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.
Why Do (Mainly) Conservative Americans Still Deny The Controlled Demo Of The WTC Buildings
I've had so many arguments about this and it never ceases to amaze me how irrational Conservatives get on the issue. It literally doesn't matter how much evidence you show them, or how many times you painstakingly explain basic Newtonian mechanics, they simply stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to anything except the sound of their own voice.
Aaah. Liberals denying science. It's called gravity. Go to youtube and watch a candle burn down in fast motion. It looks identical in the method of the fall.
Lol. Oh God you are just so stupid. Gravity has an equal and opposite reaction, which is what keeps buildings upright in the first place. Please explain why gravity wasn't being resisted by the 93 floors of concrete and steel resting underneath the point of impact you fucking intellectual banana boy.
The beams melted, otherwise the building wouldn't have fallen. In video, you can see the fires spreading downward throughout the inside the building.
Let me guess, you'll give the next bullshit liberal version of science, telling us steel can't melt. I'll trash that argument too. You're out of your league. You don't even know wtf you are talking about. Go learn chemistry and physics and come back.
The beams melted. In video, you can see the fires spreading downward
Go back to school and ask them which direction heat travels on planet Earth. It is not downward you fucking fool. The Earth has an atmosphere of air, and because hot air weighs less than cold air, heat rises.
telling us steel can't melt.
Nobody thinks steel can't melt and if you don't stop lying about what your opponent is arguing you will be permanently banned from this debate.
Steel should not melt in a fire which is being fuelled by jet aircraft fuel, because jet aircraft fuel does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel. Other substances do burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel.
Oh but bronto. It was magic. Harry Potter manifested the towers to the ground. I don't believe in God, but magic? Yes, yes... A mythological nothing pulled those buildings down. There were unicorns in the buildings. You just couldn't see them. And... that's why we don't have unicorns anymore.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. You would not know what science was even if it rang your doorbell late at night and attacked you with a cutlass.
Oh, a canned response. No liberals ever memorize slogans as their default setting when they have no argument. Clever.
If you can't even design your own wording, it's safe to say you can't form an argument about science. Way to ignore the candle. That makes you look brilliant.
What was the slogan they used? I saw the one you used (liberals denying science) but they didn't have a slogan in the argument you actually replied to.
No it isn't. You simply Googled the phrase to see if it appeared anywhere you could then imply I stole it from. Unfortunately, since you were so sexually excited when you were doing this, you failed to notice that the line from The Princess Bride movie is: "You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means".
What was the slogan they used? I saw the one you used (liberals denying science) but they didn't have a slogan in the argument you actually replied to.
I had eight years of this, catninja. Replying to people who either claim black is white or who avoid the debate entirely and attack my character, understanding, intellect, family, nationality or politics.
Yes. That's what happens when the object next to you is so hot that it melts steel. It's also what happens when the building next to you is hot enough to melt steel and is dropping debree on you and up against you from above.
But wait, if that building behind him suddenly collapses vertically into its own footprint at free fall speed, then we can just say, "duh gravity" and this explains everything we need to know.
I told you that atheists are magical thinkers. They don't make unprovable claims about afterlife. They bring unprovable claims about THIS life. They live in never never land concerning THIS life.
What we have here is some Leftist Wacko that believes in his Leftist mind that Republicans killed their own people on 9-11 ! Hey Dummy you better hop a plane fly to NYC hold you a press briefing and tell them what an internet genius you are and the information you know.
Better yet once your in NYC hop a plane to DC and address Congress with your wealth of information. Crawl back into your hole BOY !
What we have here is some Leftist Wacko that believes in his Leftist mind that Republicans killed their own people on 9-11 !
What we have here is an appeal to ridicule supported by absolutely no argument or evidence. A vicious personal attack which is completely devoid of any intellectual content. This fallacy is a Republican speciality known as "the emperor has no clothes", in which they attempt to shame you into subordination to their ideas.
Either make an argument or enjoy a ban. In fact, fuck it. You have made your intentions clear so you're leaving right now.
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.
2) A journal analysis of the FEMA metallurgy report.
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.
5) The patent number for the munitions used during the demolition.
The present invention relates generally to incendiary devices, and more particularly, to incendiary devices for producing controlled-diameter holes in metallic targets.
You start your argument by giving links and sources for your claims ; but you end unfairly by saying " common fucking sense ," so anyone that challenges your assertions lacks common sense ?
This conspiracy theory has been taken apart by experts all over the world as well you know I can easily do so also but you would still claim the opposite wouldn't you ?
If it was an inside job what were the reasons for it ?
So let's ask you a couple of 'common fucking sense questions 'as you put it
1: No doubt you will claim The Bush administration was behind the attacks which would mean that the Obama administration became aware of it why would they not reveal it to damage the Republican Party ?
Maybe they're 'in on it too ' ?
2: 9/11 has been investigated by the 9/11 commission, the CIA, FBI, FAA, FEMA, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, (and) the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
All these groups do not believe the American government was 'in on it '
Whys that ?
3: You claim the buildings were brought down by explosives . and no one noticed this going on in the buildings ?
Why would you then fly planes into a building why not just blow the building up isn't that what terrorists do ?
You start your argument by giving links and sources for your claims ; but you end unfairly by saying " common fucking sense ,"
I do not believe that to be even slightly unfair. After all, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck. On that note, here is the collapse of WTC 7 side-by-side with three different confirmed controlled demolitions. By all means watch it and then pretend what I am saying is not "common sense".
