CreateDebate


Debate Info

11
10
Lugenpresse Fake News
Debate Score:21
Arguments:17
Total Votes:33
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Lugenpresse (7)
 
 Fake News (7)

Debate Creator

BurritoLunch(6566) pic



9/11 Was The Day I Mourned The Death Of Common Sense

You don't need to have a degree in physics, or architecture, or engineering. You really don't. You just need a little basic knowledge about Newtonian mechanics and the ability to use reason.

When a building, or indeed any object with a top and a bottom, is in mechanical equilibrium -- that is, when it stands up straight -- it can only be because the sum of forces acting upon it equate to zero. The force of gravity pulling down is equal to the force of resistance pushing back up.

So, obviously, if the building is going to collapse spontaneously into its own footprint, that can only happen if there is a change in the sum of forces.

The force of gravity pulling down didn't change. No giant leapt onto the roof and began stamping up and down. Thus, there is only one possible explanation.

Something took out the resistance to gravity in those buildings. 

A clever seven year old could safely conclude this in my opinion, so what the hell happened in America to make people so goddamned stupid?


Lugenpresse

Side Score: 11
VS.

Fake News

Side Score: 10
2 points

Well, hey, back then we ALSO had a dumb conservative President. Same old, same old. ;-)

Side: Lugenpresse

Well, hey, back then we ALSO had a dumb conservative President. Same old, same old.

That's exactly right. But in fairness I think don't think Bush was in the loop. I could be wrong but I think he was conned by members of his administration the exact same way many other people were. The people to look towards are his VP Cheney (who, judging from Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, was tracking flight 77 for at least 50 miles outside the Pentagon), Paul Wolfowitz (notorious in Conservative circles for having fascist sympathies) and L. Paul Bremer (who should have been in his office in the WTC but instead failed to turn up to work, then appeared live on air within hours to set the initial bin Laden narrative).

Side: Lugenpresse
AlofRI(3294) Clarified
1 point

Agreed. But the basic premise is correct, albeit not nearly in the present class of dumb conservative, just dumber than most of those who came before him. From here on we need a completely different rating level. How about: The deliberately ignorant, boneheaded ideologue rating .... which, hopefully will have but ONE permanent entrant. ;-)

Side: Lugenpresse
Chinaman(3570) Clarified
1 point

Obama was the best but why couldn't you Socialist do something about the 15th Amendment you continual whiner.

Side: Lugenpresse
1 point

"You don't need to have a degree in physics, or architecture, or engineering."

Now I see why you feel so qualified...

Side: Fake News
1 point

I mean, for fuck's sake, the evidence confirming controlled demolition can be found in the initial FEMA report and the Worcester Polytechnic Institute's engineering report:-

Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/wpisteel.html

And from the FEMA metallurgy report, concludes Professor Barnett:-

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403 apc.pdf

The evidence is right in front of your idiot faces and somehow you still manage to get duped. That type of stupidity is impressive.

Side: Lugenpresse

In fact, that type of stupidity is even more impressive when you consider the history the US government has of exactly this type of false flag attack:-

The original American report blamed North Vietnam for both incidents, but the Pentagon Papers, the memoirs of Robert McNamara, and NSA publications from 2005, proved material misrepresentation by the US government to justify a war against Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GulfofTonkinincident

Hitler did it a lot too. He'd send people out to bomb places and then blame Communists or Jews. Most notoriously he burned down the Reichstag just to give himself an excuse to kill more Communists.

Americans in particular I think are just atrociously naive about their own government.

Side: Lugenpresse
1 point

I mean, it isn't as if you possess the intelligence necessary to think critically is it? Otherwise you'd be asking questions like:-

A) Why did NIST start with a conclusion (i.e. pancake collapse) and work backwards? Because that's the opposite of science.

B) Why did NIST fail to investigate the "gaping holes" discovered in the WTC steel by FEMA?

C) Why did NIST fail to test for the presence of explosives residue?

Side: Lugenpresse
1 point

lol

Side: Fake News

You think Trump is a liar? Well, these guys lied about the laws of physics themselves.

In their quest to explain how this possibly could have happened without the use of explosives, which no government agency ever tested for, the public was presented with the pancake theory.

This theory is, of course, for all practical purposes physically impossible, which is why it was quietly withdrawn from the official explanation several years after the fact, but not before it had been used to quieten down the multitude of confused voices who wanted to know why the collapses looked so much like the controlled demolitions they have seen on TV.

Millions of Americans were fooled by this. Many still are. And in fact, it is unfair to single out Americans because there are people all over the world who just swallow whatever horse shit the American government feeds them.

The pancake theory of collapse was the idea that the impacted sections of WTC 1 and 2 were so damaged by the jet impacts and subsequent fires, they collapsed onto the floor below, which in turn collapsed onto the next floor and so on and so on.

