9/11 Truth Movement

[fragbait]

Thanks! I notice you're also a Ness main. Wooo DJC.

1) That's a good point, in fact I don't think they even bring up the 9/11 conspiracy. I think they know that if they bring it up, they give it a feel of legitimacy, which obviously wouldn't be good for them. Now that the Truth Movement is here though, and around 1/3 Americans believe the government was involved (a shockingly high number), I think they would care. Now that they're out of office though it's clearly not going to happen.

2) In terms of people involved in total, that number goes into the tens of thousands, including fire fighters, police, air traffic control, the government, the demolition crew, the FBI, the air force and others. Out of those tens of thousands, I'm sure a lot of them had to be in on it. The alternative would be orders coming down from at least 5-6 "steps" above, which would definitely be too difficult to coordinate without certain people lower on the ladder knowing what they're doing. The demolition crew which supposedly set up the bombs would have to be in on it, the people who supposedly murdered the passengers of that one flight (I forgot which number it was), and many more.

Not to mention tons of people in the media who are supposedly covering it up.

I have a bit of issue with point number 2. You forget the main problem with the argument, and that's Money. There's plenty of Americans who will betray their own country for a buck.
Furthermore, even when the orders come from a few steps above, the only coordination required would be on exactly that level, because Gov. Officials are expected to do their job as ordered. That's what they get paid for.

And the media doesn't need to cover anything up. As a matter of fact, there have been numerous reports on the 9/11 truth movement from a multitude of sources. However, the media can only report on the information at hand. If the government releases a report stating that "The Sky is now Green" then that's what they report. It's their job as journalists to report whatever is presented as factual and true. If they don't know any better, then they don't have to cover anything up.

 

[GoldShadow]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243#

Oil

Oh wait I misread that. There is no motive for the Architects and Engineers of 9/11 truth to be making this fuss other than educating the American People. They are a non-profit organization.

Do you know what "non-profit" means? It doesn't mean that nobody gets paid, or that the organization doesn't try to get money. I suggest you look up the fundamental differences between for-profit and not-for-profit organizations.

 

[Ballistics]

Again, we cannot discuss the science of this issue, we are not scientists. All we can discuss is who we should logically agree with when picking a side.

Regarding what the collapse looks like, that's no where near science, or even logic. It doesn't matter (from our perspective) what is "looks like". Tons of things look like they are one way, but they actually aren't. For example, does the Earth revolve around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth? From our perspective, the Sun quite clearly goes around the Earth. Only scientists can tell us that the Earth goes around the Sun.

To quote you: "simply name anything, ever, that has fallen strait down due to fire or a side impact"

This is a common fallacy which I talked about before (and I think KrazyGlue mentioned it too). You used the word or. or is not the issue here, and is the issue. There haven't been any other cases of large planes flying into giant skyscrapers, so there is nothing to compare this to.

Again, neither you (probably, I don't know your credentials) nor I have the credentials to analyze the science being examined. The only thing we can do is decide which side is probably more accurate. People much more qualified in this matter have provided rebuttals to the information you posted. Those people have had their work peer reviewed, while the work which you posted hasn't even come close. From our perspective, the non-peer reviewed work is meaningless.

Give your brain some credit, this is not hard stuff to think about.

 

[fragbait]

Give your brain some credit, this is not hard stuff to think about.

I don't even know how that was a response to his argument.
Facts>Opinions

Also, no matter how we think about something, it doesn't mean we're correct.

If you think about 1+1 long enough to say that it means 3, it doesn't mean your right.

 

[Sucumbio]

Condensation will be responded to with more condensation.

You're right, I'm getting drenched in here.