A basic understanding of the way physics works is enough to point someone in the right direction, or even an ability to identify when language is being abused. For example, anti-truthers like to use the word "fall" when describing what happened to the damaged 17 floor section of the north tower. The problem is things "fall" only when they move through the air. They don't "fall" through 93 floors of concrete and steel which is resisting them in the opposite direction. Not when they begin at rest in a condition of mechanical equilibrium.
This conspiracy theory has been taken apart by experts all over the world
Then perhaps you should listen to them, Two thousand, eight hundred and eighty five architects and engineers have so far signed a petition to say the official narrative is not possible:-
And in opposition to their expert opinions, all you have are rhetorical buzz phrases like "conspiracy theorist" which you use as blanket attacks against anybody who disputes your idiotic and false narrative. The facts of the matter show that even your smear attacks are based entirely on Freudian projection, since you are the ones trying to sell the public a theory about a conspiracy of Jihadists who pulled the whole thing off from a cave in Afghanistan. This theory has never been proven, and yet the moment anybody disputes it you attack them with the generic slur that they believe in conspiracies. It's absolutely textbook mass deception, in the familiar style of Nazi Germany (i.e. The Nazis burned down The Reichstag building and then used the media to blame Communists).
If it was an inside job what were the reasons for it ?
Surely you would have to ask the people who perpetrated it? But I do not think it a coincidence that Iran is now strangulated, and three of Israel's surrounding enemies have been taken out of action. The American military has spent the last seventeen years in the Middle East, and that is a direct result of 9/11. But perhaps you should read PNAC's 2001 thinktank paper, "Rebuilding America's Defences", in which "a new Pearl Harbor" event is called for directly as a means to employ foreign policy strategies which would never be tolerated by the public otherwise.
No doubt you will claim The Bush administration was behind the attacks
I do not believe it is that simple at all. Letting the entire administration become aware would have been impractical, unnecessary, counterproductive and downright stupid. I don't even buy into the idea that Bush himself knew before it actually happened. This was almost certainly an operation involving several states (i.e. America, Israel and Saudi Arabia), but in terms of the American involvement, I believe we are only talking about a key handful of high level players like Cheney, Rumsfeld, L Paul Bremer, Michael Chertoff etc...
which would mean that the Obama administration became aware of it why would they not reveal it to damage the Republican Party ?
Because it would destroy the integrity of the entire American political system and very probably result in a violent revolution. I have noticed that anti-truthers love to whistle and pretend there aren't very obvious answers to the questions they ask.
Maybe they're 'in on it too ' ?
They also love to make appeals to mockery and smear, since they have no actual physical evidence to support anything they say.
9/11 has been investigated by the 9/11 commission
I presume you are aware Bush chose infamous war criminal Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 commission, and that he and the vice-chairman both resigned, but your overt bias is preventing you from making that clear to people. It seems to also be preventing you from making clear Commission Member Max Cleland is on record as saying, "The White House Has Played Cover-Up", and that the two co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, both "believe that the government established the Commission in a way that ensured that it would fail."
the CIA, FBI
I don't know much about the CIA, but the result of the FBI investigation was that bin Laden had nothing to do with it. 9/11 was never listed on the FBI Wanted List as a crime he had committed and the then-director, Robert Mueller, is on public record saying:-
"In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot."
Hopefully that covers all your bullshit attempts to continue deceiving the public about what happened on 9/11. If not then hit me up again.
P.S. Why did you ask me for my evidence in your original post if you intended to completely and thoroughly ignore it all? I don't think it makes much sense to fight physical evidence with false logic.
Well it's doesn't look like a duck , it doesn't quack like a duck so I guess it's not a duck , what you're saying is not common sense ;
From the journal JOM regarding the collapse ........
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
That's that done and dusted .
Regarding what you claim is my ' idiotic and false narrative ' truth org is run by Richard Gage who has struggled to gain credibility in the architectural profession; the president of the American institute of Architects called the three year investigation into the buildings collapse " valid and credible "
Gage like a spoiled child said " That is the official version "
Of course he knows otherwise that's how conspiracy theorists roll isn't it ?
Oh dear you really do believe it was an inside job and that's some bullshit theory you've come up with in an attempt to cover all bases ; what a pile of bullshit .
You merely mention the FBI and say they don't believe Bin Laden was involved ; I didn't ask you that what I stated was the CIA , FBI , FAA , FEMA , NIST , the Senate Select Committee on Intelligece and The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence all agree that the American government were not in on it ; of course you and your fellow whackos disagree don't you's ?
Again you never answered my last question as in the buildings were brought down by explosives and no one saw a thing regards the planting of these explosives?
Why then fly planes into the building instead of just blowing it up ?
That's all your horsehit theories put to bed ; and the reason I asked for evidence is well that's what I was hoping for but instead I got basically nonsense masquerading as science .
You're right it's not a good idea to fight physical evidence with false logic maybe you should stop doing it seeing as you feel so strongly about it ?
Dozens of firefighters who reported secondary devices and/or explosions.
When each plane hit, it sounded like an explosion. Pressure and heat caused other explosions. They didn't know that planes hit, so they may have assumed an explosion. Also, Jihadists are well known for putting explosives on planes. Perhaps they did to make sure they finished the job.
When each plane hit, it sounded like an explosion.
The firefighters were not in the buildings when the planes hit. William Rodriguez also testified that a bomb went off in the sub-basement of the south tower shortly after the plane struck the building.
Pressure and heat caused other explosions.
