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.
9/11 was the most patent false flag attack in the world history of false flag attacks. You lower the bar of intelligence even by asking the question of whether it was an inside job. A great many of Bush's staff were former members of PNAC, which was the far right American think tank first responsible for positing the ultra aggressive foreign policy strategy we are now seeing in the Middle East. These men were/are, simply put, Nazis. Just as the Nazis burned down their own Reichstag to give themselves justification to hunt Communists, so PNAC planned 9/11 to give themselves justification to hit the Middle East. You can read in depth about PNAC and their infamous RAD policy document here:-
The clues to the 9/11 deception lie scattered all over the internet, in university text books and in scientific journals. They can be unearthed and studied without difficulty. The only difficulty, in fact, is overcoming your own indoctrination when you read them. Let me start you off with a few brief examples:-
1) The FEMA metallurgy report.
The analysis performed on the WTC steel by Professor Jonathan Barnett proves that it was attacked by some form of munition, because it was riddled with holes and had been severely eroded/melted by something containing high concentrations of sulfur. See:-
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
Investigating the attacks, political journal National Review obtained copies of the VISA applications for 15 of the 19 named hijackers, and in the process found that all 15 should have been refused entry to the United States.
A new report accuses the State Department of staggering lapses in its visa program that gave Sept. 11 hijackers entry into the United States.
The political journal National Review obtained the visa applications for 15 of the 19 hijackers — and evidence that all of them should have been denied entry to the country.
The former Pakistani foreign secretary claims he was told by top-level American officials at a UN meeting in July 2001, that military action would be taken against Afghanistan by October that year.
US 'planned attack on Taleban
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
5) Many bin Laden experts reject the post 9/11 video tapes attributed to him as frauds. Indeed, all corners of the Asian press and even much of the mainstream American press believed bin Laden to be dead by, at the latest, early 2002.
Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's religious studies' department and the foremost Bin Laden expert, argues that the increasingly secular language in the video and audio tapes of Osama (his earliest ones are littered with references to God and the Prophet Mohammed) are inconsistent with his strict Islamic religion, Wahhabism.
He notes that, on one video, Bin Laden wears golden rings on his fingers, an adornment banned among Wahhabi followers.
Consider the case of the north WTC tower. It was 110 floors high, weighed half a million tons and was impacted between the 93rd and 99th floors. The plane which hit it was relatively tiny in comparison and the building itself was impacted high above its own centre of gravity. It is quite simply mathematical nonsense that the top 17 floors of the 110 floor WTC building contained enough weight to crush the remainder of the building below it. Were this the case then the building would not be upright in the first place. It's a total contradiction of physics. The resistance to gravity gets stronger the closer you get to the ground, which is why we chop trees at the bottom, why houses of cards fall and why we demolish buildings by taking out their foundations. The idea that we collapse objects by attacking the top of them is the complete opposite of the way physics actually works.
Besides which, also consider that each of the WTC buildings were surrounded by a perimeter of 47 steel support columns. Given that the buildings collapsed symmetrically, one is forced to conclude not only that all 47 of these support columns failed, but that they all failed at precisely the same instant, thus accounting for the symmetry of collapse. The likelihood of that is astronomically low without the use of explosives or incendiaries to cut the columns.
Once a person understands that high grade military munitions were used to facilitate the collapse of the WTC buildings, it becomes glaringly obvious that it was a military operation, not a terrorist attack.
I don't know that you're wrong, here, but have you seen the way these buildings were actually built? The architecture was literally unique, and much like an arch, each part depended on the structural support of the others. It was done this way to keep it light enough, and allow for sway in high winds. I actually remember these things from when they were built.
They were strong, but once integrity was broken, they were terribly weak.
I don't know that you're wrong, here, but have you seen the way these buildings were actually built?
Eldon, it doesn't matter how a building is built. The laws of physics don't change lad. You are being fooled by one of the right wing's red herrings.
The architecture was literally unique, and much like an arch, each part depended on the structural support of the others.
God, you people are just so infuriating. Explain what you believe was wrong with the "structural support" of the 93 floors underneath the point of impact? There should have been nothing wrong with it because the heat from any fire would have moved upwards, not downwards. Hence, you have exactly the same question to answer. How was the weight of the top 17 floors sufficient to crush the 93 floors of resistance it was resting on top of?