@Ballistics

I've kinda been reading along, not really weighing in on your... topic. And now I sense it's time to mention that you're kind of... well, you're bordering on violating rule number 4 of the SWF global rules: No Blatant Advertising. I dunno I guess not really, but it's close. It's a tie between almost spam and almost advertising. You admit to coming into the PG NOT to join the Debate Hall, but instead to bring our attention to this website and this video. You even admit to not caring whether or not we're convinced, you just really want the opportunity to spread "the truth" about this thing, and stuff. So like, how is this ... not? Spam? And advertising?? I could understand if you were really trying to convince people of the position that the Truthers have taken, but you're not... you're more interested in getting their web hits up. You don't get a kick back from them, do you? Anyway, I agree with EE, of course, there's no need for this topic to be discussed in the Center Stage, but I even question its validity in the PG in general, as I also question the validity of Ballistic's membership to the PG.

 

[Rizen]

Do you mean, what do the experts gain from creating conspiracy?
Doubt in government, I suppose. There are also a few people in the movement that have become significantly well known in the media who make decent sums of money for an appearance.
Furthermore, it could simply come down to "I want attention. Let's start a conspiracy."

Regardless of motives, what happened has been proven to not have been caused by the plane crash directly or indirectly (burning fuel etc). Conspiracy theory is based on speculation but how the towers fell is not.

Again, we cannot discuss the science of this issue, we are not scientists. All we can discuss is who we should logically agree with when picking a side.

I can and did discuss the science of the issue.

Regarding what the collapse looks like, that's no where near science, or even logic. It doesn't matter (from our perspective) what is "looks like". Tons of things look like they are one way, but they actually aren't. For example, does the Earth revolve around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth? From our perspective, the Sun quite clearly goes around the Earth. Only scientists can tell us that the Earth goes around the Sun.

Please address my post; I explained the science behind it. Your argument is based on obscure elements of perspective that aren't on topic. The Earth has been proven to revolve around the sun by science because people educated themselves. Can you or can you not disprove the facts of my post?

To quote you: "simply name anything, ever, that has fallen strait down due to fire or a side impact"

This is a common fallacy which I talked about before (and I think KrazyGlue mentioned it too). You used the word or. or is not the issue here, and is the issue. There haven't been any other cases of large planes flying into giant skyscrapers, so there is nothing to compare this to.

You misunderstand. My question was phrased correctly, please answer it if you can.
Simply name anything, ever, that has fallen strait down due to fire or a side impact.
For example, does a tree fall strait down from burning? No. Does a tree fall strait down from a side impact? No. Fires or side impacts of any nature do not cause anything to fall strait down; the twin towers are no exception. A scientific experiment must be able to be duplicated.

Again, neither you (probably, I don't know your credentials) nor I have the credentials to analyze the science being examined. The only thing we can do is decide which side is probably more accurate. People much more qualified in this matter have provided rebuttals to the information you posted. Those people have had their work peer reviewed, while the work which you posted hasn't even come close. From our perspective, the non-peer reviewed work is meaningless.

I'm sorry but this is just an excuse. Do the research, look up terms and laws, and educate yourself on the topic. I have already provided proven evidence for my case which has widely been ignored. Disprove it if you can or study and accept it as correct.

...On a personal note, I don't like the conclusion. I want it to be wrong. But that's not how it is. The topic isn't easy to address, it's traumatic and life-impacting. To solve a problem it must first be identified accurately. That's what I'm doing.

@ Ballistics: It's probably best not to post that link again.

 

[Ballistics]

You're right, I'm getting drenched in here.



@Ballistics

I've kinda been reading along, not really weighing in on your... topic. And now I sense it's time to mention that you're kind of... well, you're bordering on violating rule number 4 of the SWF global rules: No Blatant Advertising. I dunno I guess not really, but it's close. It's a tie between almost spam and almost advertising. You admit to coming into the PG NOT to join the Debate Hall, but instead to bring our attention to this website and this video. You even admit to not caring whether or not we're convinced, you just really want the opportunity to spread "the truth" about this thing, and stuff. So like, how is this ... not? Spam? And advertising?? I could understand if you were really trying to convince people of the position that the Truthers have taken, but you're not... you're more interested in getting their web hits up. You don't get a kick back from them, do you? Anyway, I agree with EE, of course, there's no need for this topic to be discussed in the Center Stage, but I even question its validity in the PG in general, as I also question the validity of Ballistic's membership to the PG.

