thing you did with the silverstein statements. This is a video of out-of-context statements, edited by the same group that is perpetuating this conspiracy theory.
Watch the segment between 2:09 - 2:31 and be conspicuously silent yet again like when I asked if you thought the events of 9/11 deserved to be independently investigated.
Because I can see your moves before you make them, I happen to be a good chess player. I know you were attempting to make another red herring.
Im glad that you are at least willing to admit that your intellectual considerations on this matter consist of "accepting the explanation."
And yours consist of denying the explanation. There is nothing wrong with accepting an explanation when it is a good explanation.
Like other conspiracy theorists, you form your conclusion then you cherry-pick the data to find little bits here and there that support your conclusion even when the strongest pieces of evidence and the over-all body of evidence would refute such claims.
Just because something looks a certain way, does not mean that it is
point conceded.
Adhom
I'm ready to stop using the technique when you are. :)
Once again stop using the term implode
No. :)
you are presuming the very thing in question.
You are welcome to challenge my presumptions with evidence, that is if you are willing to graciously assume some burden of proof.
And no, it does NOT --I repeat-- NOT require a perfectly even distribution of pressure to achieve a pancaking affect.
Granted, but a distribution of pressure closer to perfect that an airliner impact and fuel fire would provide would be required.
as well as a number of other factors.
that are conspicuously left out of the equation
If it did require an entirely even distribution of pressure then pancaking would never occur except under demolition conditions which we know to be false.
Even the most advanced demolition techniques cannot produce an "entirely even" distribution of pressure. If what happened at the twin towers was caused by the successive pancaking of floors and not a controlled implosion :P there would have been much larger sections of the steel framing remaining relatively intact afterward. BTW, How was the discovery of thermitic residue and huge pools of molten metal debunked?
my response was that it didn't happen quickly.
You nor the 9/11 commission report can explain the conspicuous lack of structural resistance.
I will continue to bring up the L'Ambiance Plaza until you acknowledge that your statement was incorrect.
Got some video of that collapse? I guarantee it would be visually clearly distinctively different from a controlled demolition.
Ignoring contradicting evidence is not a debate tactic that I will accept.
Comparing apples to oranges is one I won't accept.
I've already told you this. Of course they knew it was coming down, they could see the building beginning to sag and they could see the fires.
Sounds like you've got yourself convinced.
This is a video of out-of-context statements, edited by the same group that is perpetuating this conspiracy theory.
If you expect me to believe that the statement "The building is about to blow up" is somehow out of context when stated by someone walking away from a building that subsequently does, I am going to seriously doubt your comprehension skills.
Because I can see your moves before you make them, I happen to be a good chess player.
For a deep thinking man, to be defeated in debate can only be thought of as a great victory. To identify faulty thought patterns within oneself is the rare treasure the philosophically minded person is after.
But you've got to be forthright with what you think to achieve these sort of victories. Not like in chess at all.
And yours consist of denying the explanation.
No I accept some portions as truthful.
There is nothing wrong with accepting an explanation when it is a good explanation.
"Say not, I have found the truth, but say I have found a truth" ~Kahlil Gibran
Like other conspiracy theorists
You exclude yourself from this group to your own peril
you form your conclusion then you cherry-pick the data to find little bits here and there that support your conclusion even when the strongest pieces of evidence and the over-all body of evidence would refute such claims.
Granted, but a distribution of pressure closer to perfect that an airliner impact and fuel fire would provide would be required.
Based on?
Even the most advanced demolition techniques cannot produce an "entirely even" distribution of pressure. If what happened at the twin towers was caused by the successive pancaking of floors and not a controlled implosion :P there would have been much larger sections of the steel framing remaining relatively intact afterward.
This is an entirely subjective statement. Whatever amount remained intact you would just say that it should have had a little bit more, regardless of how much there actually was. This is an argument based on your subjective expectation on how much should have remained intact.
You nor the 9/11 commission report can explain the conspicuous lack of structural resistance.
yes I can.
greater force = less physical resistance. After each floor collapse, the destruction gained momentum. What you are really trying to argue his is similar to what you were arguing above. The collapse didn't meet your personal expectations for what a collapse should have looked like. Your personal expectations are not evidence.
Got some video of that collapse? I guarantee it would be visually clearly distinctively different from a controlled demolition.
Unfortunately there is no video I have been able to find, The whole building fell in about 5 seconds, so I doubt anybody caught it on camera.
Comparing apples to oranges is one I won't accept.
This is special pleading as far as I am concerned. You have continuously ignored contrary evidence without giving adequate reason why. The two instances are similar in all the relevant ways, so you have no grounds to dismiss it.
A steel-framed building collapses at near free fall speed, which you said was impossible. If you were intellectually honest you would have conceded this point by now.
Sounds like you've got yourself convinced.
I could say the same about you. What do you think this statement accomplishes? You are beginning to run out of arguments, I can see.
If you expect me to believe that the statement "The building is about to blow up" is somehow out of context when stated by someone walking away from a building that subsequently does, I am going to seriously doubt your comprehension skills.
First of all, we don't know who these workers are or where they are. Who is to say this is even 9/11 and not some other event? Who is to say one of the workers simply misspoke? Who is to say they don't false believe it to be a demolition? Again there is no context on which to judge. It's a few seconds long clip edited into a conspiracy video. The 911truth.org has been deceptive in the past, when they promoted their list of signatories as engineers and architects for 9/11 truth when it was actually just people who wanted an independent investigation. Guess what the name of the video is?