Why have you ignored the repeated mention of "secondary devices"? Even Fox News reported that there were "secondary devices" in the buildings. Your attempt to twist the facts like a Jewish lawyer is in direct contradiction to the eye witness testimony you are attempting to explain. Furthermore, why would you try to tell the entire NYFD that they don't know the difference between the result of pressure and heat (something they deal with every single day) and multiple bomb blasts? Are you under the mistaken impression that you know more about firefighting than the NYFD?
I have a quick question, did he see a bomb go off or did he hear what sounded like a bomb going off?
He heard it going off. Nobody "sees" bombs going off unless they are a huge distance away with a clear and unrestricted view. A bomb will blind you at close distances. In this particular situation, Rodriguez said the bomb went off in the sub-basement, which was several floors below him. He also testified that it killed people he worked with. You can see an interview with him here:-
I am presuming the building had vents, yes? I would assume so. Have you ever been in or seen a house fire? Did you know that sounds of explosions and fire can be forced through vents if it's burning hot enough, which I would presume it is burning VERY hot with fuel and materials to feed the fire. Perhaps that is what he is thinking was a bomb? The building would also be moaning under the intense fire, heat and weight.
Mint you cannot believe a word from Rodriguez he's a notorious liar ,
Source .... The real 9 / 11
“Truthers” often use the accounts given by William Rodriguez to “prove” their assertions that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. However, the problem with that, as we see here, is that William Rodriguez has changed his story more times than most people change their underwear.
This quote from here “Truth” Movements position: “William Rodriguez says he heard an explosion at the WTC “just seconds before” the plane hit.
Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 that heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors.
He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions.”
9/11myths.com poses some excellent questions: 1) Why plant a bomb 90 floors below the impact point and have it go off at the impact point? (And how would they account for the possibility of the plane departing later than scheduled?), 2) Why increase the risk of detection, as planting a bomb there would do?
The 9/11 “Truth” Movement might make the statement that it would weaken the structure, but as 9/11myths.com points out, as the planes hit approximately 90 floors ABOVE the basement, meaning a bomb in the basement would have no effect, and furthermore, the base of the WTC was still intact.
“Truthers” often use the accounts given by William Rodriguez to “prove” their assertions that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.
That's completely untrue. The laws of physics prove that the WTC buildings were brought down via controlled demolition, as Professor Jones proved in 2006. The "rivers of molten steel" at ground zero for "at least 21 days after the attacks" prove that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The "unreacted high-energy thermitic material" in the WTC dust samples examined by Professor Harrit prove that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. A hundred different things prove that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition and the testimony of William Rodriguez is a small piece of evidence in a giant ocean of proof, which you are trying to isolate and blatantly lie about only because sailing the entire ocean is impossible.
William Rodriguez has changed his story more times than most people change their underwear.
Interesting lie/piece of Freudian projection, given the facts:-
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."
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.
So it appears obvious who has been changing their story, which begs the questions why you are slandering witnesses and supporting your smear attacks with absolutely nothing?
Why plant a bomb 90 floors below the impact point and have it go off at the impact point?
This question does not even make any sense. How can a bomb which is 90 floors below the "impact point" go off at the impact point? What are you even talking about?
The bomb went off in the sub basement instead of the 90th floor because whoever planted it seems to have a much better grip of the laws of physics than you do. Gravity gets stronger the closer to the ground you are, and hence resistance to gravity also gets stronger the closer to the ground you are. This explains nicely why we cut trees at the bottom instead of the top, and why we collapse an entire house of cards by removing the bottom cards.
Why increase the risk of detection, as planting a bomb there would do?
Because the intent was to blow the buildings up you nonsensical plank of wood. You might as well ask: why increase detection by hijacking the planes?
but as 9/11myths.com points out, as the planes hit approximately 90 floors ABOVE the basement, meaning a bomb in the basement would have no effect
Lol. Are you stupid? No effect? The entire fucking building collapsed you muppet.
I'm not slandering anyone your janitor is a liar also I supported everything I claimecd in my last post you still have not answered my final two questions on that post ; your bullshit is getting more and more desperate isn't it ?
That's called an oxymoron you fucking retard. Prove he lied about there being a bomb in the sub basement. What MOTIVE does he even have to lie about a bomb in the sub basement in the first place you silly fucking shill idiot?
It's not you dumb brute your stunned incomprehension seems to be your normal state ; how can it be slander if the guy has actually lied making him a liar .... I know it's tough for you isn't it ?
So why don't you drop your pants take your oxymoron and shove it up your conspiracy theory ass ?
There was no bomb in the basement you dumb brute I don’t have the time or the crayons to explain this to you.
how can it be slander if the guy has actually lied making him a liar
Because you haven't provided the slightest proof that he is a liar. You simply called him a liar and then abandoned your burden to prove it. That is the precise legal definition of slander (or technically libel, since it was written).
By your same backward shill logic, it can't be slander if I call you a completely dishonest, backward shill dickhead, since you "actually" are a completely dishonest backward shill dickhead. In fact, it is lesser slander than your own accusation, because I have actually posted evidence to support it.
There was no bomb in the basement you dumb brute
If you continue to repeat the same unwarranted and calculated ad hominem personal attack (i.e. "dumb brute") I am going to ban you from this debate. You are perfectly entitled to call me names, but only if and when your argument disproves mine. It is not an argument to ignore the absolute wealth of evidence I have linked that there were bombs in those buildings, and come back with: "There was no bomb in the basement." That is just called sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to reason.