Hmmm... Are you serious? Or kidding? Please stop looking for loopholes to get me banned and take a look at what Arizen, I , and the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are trying to tell you.

The video is just the easiest way to spoon feed my argument, please look at the noble effort of Arizen who has actually taken the time to present the case.

 

[fragbait]

Alright, solid arguments by this guy. I'll answer in Yellow.

Regardless of motives, what happened has been proven to not have been caused by the plane crash directly or indirectly (burning fuel etc). Conspiracy theory is based on speculation but how the towers fell is not.
Yes, but the "proof" that has been presented by the truth movement has been debunked by many independent scientists. While I don't have these sources off hand, you can easily find ones that weren't government funded, sponsored, contracted, etc.
I can and did discuss the science of the issue.

Please address my post; I explained the science behind it. Your argument is based on obscure elements of perspective that aren't on topic. The Earth has been proven to revolve around the sun by science because people educated themselves. Can you or can you not disprove the facts of my post?
You don't seem to realize that it's an analogy. What he's saying that it's all a matter of perspective. You use the phrase "educated themselves" here. Isn't this the same thing that the people on both sides of the argument are doing?

You misunderstand. My question was phrased correctly, please answer it if you can.
Simply name anything, ever, that has fallen strait down due to fire or a side impact.
For example, does a tree fall strait down from burning? No. Does a tree fall strait down from a side impact? No. Fires or side impacts of any nature do not cause anything to fall strait down; the twin towers are no exception. A scientific experiment must be able to be duplicated.
Alright. You got a 100+ story tower we can knock down any time soon?
Simply put, there's nothing to compare it to because this is a unique event.


I'm sorry but this is just an excuse. Do the research, look up terms and laws, and educate yourself on the topic. I have already provided proven evidence for my case which has widely been ignored. Disprove it if you can or study and accept it as correct.

I'm sorry but this is a cop out. He makes a valid point, because you only use the information available, as all of us do, and claim you understand exactly what happened down to the minute detail, clearly and fully, but that isn't possible to do without the proper education.
Also this thing where you say basically "either I'm right or you're wrong" isn't how a debate works. You make a point, he makes a counterpoint. That's how debate works.

...On a personal note, I don't like the conclusion. I want it to be wrong. But that's not how it is. The topic isn't easy to address, it's traumatic and life-impacting. To solve a problem it must first be identified accurately. That's what I'm doing.

@ Ballistics: It's probably best not to post that link again.

Now, I know I'm putting myself on the line of fire here. I've seen Loose Change, I've seen both Zeitgeists, I've seen plenty of research from the truth movement. I think it's fair to say I was a follower of it for awhile as well. But looking at the evidence, comparing it to what I've learned, using a bit of logic, I've become skeptical.
I mean, if it was really a conspiracy by the government to move into Iraq, wouldn't President Obama be in on it too? That's not something that ends with a presidency, that's something that the next one, and maybe the next one after that, would have to be in on too. Don't forget, he's expressed interests in getting us out of the country ASAP.

Also, Ballistics, he makes a valid point. If you said you don't want to get in the Debate Hall, and you're only here to spread around that link, and preach your case without actually backing it up yourself (instead telling people, again, to watch whatever video you're linking) it's Spam, it's not borderline anything.

Arizen, solid arguments man. I think you would be a good candidate for Debater, but I don't know **** about how SWF Debate works, I only know IRL debate. But let's just say I wouldn't want to be Neg to your Aff.