The way you have been fooled into not questioning the things you are told, even when they are so patently false, is just absolutely fucking terrifying. You are quite literally taking a giant piss all over the laws of classical mechanics. Just because somebody uses the words "structural support" or "structural integrity" blah blah blah, does not necessarily mean they are not bullshitting you.
No, actually I did question it. Like I posted, I don't know that you're wrong - but the rest of the post is absolute truth...and doesn't even come from investigating the situation afterward - like stated, I do remember those points from when the towers were built.
"The World Trade Center towers included many structural engineering innovations in skyscraper design and construction, which allowed the buildings to reach new heights and become the tallest in the world. Traditionally, skyscrapers used a skeleton of columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads, with interior columns disrupting the floor space. The tube-frame concept, earlier introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a major innovation, allowing open floor plans and more space to rent. The buildings used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure. There were 60 perimeter columns, narrowly spaced, on each side of the buildings. In all, the perimeter walls of the towers were 210 feet (64 m) on each side, and the corners were beveled. The perimeter columns were designed to provide support for virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and to share the gravity loads with the core columns.[48] Structural analysis of major portions of the World Trade Center were computed on an IBM 1620.[49]
Typical WTC architectural floor plan
The perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate.[50] The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch[51] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.[50] The tube-frame design required 40 percent less structural steel than conventional building designs.[52] From the 7th floor to the ground level, and down to the foundation, the columns were spaced 10 feet (3 m) apart.[53] All columns were placed on bedrock, which, unlike that in Midtown Manhattan, where the bedrock is shallow, is at 65–85 feet (20–26 m) below the surface.[54]"
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, It was built differently, with much lighter construction. The core was the only strong part, and I've wondered why the core collapsed as fast as the outside, where there was very little structurally...but even the core didn't use heavy concrete. Again, it was lighter, so it wasn't simply the weight - which, in the upper floors got lighter still. Now, the burning jet fuel surely ran down through the floors, and weakened the steel - worse than it would have, had the concrete been present - but I'm not an engineer, and I don't know that that was what did it.
I'm not fully arguing a case against your points, I'm simply bringing up what I think are pertinent facts that I didn't see otherwise brought up.
No, actually I did question it. Like I posted, I don't know that you're wrong - but the rest of the post is absolute truth...and doesn't even come from investigating the situation afterward - like stated, I do remember those points from when the towers were built.
I'm not disputing the validity of what you said. I'm disputing the conclusion you are implying it causes you to arrive at. You are effectively trying to circumvent the laws of physics by saying, "Nah, this building was different". It's a rhetorical solution to a physical problem. In other words, you are trying to use political arguments to fight science.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, It was built differently, with much lighter construction. The core was the only strong part, and I've wondered why the core collapsed as fast as the outside, where there was very little structurally...but even the core didn't use heavy concrete. Again, it was lighter, so it wasn't simply the weight - which, in the upper floors got lighter still.
OK, so we are probably (at least roughly) on the same page. Provided of course you understand that weight pushing down is relative to the resistance pushing back up.
What we have to remember in our example of the north tower is that the building was in mechanical equilibrium. The sum of forces acting upon it were equal. In order for any building to collapse straight down we need to explain where the variation in the sum of forces came from. The impacted section was at rest, so momentum cannot be a factor, only weight. Hence, either the weight of the impacted section increased, or the resistance in the bottom of the building was compromised by something unknown.
My comments aren't political at all, and though I've tended to accept the official answers, it's like science - I don't absolutely know. I can guarantee the collapse doesn't circumvent any laws of physics - sorry, that doesn't fly. However it happened, physics can explain it.
I've seen engineers on both sides of this, and I'm not an engineer. I'm not about to actually take up the argument against either side.
Please, tell me they aren't engineers. Clearly, either I can't read, or they don't qualify, as in my reading of these articles, they make the points I just did.
Feel free to disagree with them - that's just fine. There are engineers that do...but don't lie.
"Curiously, according to motions from (Zacarias) Moussaoui unsealed in Federal court, he wished to testify before both a grand jury and the US Congress about the 9/11 attacks, claiming to possess information that the US government permitted the attacks to happen. That request has so far been refused." (Ahmed 2005, p204)
"Expert analyses of the visa-application forms of 15 of the 9/11 terrorists (the other four applications could not be obtained), show all the applicants among the 15 reviewed should have been denied visas under then-existing law. Six separate experts who analyzed the simple, two-page forms came to the same conclusion: All of the visa applications they reviewed should have been denied on their face." (Ahmed 2005, p217)
"As noted by former Assistant Attorney Mary Schiavo -- formerly Inspector-General at the US Department of Transportation... -- in the last 30 years there have been 682 hijackings in the United States which have been responded to in accordance with the appropriate FAA procedures. Indeed, in the calendar year prior to 9/11, fighter aircraft were successfully scrambled on 56 occasions in response to such emergencies, within minutes.