Let me clarify. I do not believe for one second there were additional bombs or that this was an inside job. EVERYONE was watching those buildings that day, everyone. We would have seen some evidence of an explosion that supposedly killed others on a basement level, or seen the smoke. Yet with all of the camera angles, all of the witnesses, everyone running out, people running in....there was nothing.
I do not believe for one second there were additional bombs or that this was an inside job. EVERYONE was watching those buildings that day, everyone
Which explains why there are HUNDREDS of eye witness reports of bombs going off you fucking nonsensical retard. It was reported on the mainstream news for fuck's sake. You're really going to argue that nobody reported bombs? You disingenuous piece of shit.
I'm curious. Do you think your position is so weak as to have to resort to such name calling when someone thinks differently from you? Or do you want to believe it so bad that you hate any dissension or logic to the contrary? That's a pretty passionate and personal response to something as minor as me not believing as you do.
I'm curious. Do you think your position is so weak as to have to resort to such name calling when someone thinks differently from you?
I'm curious too. Why would you fail/refuse to counter a single point I made, and then insist I am the one with the "weak position"? I am seeing nothing more than empty rhetoric from you. If the name-calling bothers you then perhaps construct an argument I can't pull apart in the space of two sentences.
Your stance is that multiple people witnessed bombs going off, your previous argument was that the man you brought to light couldn't actually see a bomb but could hear it. The noise of a building under extreme stress, such as fire, explosion and additional rubble from a plane must have been enormous, such noises traveling through vents could easily sound like explosions going off in different parts of the building, particularly in a boiler room or basement where most heating/air conditioning for such a large building would tend to be.
I consider Youtube very much like Wiki. Information given with a grain of salt. People could be remembering incorrectly, they could be embellishing, they could be flat out lying for attention or jumping to conclusions. I would think that with something as large as the destruction of two large towers by planes with cost of thousands of lives, there would be some leak, some trail, some something with as many people involved as would have to be to pull that off.
I haven't really given you an argument to pull apart yet so it'd be very easy to state your side in seconds if not sentences, I've simply given an opinion and asked a question. And I'd like to ask another.
Did they find bomb material at the Pentagon or bombs where they believe flight 93 was trying to get to?
Your stance is that multiple people witnessed bombs going off
No, that isn't "my stance". Those are the facts. It was a controlled demolition, it was reported as a controlled demolition, and that narrative was later changed in conjunction with what the government wanted. Even celebrity physicists who saw what happened knew what they saw immediately, as this infamous email from Neil DeGrasse Tyson proves:-
Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion.
your previous argument was that the man you brought to light couldn't actually see a bomb
No, I have not changed my argument. You are simply abusing logic again. You began this very exchange with a loaded question you already knew the answer to, and for some bizarre reason are trying to use it create an alternative reality where witnesses to bomb blasts have to "see" the bomb in order for it to be real. You knew that the bomb went off underneath Rodriguez's position and you knew that anybody close enough to "see" the bomb would be dead, so this makes it clear you are being intellectually dishonest. When you hear news reports of bomb blasts, is your first reaction to deny them because everybody who saw the explosion is dead? I doubt it.
The noise of a building under extreme stress
Another completely false assertion. The WTC buildings were 417 metres tall and weighed half a million tons each. Contradictorily, a fully loaded 767 is 16 metres tall and weighs about 197 US tons. That is like claiming you put a can of Pringles under "extreme stress" by throwing a pencil at it. To quote the on-site construction manager at WTC, 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.”
So once again you are trying to set up a false version of reality in which your explanation becomes feasible. The building was not under extreme stress because it (i.e. the north tower) was impacted 93 floors up. The area of impact was certainly under stress, but that does not explain how it crushed 93 floors of concrete and steel acting in direct resistance to the weight of the affected section.
People could be remembering incorrectly, they could be embellishing, they could be flat out lying for attention or jumping to conclusions.
Again you abuse the law of reason. I have so far posted three different videos of firefighters discussing explosions at the WTC, and all of the firefighters in those videos are saying the same thing. Two of them were absolutely, unequivocally filmed on 9/11, so this torpedoes your theory of them "misremembering", it is privately recorded footage so this torpedoes your theory it is a publicity stunt and if they are "jumping to conclusions" then it seems a bit strange that they are all jumping to exactly the same conclusion if that conclusion is -- as you seem determined to convince us -- false.
Why does a duck have to be a cleverly disguised penguin? Why can it not just be a duck?
You misunderstand, I didn't mean you changed your argument, simply that you had previously argued that the man couldn't actually see a bomb. Therefore he would have to hear it. The point I am making is that the noise from everything going on -the plane on fire, the building on fire, multiple explosions from various chemicals catching fire, the building being subjected to extreme heat- it could very easily make sounds that in retrospect and during the confusion could sound like a bomb. It was a genuine question to see if he actually witnessed or simply heard.
I don't know if you think everything going against your belief is an attack on yourself or if this jumping to conclusion is simply your debate style but so far your conclusions of me have been wrong. I'm actually very curious as to your thoughts on it so again, did they find bomb material at the Pentagon or bombs where they believe flight 93 was trying to get to?
Why does a duck have to be a cleverly disguised penguin? Why can it not just be a duck?
We have multiple people believing it's a duck so they pull up evidence to support it's a duck. And we have multiple people believing the duck is actually a penguin, so they pull up evidence to support it's a penguin.