This conversation doesn't belong here at all. The alternative thread was established so we wouldn't deter the Center Stage from serving any other purpose than being the Center Stage for PG Debaters. It is appalling to observe how many people have blatantly ignored the fact that this conversation is not supposed to continue in this thread and have continued on, regardless, in order to bring in a few more quips and vice versa. Discussion of the rules in conjunction with breaking civility and tact is nothing more than a farce and reeks of hypocritical action. On the other side of the token, such obnoxious obstinacy is equally unmerited in this section of the board, much less this thread. It is possible that I am just in a foul mood, but honestly, stop it and appropriate the conversation to the right section. It's seriously pissing me off. If you have a problem with me or this post, then take up it to messages or infractions.

If it was really a problem, wouldn't a mod have stepped in here by now? xD

 

[Ballistics]

Alright, solid arguments by this guy. I'll answer in Yellow.

Yes, but the "proof" that has been presented by the truth movement has been debunked by many independent scientists. While I don't have these sources off hand, you can easily find ones that weren't government funded, sponsored, contracted, etc.
I can and did discuss the science of the issue.

No it hasn't been "debunked" you cannot debunk Iron enriched microspheres found inside the wtc dust and the POOLS OF MOLTEN METAL found in the basement of all three wtc towers because they exist whether you want to believe in them or not. Leftover pieces of unignited thermite are also found in the dust. These are not things that can be "debunked." Zeitgeist and Loose Change are all encompassing videos which do not present evidence but ask much needed questions. You have one more video to watch if you want to sound credible when you are talking about evidence and I think you know which video I am talking about.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

You don't seem to realize that it's an analogy. What he's saying that it's all a matter of perspective. You use the phrase "educated themselves" here. Isn't this the same thing that the people on both sides of the argument are doing?

This is not a matter of perspective this is a matter of evaluating forensic evidence and using the scientific method to reach conclusions.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

Alright. You got a 100+ story tower we can knock down any time soon?
Simply put, there's nothing to compare it to because this is a unique event.

Its a unique event because three wtc high rises are the only steel framed buildings to have ever collapsed at free fall speed, on their own footprints, due to fire. This is what it looks like when a building collapses,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI


it doesn't pulverize the concrete into DUST and all the floors are left intact. This is just common sense you don't have to be an expert to figure this out.

I'm sorry but this is a cop out. He makes a valid point, because you only use the information available, as all of us do, and claim you understand exactly what happened down to the minute detail, clearly and fully, but that isn't possible to do without the proper education.
Also this thing where you say basically "either I'm right or you're wrong" isn't how a debate works. You make a point, he makes a counterpoint. That's how debate works.

Do not let science overpower your mind. Don't let technical terminology confuse your judgement and basic human intuition.

I mean, if it was really a conspiracy by the government to move into Iraq, wouldn't President Obama be in on it too? That's not something that ends with a presidency, that's something that the next one, and maybe the next one after that, would have to be in on too. Don't forget, he's expressed interests in getting us out of the country ASAP.


http://news.antiwar.com/2010/09/10/obama-announces-state-of-emergency-extension/

Ok so hes expressed interest in getting us out of Afghanistan, the country we went into because of 9/11 to find Osama Bin Laden, 9 years later we still haven't found him, so what exactly are we doing over there? I'm sorry but expressing interest is not enough for me. The president does not get to make the decision of what countries we invade. When people are making billions of dollars, its not something they are ready to give up.

wikipedia rip:

The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001,[31] as the US military's Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) that was launched, along with the British military, in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US. The UK has, since 2002, led its own military operation, Operation Herrick, as part of the same war in Afghanistan. The character of the war evolved from a violent struggle against Al-Qaeda and its Taliban supporters to a complex counterinsurgency effort.

The first phase of the war was the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, when the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom, to remove the safe haven to Al-Qaeda and its use of the Afghan territory as a base of operations for terrorist activities. In that first phase, U.S. and coalition forces, working with the Afghan opposition forces of the Northern Alliance, quickly ousted the Taliban regime. During the following Karzai administration, the character of the war shifted to an effort aimed at smothering an insurgency hostile to the US-backed Karzai government, in which the insurgents preferred not to directly confront the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops, but blended into the local population and mainly used improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and suicide bombings.