Air traffic controllers routinely request fighter craft to intercept commercial planes for various reasons when problems faced cannot be solved through radio contact...
As a matter of standard operating procedures, no approval from the White House is required for interception. On the contrary, interception occurs on the basis of established flight and emergency response rules." (Ahmed 2005, p267)
"Newshouse News Service disclosed that 'September 11 was Day II of Vigilant Guardian', an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide." (Ahmed 2005, p304)
"US intelligence expert James Bamford notes that Vigilant Guardian 'was designed to create a fictional crisis affecting the United States and test the network of radar watch stations around the country.'" (Ahmed 2005, p304)
"NORAD was also involved in a third exercise on the morning of 9/11. Citing 'an on-the-record statement from someone in NORAD,' US journalist and former LAPD investigator Michael Ruppert reports that, 'on the day of 9/11 the Joint Chiefs and NORAD were conducting a joint , live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner...'
Several NORAD officers involved in the NEADS war game including Gen. Larry Arnold responded with the initial conviction that the FAA's hijack notification was part of the planned exercise...
In that context, if NEADS officials did not know whether the Boston Flight 11 hijacking was part of their exercise, clearing the "scripting" for their exercise did not preclude hijacking scenarios -- and on the contrary probably did include them...
'In the two years before the Sept 11 attacks,' reported USA Today, 'the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.' Most remarkably, 'One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center.'" (Ahmed 2005, p306)
"The implication, of course, is that any Joint Chiefs-NORAD exercise on 9/11 would have to be conducted solely on specific instructions from the president and/or the secretary of defense." (Ahmed 2005, p308)
Indeed, it is hard to see how such a large number of war games and exercises involving key US agencies -- including the CIA, the NRO, NORAD, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, FEMA and the DCANG unit at Andrews Air Force Base -- could all have been planned and/or implemented on or around September 11, 2001 by complete coincidence." (Ahmed 2005, p313)
AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd.
Dr Nafeez Ahmed is a bestselling author, investigative journalist and international security scholar. He is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization among other books. He writes for the Guardian on the geopolitics of environmental, energy and economic crises on his Earth insight blog.
Nomenclature: 9/11 was the most patent false flag attack in the world history of false flag attacks...Basic Newtonian mechanics....Once a person understands that high grade military munitions were used to facilitate the collapse of the WTC buildings, it becomes glaringly obvious that it was a military operation, not a terrorist attack.
Bwahahahaha! LMAO ROFL (crying)....
(Finally catches breathe..wiping tears away from eyes) OMFG that was great Nom. OMG-- What time is the next show?
Dare I ask your views on the Moon Landing? UFO's? Roswell? Area 51? JFK? Chem. Trails? Holocaust Revisionism/Denial? Climate Change? Particle Accelerators and dangerous Black Holes? Cure for Cancer already exists? Bin Laden not dead? Pentagon hit by missile on 9/11? Secret Military Mind Control type research? Technology suppression? False History/Phantom Time Hypothesis? Vaccination and autism? New World Order? Illuminati? Alien abduction?
Your trolling is shit, implies that you are a moron, and is confirmed by you spamming YouTube links faster than a Trump supporter who has been assaulted with a series of political facts. All the science is on my side. There are entire academic journals dedicated to scientific research regarding the events of 9/11:-
Now I see why you like Eddie Bravo so much. You are properly qualified to be a "Science" Journalist for the Alex Jones channel.. I cant even believe people like you are the ones "reporting" science to the public as though you are in any position to translate difficult, abstract ideas into common language format for public consumption.. Its quite creepy actually and obviously dysfunctional..
At no time have I ever even mentioned Eddie Bravo. Shut up you retard. You're an idiot. Stop making stuff up. What does Eddie Bravo have to do with the research I just linked?
You are clearly going an alt-account down vote/up vote rampage at the moment as well. Do you seriously think that other people cannot see through that as well? Pathetic..