For me the "duck" is that it was an act of terrorism. For you the "duck" is that it was an inside job. So I'd like to understand your reasoning, but if you think this is just a clever ploy to lead you into a trap you give me WAY too much credit in thinking ahead, I am curious about your thoughts (not youtubes) on some of the other parts of 9/11. Such as how it could still remain so secret with as many people as would be needed not only to pull it off at the two towers, but the pentagon and the camp they believe Flight 93 was going to. And if there were only suspected bomb fragments at the two towers, why where there not at the Pentagon.....why just the towers?
You misunderstand, I didn't mean you changed your argument, simply that you had previously argued that the man couldn't actually see a bomb.
Perhaps I misunderstand. Perhaps you just explain badly. Either way, I fail to see what the relevance is in attacking this issue. Is it possible that he could have mistaken a bomb for some other form of explosion? Of course. But it is also possible that there are giant cheese men living on the planet Neptune. Rodriguez's statement is not an isolated piece of evidence. It corroborates a spectacular stack of other evidence, including similar testimony from over fifty others. To analogise how you are abusing reason, imagine a shark and a seal being left alone together in a tank. When you come back into the room and the seal is gone, just because it is possible he paddled his merry way to freedom across the kitchen floor, does not make it probable you will find him anywhere but inside the shark's belly. I am confident that the amount of bomb blasts in which any survivor has physically seen the bomb are few, which makes it a non-point and a complete waste of my time to reply to.
Is it possible that he could have mistaken a bomb for some other form of explosion? Of course. But it is also possible that there are giant cheese men living on the planet Neptune.
You're taking the possibility that it could have happened and trying to compare it to an impossibility. That's a flawed argument.
But at least you are conceding that, in this, it's possible what he heard wasn't actually a bomb. All the rest of it is a barely disguised excuse to not answer the questions previously posed to you. If all you're going to do on this is dodge questions and then passive aggressively attack then yes, it's a waste of both our times.
You're taking the possibility that it could have happened and trying to compare it to an impossibility.
Obviously, no I am not. It is not impossible that there are giant cheese men living on the planet Neptune: it is merely highly unlikely. The entire point was to illustrate that, just because something is possible, does not make it true or even likely. Just because it is possible that over fifty surviving witnesses who ALL reported pretty much the same thing might ALL have been mistaken about what they experienced, does not mean we should argue that they must all be liars, as you appear intent on doing.
But at least you are conceding that, in this, it's possible what he heard wasn't actually a bomb.
It isn't a concession to acknowledge the existence of possibility. Rather, I am honest and you are not, because while I acknowledge possibility, you point blank refuse to acknowledge the law of probability.
It's normal in a vacuum with pressure and heat to get many explosions, and there is no way to know what kinds of chemicals, etc were in the building acting as bombs. How many things have you read the warning label of that said "do not throw into a fire: explosive"? Also, the hijackers likely had bombs on the plane. It's typical of a jihadist to use explosives.
It's normal in a vacuum with pressure and heat to get many explosions
It is also normal to get explosions when there are bombs, and given that this is what the emergency personnel reported, I am wondering why you are trying so hard to create another alternative narrative. Why on Earth would I believe you over the NYFD personnel who were actually there and who are actually experienced with dealing with explosions?
Is it because you have posted a long list of completely laughable personal blogs?
Which is inconsistent with the video of the buildings breaking up from the top, not the bottom.
Are you stupid bro? You think that because the top part of the towers moved first it precludes a bomb going off in the sub-basement five hours previously?
The physics of how the 2 tallest buildings in NYC could fall from being hit by two passenger airliners hijacked by Islaic jihadists is "common sense"? Get the f*ck out of here.
The physics of how the 2 tallest buildings in NYC could fall from being hit by two passenger airliners
Your abuse of language is just horrifying. You have to constantly tiptoe around the facts, carefully choosing your words to ensure you don't accidentally reveal how stupid what you are saying is. The North Tower was 110 floors high and it was struck at the 93rd floor, which is more than five sixths of the way up the building. These are not conditions conducive to total vertical collapse. While the damaged section most certainly could have "fallen" off the side of the building, and while the building itself could have quite conceivably "fallen" over, what could not happen is a total vertical collapse, because this assumes the damaged section "fell" directly through the path of greatest resistance and crushed the 93 floors it was resting on without any change in the sum of forces acting on the building. Since this is a contradiction of basic Newtonian physics it didn't happen.
The force pushing down on the building did not change (equivalent to 9.81 ms2), and therefore the only thing which could have caused a total vertical collapse is a change in the force pushing back up. In other words, the building's resistance to its own weight was destroyed with explosives.
Your description of the debate which illustrates your unwillingness to accept their explanations can be similarly applied to them to indicate why they deny your explanation. They are certain they are right, just as you are, and find your position unreasonable, just as you do theirs. You don't trust their sources (911 commission), neither do they trust yours (YouTube etc).
Small secrets between few people are hard to keep. The larger the secret, and the more people who know it, the less likely the secret will be kept. With a crime the size of 911, and the number of people required to pull it off, the chances that the events are not fairly close to the official narrative is exceedingly unlikely. That and the fact that the physics behind the official story are in factual keeping with the laws of physics as we know them, despite the massive amount of social media evidence to the contrary, make it very difficult for reasonable people of any given political affiliation to accept claims of conspiracy.
You seem to be confusing "explanations" with personal attacks, fallacy, total misunderstanding of basic physics and two word buzz phrases like, "Duh, gravity".
Small secrets between few people are hard to keep. The larger the secret, and the more people who know it, the less likely the secret will be kept.