But of course this is an utter aberration of reality because the resistance in a building is accumulative. It isn't divided into individual floors. It was the government's attempt to explain how such a small section of building (6 damaged floors) could somehow crush the 93 floors resting beneath it, which were undamaged by either impact or fire. They tried to make the sum of 93 x 1 floors into a different answer than the sum of 1 x 93 floors and just by mere force of authority convinced most of the general public this must have been what happened.

Side: Fake News
JustIgnoreMe(4290) Disputed Banned
0 points

"this is an utter aberration of reality because the resistance in a building is accumulative."

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. Even the people that say the towers didn't "pancake collapse" (which includes NIST) don't say that there is no such thing as a pancake collapse.

Because there is.

Side: Lugenpresse
1 point

Even the people that say the towers didn't "pancake collapse" (which includes NIST) don't say that there is no such thing as a pancake collapse.

I didn't say there was no such thing as a pancake collapse you retarded fucking idiot. Can you even read English????? Go back and read what I wrote again, you semi-literate dimwit. I said that a "pancake collapse" was impossible in this instance as an explanation for how those buildings collapsed.

If you aren't prepared to even do me the courtesy of reading what I write then how about you just keep your big arrogant mouth closed until you can comprehend English?

In order for there to have been a pancake collapse, the resistance in the bottom 93 floors would have to have been compromised first, so it brings us right back to the same question. What compromised the resistance in the bottom 93 floors (i.e. North Tower).

Side: Fake News
0 points

You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Shut your pig stupid mouth you rent-a-moron.

Even the people that say the towers didn't "pancake collapse" (which includes NIST)

The lead investigator of NIST said they DID pancake you demented, spectacularly stupid cow. I explained that to you HOURS AGO:-

NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

And that isn't the only thing he was proven wrong about either, idiot. This is another of his quotes, in relation to building 7, which also collapsed in the exact same way the first two buildings collapsed, only without even being hit by a plane:-

[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent [longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-collapse-of-wtc-seven/15201

But guess what? He had to retract that too, because a high school physics teacher called David Chandler proved he was wrong (i.e lying). Building 7 DID ENTER FREE FALL, and so NIST changed its story for the second time:-

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

All the while trying to figure out ways they can explain why 3 buildings looked like they came down in a controlled demolition, without ever even acknowledging the possibility that they might have actually been brought down in a controlled demolition, and without ever looking for the explosives residue which would either confirm or disprove it!!!!

I don't know what I'm talking about? I've dedicated 15 years of my life into researching this you stupid, stupid fucking bitch.

Shut your retarded, arrogant mouth and watch WTC 7 come down side-by-side next to three confirmed controlled demolitions:-

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2drbj7

Jesus Christ you're just so stupid. Wtf is wrong with you?

Side: Fake News
JustIgnoreMe(4290) Disputed Banned
-1 points

"Something took out the resistance to gravity in those buildings."

Indeed:

"The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.

In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.

In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel."

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/world-trade-center-disaster-study/about-investigation

Side: Lugenpresse
1 point

Indeed

You're an idiot. A Boeing 767 has a maximum weight of 158 tons. Each of the WTC buildings weighed 500,000 tons each. Furthermore, they were specifically designed to handle such an impact, as pointed out by the construction manager, Frank DeMartini:-

"“I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door – this intense grid – and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

You are a completely stupid bitch. You're talking about buildings which were 3,164 times heavier than the thing you somehow believe made them collapse. Not even the people who wanted to convince the pig ignorant idiots like you, are stupid enough to contend that the planes are what caused the buildings to collapse. Their argument (which is also false) is that fire caused the collapses.

You are just such a ridiculously stupid bitch to link the NIST FAQ as some sort of supporting evidence after I have already explained to you that:-

A) The NIST lead investigator concluded what had happened before he did any investigation and was later proven wrong.

B) No tests of any kind were conducted by any government agency for explosives residue. Obviously, since the buildings looked like they were brought down in a controlled demolition, this possibility needed to be ruled out as a standard part of investigatory protocol.

And,

C) The reason nobody looked for these types of residue is because, surprise, shock, horror, they were actually there, and discovered by the first qualified professional who bothered to look for them:-

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

If you are not interested in debating the facts, but instead intend to hide behind blanket appeals to forms of authority I have already illustrated to you do not know what they are talking about (see below) then you can just gtfo of my debate you persistently naive bitch.

NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

NIST's findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

And that's who you've just appealed to as a form of authority. Someone led by a man who rejected controlled demolition on the solitary basis of an explanation he concocted himself and which turned out to be entirely false.

Get out you stupid fucking idiot.

Side: Fake News