You might as well just create an entirely new account at this point, stick that one, and try to start all over with a blank slate since you have thoroughly undermined and ruined your reputation as Nomenclature.. I suggest that you cut out all of the immaturity, antics, and unwarranted claims with this fresh start or it will be bound to meet the same fate as Nom..
Honestly, what do you want me to say? You want me to pretend that I should somehow "respect" your absurd beliefs and unwarranted claims to authority on Physics, Civil Engineering, Genetics, Biology, Bio-Chemistry, Political Philosophy, ect ect? Of course I don't "respect" it. I'm surrounded by and have relationships with Physicists that work at CERN and other valid research areas/subject Professionals in my weekly life. These people overwhelmingly disagree (to put it lightly) with your "scientific truths" and think that you are wrong at best if not scarcely sane..
I'm surrounded by and have relationships with Physicists that work at CERN
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Be honest for once in your pathetic life. They held you back in school for being too stupid and now you have a personality complex. You haunt the internet like a salivating monster, making random appeals to the authority of particle physicists in discussions about Newtonian mechanics.
You're so stupid it baffles me. You're like one of those really retarded people in high school who laugh at how retarded they are.
Is it really difficult for you to understand that some people actually go to school for these topics? How do you think the Professors became Professors or Engineers became Engineers?
Just because you in no way could envision yourself undertaking such a project doesn't mean that there aren't people with some level of ambition..
I think comparing you to Abby Martin may have been too generous...
I think comparing you to anybody over the age of 14 would be too generous. You're much more like a petulant teenager who has just yesterday learned to speak back to his parents.
I think comparing you to anybody over the age of 14 would be too generous. You're much more like a petulant teenager who has just yesterday learned to speak back to his parents.
The Professor I had for Electricity and Magnetism works at CERN and was one of the many authors on the Higgs discovery research papers.. I still have a relationship with him as he was my Professor..
It is amazing that you are unable to wrap your mind around and are incredulous toward very simple concepts/claims but zealously and readily accept the most asinine claims that don't make any sense at all..
The Professor I had for Electricity and Magnetism works at CERN
Yes, I know him. I beat him in a local chess tournament and we became friends quickly afterwards. He and I both agree I am correct about 9/11.
and was one of the many authors on the Higgs discovery research papers.
Yes, I helped out with the spelling on some of those papers. Good bunch of guys.
It is amazing that you are unable to wrap your mind around and are incredulous toward very simple concepts/claims.
It's amazing that you can still be telling such whopping great lies after you have been exposed DOZENS of times for having absolutely no understanding of physics. You didn't even understand that time is relative, ffs. You quite literally are a delusional retard with mental health problems. You are posting here using umpteen different accounts and the common denominator is that everything you say, on any account you use, is dishonest, delusional and stupid.
Says the Alex Jones/Eddie Bravo Padawan learner...
I even provided a former Mathematics paper of mine from 2 years ago which demonstrates technical training (although I know that no amount of evidence in the world is ever going to change the mind of an Eddie Bravo/Alex Jones type of mind and would probably just invoke another Conspiracy Theory in order to explain away this new evidence in such a way that it is consistent with your original Conspiracy Theorey.. (i.e. believing in sub-Conspiracy Theories in order to justify an overarching Conspiracy Theory))
Honestly, why not simply come clean, create an entirely separate thread where you list all of the "unconventional narrative" ideas that you espouse to? This way, I and others members of this forum can see what kind of mind we are really dealing with here and respond to your "unconventional narrative" ideas accordingly..
I think that if 9/11 was an inside job that we'd never be able to prove that it was an inside job so then that means the only conclusion we can end with is it wasn't an inside job.
I think that if 9/11 was an inside job that we'd never be able to prove that it was an inside job so then that means the only conclusion we can end with is it wasn't an inside job.
That's retarded. Whether or not you can prove something has no correlation to whether or not it is true. It can be proven that the government lied about a number of key issues, such as how the towers collapsed. That is good enough to put them on trial.
If all the evidence for it and links between the fossils wasn't there then yes, we should.
And if all the evidence wasn't there supporting the idea that 9/11 was a false flag, we should ignore that too. But it is. So by your very own logic we should assume 9/11 was a false flag, correct?
Thank you for your conspiracy theories, I thank you for your life mission of proving the world wrong but in the end if you prove the world wrong to itself then who ends up the sucker?