Cool. And can you explain in precisely which universe it is still a secret? Your argument essentially seems to be that we can't be having this conversation right now because this type of secret never leaks. It's like standing in the middle of 1942 Berlin and denying WW2 because wars cost an extraordinary amount of money and nobody really wants them. In other words, you are using logical fallacy to argue against physical reality.
and the number of people required to pull it off
So wait a minute. You want me to believe that nineteen Saudis pulled it off because it would require too many Americans to pull off? Are you smoking crack? Make up your mind. If it would have required thousands of people to coordinate and pull off, as seems to be your "argument", then why would you even entertain the idea that it could have been done by nineteen people?
Your entire post is one big fat contradiction of itself.
In other words, you are using logical fallacy to argue against physical reality.
Bingo. This is what they do.
So wait a minute. You want me to believe that nineteen Saudis pulled it off because it would require too many Americans to pull off?
Lol. This is exactly what I find amusing too. It's hilarious. If we are saying Saudis did it, then they pulled the whole thing off with 19 people. If we are saying someone else did it then that's ridiculous because it would have taken hundreds if not thousands of people all acting in perfect coordination. Don't argue with them. These people are idiots.
And can you explain in precisely which universe it is still a secret? Your argument essentially seems to be that we can't be having this conversation right now because this type of secret never leaks
Which credible source (or anyone) stepped forward to detail their role in the plot?
If it would have required thousands of people to coordinate and pull off, as seems to be your "argument", then why would you even entertain the idea that it could have been done by nineteen people?
"Thousands" is your estimate of what it takes to rig multiple occupied buildings with explosives, drop a few planes out of the sky as patsies, set off the explosions while the buildings are still occupied, all while moving through the various necessary government channels required to get a domestic attack unofficially sanctioned. I don't know if "thousands" is accurate. It doesn't matter since it is hypothetical. Now consider that it takes less people to fly a few planes. People with the fanaticism necessary to carry out that kind of an act against the US as they have repeatedly shown.
How many people worked on the NSA domestic spying program? How many did it take to bring the program to public light? It would have taken less people than what would be required for an internal 911 plot. And it took 1 person to bring it to light.
Which credible source (or anyone) stepped forward to detail their role in the plot?
Oh, please just stop with your spectacularly backward logic. In which universe do mass murderers come forward and "detail their role"? Why would anybody kill 3,000 people if they intended to get caught? What exactly would have been the point of a false flag operation in the first place if the perpetrators intended to simply put their hands up and say: "Yeah, it was me. I did it for the lulzies"?
I'm not sure at this point whether you are dishonest or just fucking stupid, but either way it makes you incredibly frustrating to talk to. Implying it can't have been "them" because they haven't admitted it is literally the most stupid argument I can possibly fathom.
"Thousands" is your estimate
Lie like that again and I'll ban you without warning.
what it takes to rig multiple occupied buildings with explosives
So when special forces want to blow up a building, or a bridge in enemy territory, they have to pause and call for huge numbers of people to come and help them do they? Literally everything you say is false and stupid.
I don't know if "thousands" is accurate
Why mention "the number of people required to pull it off" unless you believe the number to be so staggering as to prevent it? This was your intended argument, so stop trying to change what you meant by deflecting to semantics. Your logic is blatantly and demonstrably false, since if it takes 10 people one week to rig a building, it follows that it would take 5 people two weeks to rig the same building, just as it would take 1 person 10 weeks. Since you have precisely no idea of the time interval involved this proves beyond all doubt that your argument is intellectually dishonest.
It doesn't matter since it is hypothetical.
It isn't hypothetical because the physical evidence confirms that the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. For example Professor Harrit's 2009 analysis of the WTC dust and Professor Jones's 2006 analysis of the WTC physics. I have no idea why you think you can refute this evidence by making up a random number of people you think it would have taken to blow up the buildings in your own head, but such is the idiocy and/or dishonesty of the opposition on this particular issue.
In which universe do mass murderers come forward and "detail their role"?
Do you really think that all the “thousands” of people involved were mass murderers? Not one was just following what they thought were innocuous orders until it was too late?
Why would anybody kill 3,000 people if they intended to get caught?
I don’t believe any cover up is intended to be leaked, yet they often are. It couldn’t have been anybody to pull off your pipedream, but quite a few somebodies. What was all these peoples driving motive? Where were all the people in high and low places who believed in killing their own to justify killing others? What rhetoric must all those bad guys believed in?
There was one big secret in the 90’s that could have taken down the presidency. Only two people knew about it, and only they would be harmed by leaking it. And yet Clintons Oval office blow jobs are common public knowledge. Two people couldn't keep a secret to secure their own well-being.
What exactly would have been the point of a false flag operation in the first place if the perpetrators intended to simply put their hands up and say: "Yeah, it was me. I did it for the lulzies"?
What exactly was the point of the illegal NSA domestic spying program if they were just gonna send Edward Snowden to the public to tell everyone about it? It’s like they didn’t think that one through. Good thing for the illuminati that they cut all the “thousands” of loose ends in 911 I guess.
I'm not sure at this point whether you are dishonest or just fucking stupid, but either way it makes you incredibly frustrating to talk to
The correct answer is that I am honest and smarter than you. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to be wrong so often.
Lie like that again and I'll ban you without warning
Aren’t internet threats the most frightening? Especially when the threat is to do something that everyone here does all the time as a function of the site. I hope you ramp up this behavior a bit, it’s hilarious. Incidentally, since you said thousands and not me, I wasn’t lying.