Getting me to agree that things aren't always as they seem is something I would concede without anyone needing to persuade me. And I never made a claim to the contrary. The other was a concession I made about the Larry Silverstein comment. I feel that his comment stands alone as evidence of what he was talking about, but I have no faith in my ability to convince you of that so I'd rather focus on things besides that which contribute to my belief that WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by explosives places at key structural positions.
That would be unnecessary
Yep. it's up to you whether or not you are up for the challenge.
A self-admitted presumption without evidence does not require counter-evidence.
When I said "my presumptions" I expected that you would understand that I was referring to assumptions I had made prior to this conversation, therefore presumptive to the conversation not to the considering of evidence. People don't come to believe things with out considering what they regard to be evidence.
Based on?
Simple laws of physics
This is an entirely subjective statement.
And you are quick to follow it with another ala:
Whatever amount remained intact you would just say that it should have had a little bit more, regardless of how much there actually was.
See?
This is an argument based on your subjective expectation on how much should have remained intact.
Yessir it is.
greater force = less physical resistance.
Evidence of your lack of a remedial understanding of physics
The collapse didn't meet your personal expectations for what a collapse should have looked like.
It didn't meet the expectations of plenty of architects and engineers too.
Your personal expectations are not evidence.
Yeah sure the expectations are not evidence, but the preponderance of evidence is what I base my expectations on.
You have continuously ignored contrary evidence without giving adequate reason why.
That's not true. You may have thought my reasoning was inadequate but I am respectful enough not to ignore what you bring up.
The two instances are similar in all the relevant ways, so you have no grounds to dismiss it.
I disagree.
A steel-framed building collapses at near free fall speed, which you said was impossible. If you were intellectually honest you would have conceded this point by now.
I disagree with you, so I must be intellectually dishonest. lol
The building wasn't even finished being built, and temporary support apparatus failed. Not a fair comparison. And how near free fall speed are we talking? Is there is some evidence you can present besides a story? No! but you will cite it anyway.
What do you think this statement accomplishes?
About as much as your charge at me of being intellectually dishonest. :) The contest of who can be the most insulting is certain to dispel any hope of a progressive conversation. Shall we call a truce with that? Or do you really think you are dealing with an idiot?
I am willing to admit that reasonable intelligent people can hold on to the ideas you do...Would you be willing to admit the same?
You are beginning to run out of arguments, I can see.
Time will tell
Concede that all we have are conspiracy theories to choose from or formulate ourselves. Geez, It's not asking much
Are we still talking about this? It's been ten years and has been proven multiple times. There was no Conspiracy! Get a LIFE and debate something worth debating.
i used to think it was a government conspiracy, but i am not sure now. the version of government conspiracy certainly sounds really more attractive and interesting. but still i prefer believing that it was all Al-Qaeda, because the only thought of that government could that easily turn more than three thousand of innocent people, (majority of them being U.S citizens) into a tool to get someone's resources destroys my belief into that there is someone with high moral in government. it is all the same if Voldemort (Al-Qaeda) ruined Hogwarts and killed all those people, but turns out to be it all was Harry Potter (government), but he was just so good at lying and acting.
The fact that planes flew into the buildings should be evidence enough that it wasn't a government plot. We know who flew the damn things too. Also, as previous posters have said, people on the other side of this argument overestimate how competent and efficient the government is....period.
but they also fail to realize that planes dont cut steel, the steel beams would have still been standing from the impacts and would indeed have not been harmed by the planes at all, also people on the first floor of the building and out in the streets reported hearing loud explosions BEFORE the planes hit, theres no doubt the planes hit, but the planes alone would not have caused the buildings to collapse the way they did. It wasnt OUR government that planned it, but its known fact that our military was doing exercises with a simulation of the EXACT SAME EVENTS that took place the next day.
And wtc 7 fell exactly like the other WTCs and it wasnt even hit by a plane, there is no way in hell that a little fire caused a building to collapse at free fall and be vaporized into smithereens. It is not logical fire does not do that, you need extremely hot fire, and plus they took ALL the metal from the sites before they could be inspected and they melted them down... which is a violation of world inspections.
So, yes, while our government is stupid as shit, there are some that are fucking smart, and there is a much larger agenda than simply having a need to go to war with the middle east. HAvent you ever read about operation northwoods? Our country was willing to execute terrorist attacks on our own soil so that we could go to war with cuba, but JFK stopped it. What makes you think they wouldnt do something like that again if they attempted it in the past?
Planes don't cut steel...flying at over 600 mph? I have my doubts. As for wtc 7, I am not about to speculate on the cause of that building's collapse, but if you wish to, go right ahead. There's obviously a lot of other things that could have happened there besides U.S.-instigated terrorism.
And yeah, I know all about Operation Northwoods. I also know about many other classified government plans. Non-terrorism ones too (i.e. the Tuskegee Experiment). I never said that this government won't do something if they have the POWER to do it. The government in essence has unlimited power, because a piece of paper like the Constitution is not a firewall to tyranny and corruption. So it's not a question of power, but competency. On the subject of Operation Northwoods...you have to admit that kind of a plot is not nearly as intricate and difficult to carry out as 9/11. All you've really gotta do is take government agents you already have, put an enemy uniform and facial disguise on em and let em go crazy.
Dude a telephone pole can tear off a planes wing, theyre aluminum, theyre really not meant to withstand much besides bad weather.
it wouldnt take much to have planned 9/11 everyone acts as if everybody and their mothers would have had to known about the set up and that it couldnt be kept secret, no it really could have, our governments have been keeping secrets since they were spawned, pretty sure they know how to keep things under wraps.