So when special forces want to blow up a building, or a bridge in enemy territory, they have to pause and call for huge numbers of people to come and help them do they?
They have to clear the appropriate channels before doing the simple operation of rigging a bridge, or infiltrating a camp against an enemy. But that’s really not comparable to rigging three domestic office buildings (two of them giant skyscrapers), while simultaneously dropping four domestic airliners (one in the middle of a field for no reason) all of which would be full of the operators own countrymen.
Literally everything you say is false and stupid
That’s the kind of thing children say when they can’t grasp algebra. It represents intellectual impotence.
Why mention "the number of people required to pull it off" unless you believe the number to be so staggering as to prevent it?
How staggering must the number be when the secret is this massive? People are not good at keeping secrets. Especially not in this age of Wikileaks. So yeah, your version of 911 would take a lot of people. The likelihood that at least one of them would leak something is staggering.
Your logic is blatantly and demonstrably false, since if it takes 10 people one week to rig a building, it follows that it would take 5 people two weeks to rig the same building, just as it would take 1 person 10 weeks. Since you have precisely no idea of the time interval involved this proves beyond all doubt that your argument is intellectually dishonest
Gosh you seem to know a lot about the logistics of demolitions. The twin towers each had 110 floors, 47 core columns, and 236 outer columns. The “freefall effect”, supposed by truthers to indicate a controlled demo, would indicate a charge on each column which would be a total of 62,260 charges. But I’m sure it was a relatively small operation, right? How long do you think it took that guy to place all those?
Do you really think that all the “thousands” of people involved were mass murderers?
You have not supplied the slightest whiff of evidence that there were "thousands of people involved" and yes, anybody involved in a plot to mass murder 3,000 American citizens is involved in mass murder.
Not one was just following what they thought were innocuous orders
You are grossly distorting reason again to legitimise the false assertion that anybody would murder 3,000 of their own citizens because of "orders". "Orders" is not a credible reason to be complicit in a plot to murder 3,000 of your own people. Clearly, the perpetrators shared a common ideology/belief system, were equally committed and had everything to lose. That is what protected them from exposure.
I don’t believe any cover up is intended to be leaked, yet they often are.
Which again proves that you are being entirely irrational by sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to acknowledge the stack of evidence that 9/11 was one of these occasions. Not every cover up is exposed because of a whistleblower, but this appears to be precisely what you are arguing.
It couldn’t have been anybody to pull off your pipedream
For God's sake are you just going to sit here all day abusing reason and language? Is that what you think debate is? In your Mickey Mouse version of reality, the same "pipedream" was pulled off by 19 angry Arabs, but it suddenly becomes a "pipedream" if someone suggests the involvement of state intelligence? You are just being retarded, and I suspect probably on purpose.
There was one big secret in the 90’s that could have taken down the presidency.
Sorry, but I've just had enough of you pissing all over the law of reason. How would you know there was only "one big secret" unless you knew all the secrets? Do you presume that the people you see when you go out for a walk are the only people in the whole world you infuriatingly irrational, ego-driven cretin?
You have not supplied the slightest whiff of evidence that there were "thousands of people involved"
Yes well, I never said thousands would have to be involved. “Thousands” came from you tough guy.
Clearly, the perpetrators shared a common ideology/belief system, were equally committed and had everything to lose. That is what protected them from exposure
What ideology is it that gets people to kill thousands of their own? Do you suppose it is a common enough ideology that the planners would be able to pick from only the best of our well-trained military or covert ops agents who maintain this ideology? Even though it goes against every oath taken by every military member and government agent and has never been heard of, I’m sure it’s a prolific enough ideology that it would be too difficult to fill the billet of more than 1 but apparently less than 1thousand required to pull off this massive, not-so-massive, operation.
Not every cover up is exposed because of a whistleblower, but this appears to be precisely what you are arguing
While it’s true that not all cover-ups are uncovered, the larger the cover-up, the more likely it is to be uncovered. There has never been a cover-up to match to supposed 911 cover-up, and there has never been greater means to uncover secrets, large and small. Thus, the likelihood of a successful cover-up of this magnitude shrinks to near 0. That and the fact that the official story is the most reasonable explanation of events, despite what social media experts say.
Conspiracy theorists started spouting off almost from the start about an inside job. They went on to create as many ridiculous and fanciful theories as possible hoping that something would stick to the confirmation bias of people who already hoped it was an inside job. This is just the one that stuck for you.
In your Mickey Mouse version of reality, the same "pipedream" was pulled off by 19 angry Arabs, but it suddenly becomes a "pipedream" if someone suggests the involvement of state intelligence?
Nobody thinks that the 911 hijackers rigged the buildings with explosives in addition to flying planes into them.
How would you know there was only "one big secret" unless you knew all the secrets?
I didn’t say “only”. If you lie like that again, I will create a debate and then ban you from it without warning (Wow, you were right to use internet threats earlier, I feel almost as tough as you now)
Yes well, I never said thousands would have to be involved.
I just quoted you directly you lying piece of shit. Would you deny your own nose if I quoted that too?
“Thousands” came from you tough guy.
You are radically distorting the facts again and it is thoroughly pointless. You tried to make an argument that if any Americans were involved in 9/11 then the number would have to be incredibly large, and I used the word "thousands" when I paraphrased your own logical fallacy.
What ideology is it that gets people to kill thousands of their own?
Many ideologies have resulted in people killing thousands of their own. Your faux confusion at the thought that this has ever happened before reveals again your own flagrant dishonesty. Hitler killed millions of his own. Stalin killed millions of his own. Mao killed millions of his own. The list is as endless as your use of deception in a debate.
Even though it goes against every oath taken by every military member
I just explicated why domestic "orders" were not a logically viable reason to participate in the 9/11 attacks, and you have responded by pretending my argument is that the US military did it. You have absolutely nothing to offer this conversation other than dishonesty and purposeful distortion. America has many military allies, and you are deliberately ignoring that the special forces or military of another country may have been involved.
All I am seeing from you are generic right wing shill techniques, like insidious straw man argumentation and inventing false dichotomies (i.e. "it was either thousands of American military personnel or it must therefore have been al Qaeda"). You are trying to make people believe a really fucking ridiculous theory by misrepresenting the alternatives, reducing them all to a single conflicting theory of your own choosing, and then mocking that theory.
While it’s true that not all cover-ups are uncovered, the larger the cover-up, the more likely it is to be uncovered.
Which is exactly why you keep insisting thousands of people had to be involved in the cover up. Because your argument falls apart without this false assertion.
There has never been a cover-up to match to supposed 911 cover-up
So we have jumped from "thousands" of people involved to the largest cover up in history, have we? Lol.
Can you explain why, if this cover up never happened, you seem to know how many people were involved and exactly how big it was?
and there has never been greater means to uncover secrets, large and small.
Firstly, you are again pretending the secret has not been revealed, even after you have been presented with an absolute stack of evidence from scientists, architects , engineers and eye-witnesses, confirming the complete opposite.
Secondly, we do not have the means to read people's thoughts and -- while that remains true -- if someone doesn't want to tell you something, the chances are good that you are not going to find out about it.
Thirdly, while we have better methods of uncovering secrets, you have tellingly failed to balance out your assertion by making clear we also have better methods of keeping them safe. Methods like employing an army of internet trolls to distort everything people say about the topic.
Thus, the likelihood of a successful cover-up of this magnitude shrinks to near 0.
1) If the cover up were successful we would not be having this conversation in the first place you irrational twat.
2) Your arbitrary (and of course completely baseless) figure of 0 is hinged entirely on the two false claims you have just made. Firstly, that 9/11 would have to be the biggest cover up in history (i.e. involving the most people) and secondly, that all secrets are discovered because we have better"means" to discover them.
Can you please explain to me what the point is in continuously inventing fallacious logical obstacles and throwing them in the way of actual physical evidence? America is a hierarchy and therefore we could be talking about as little as one or two people being involved, provided they are people like the Vice President (Dick Cheney) and the Secretary of Defence (Donald Rumsfeld).
Conspiracy theorists
Do not call me a conspiracy theorist for disputing the entirely unproven theory that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by a conspiracy of 19 lone kamikaze Arabs. That is the opposite of honest, and your two word buzz phrase is a tool deliberately used by shills/idiots such as yourself to shut down debate on this issue.
They went on to create as many ridiculous and fanciful theories as possible
The "they" which you are attempting to pass off as a single entity (so you can mock it) are a collection of millions of different people, with millions of different opinions about what happened, and the only thing all of them agree on is that the conspiracy theory provided by the US government is false.
You want to lump together every single one of the millions of people who dispute your clearly false "official" conspiracy theory, throw them all into the same box, and then mock the box. But you are simply using political smear tactics to attack the evidence which proves I am correct. Evidence like this:-
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 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."
"Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July (i.e. two months before 9/11) that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October."
You see the difference? I post tangible evidence and you post long passages of empty rhetoric predicated on things which are either logically unsound or outright untrue.
Nobody thinks that the 911 hijackers rigged the buildings with explosives in addition to flying planes into them.
Somebody rigged the buildings with explosives because the scientific evidence proves this:-
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Loading your language with words like "pipedream" when you are describing the only group which is acknowledging science is egregious political smear at its very worst. If I don't believe your retarded conspiracy theory about these three buildings collapsing in exactly the same way, in defiance of fundamental Newtonian mechanics, and in a manner never before witnessed in the recorded history of mankind, by some kind of bizarre coincidence, I therefore am invested in a "pipedream" am I?
Your long replies are boring to read, self-indulgent, contain no facts or evidence and are merely textbook exercises in how to abuse language and reason.
I didn’t say “only”.
You said there was one big secret and that therefore precludes the possibility that there was more than one big secret.
If you lie like that again
As I have just explained, I did not lie. Your statement was incongruous with basic logic and I pointed it out.
The problem with abusing language is that it makes the things you say extremely stupid and wide open to being pulled apart by people who are more intelligent and better with words than you are.
Is this even a serious question? You commit genocide against your own people and then tell them about it? Sounds legit.
Do you know what genocide is? 911 was not genocide in any case.
If an individual perpetrated 911, it might stay a secret, but that would be impossible. As you add more people required to drop buildings and planes, you add more liability to the secret endeavor. Do you suppose that the NSA intended to spy on their own people and then tell them about it? No.
Large operations are subject to leaks. Even small secrets are subject to leaks. Just think about Clinton’s affair. We live in the age of Wikileaks, and yet not one person has mentioned being part of the 911 plot…Oh wait, some guys from overseas with a history of such acts and an ideology to incentivize them did say something about it, but that makes too much sense.
Where do you suppose they found enough Americans with the training, discipline, and moral bankruptcy to commit mass murder against their own people? What do you think their ideology was?