The stated aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members to be put on trial, to destroy the organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to it. The Bush administration stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between terrorist organizations and nations or governments that harbored them. The United Nations did not authorize the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.[32]

Also, Ballistics, he makes a valid point. If you said you don't want to get in the Debate Hall, and you're only here to spread around that link, and preach your case without actually backing it up yourself (instead telling people, again, to watch whatever video you're linking) it's Spam, it's not borderline anything.

I had a test today I promise to start debating nicely. Although you guys should really watch that vid! They are giving me a million dollars of conspiracy money to tell everyone I know.

9/11 State Crime Against Democracy Theorists unite!

 

[fragbait]

-sigh-

You keep making the exact same arguments Ballistics. I hope you aren't in any sort of IRL Debate Club.

On another note, that blue text is pleasant to look at and Guest seems like a pretty cool guy.

 

[Aesir]

Airzen (whatever your name is)

I have to drop out of htis for now, I've fallen behind in my school work and I'm trying to get that extra boost to my GPA so unfortunately I ccan't put as much man power into my replies as I like. So if anyone else wants to take my place go right ahead.

Sorry about backing out like this, but I simply don't have the time to devote to it.

 

[Ballistics]

-sigh-

You keep making the exact same arguments Ballistics. I hope you aren't in any sort of IRL Debate Club.

On another note, that blue text is pleasant to look at and Guest seems like a pretty cool guy.

Please don't ignore my evidence and make fun of me

 

[Ballistics]

Hey yall just took my test I plan to post my big shpeal soon, sorry for the neglect

 

[fragbait]

Because someone can't handle a criticism.

No, IRL we debate with facts we can prove, that have been recognized by independent sources multiple times that have no connection to the case at hand. We use multiple sources, that have different data, present them all, and answer counterpoints with more evidence, not the same evidence over and over. Our evidence is understandable, and not based on conspiracy.

Furthermore, there was no ignoring of evidence. I've seen the evidence, I've seen it 100 times over. The fallacies in your arguments have been pointed out, and instead of responding with backing up your evidence or disproving the counterpoint with new evidence, you instead say something along the lines of "I am going to complain because you don't agree with my opinions," and never further back it up.

And I wasn't making fun of you, I was stating a fact. You would be a detriment to your Debate Club if this is how you debate IRL.
You know what? Yeah. Join a debate club, and do it in my state. Because if I'm sitting across the room from you, I get a free win, because no judge will ever take an argument that keeps pointing to the same evidence time and time again without further proving it. The only redeeming factor of your team would be your partner, and I would hope that he would have the intelligence to somehow salvage your case.

/rant

 

[gm jack]

uh, well yeah. The attacks of 9/11. ? I guess I'm not following your question...



I see nothing of this in my previous post. I made no assumptions or even references to airport security. I was saying that the Bush Administration dropped the ball essentially. Condi Rice literally had a report in her hands before the attacks, a page or two of which saying words to the effect of "Osama bin Laden is planning to attack the US with hijacked plans by flying them into the WTC, Pentagon, and White House." How much more warning can you get? LOL

When was the last time US soil was directly attacked before 9/11? How many threats a day do you think various groups could send in every day? Yes it was a huge oversight, but at that point, it is implying at the most negligence from those in charge, not a direct attack on its own people.

Before 9/11, a lot of american's didn't seem to get the concept of terrorists. In their early days, the IRA got a lot of their funds from American's with Irish family, all while they stages a bombing campaign in the UK.

Combine complacency and under estimating what they could do, I suppose they they decided it wasn't worth following up. Stupid in retrospect, but we can only guess how many other reports they read of planned attacks which didn't happen.

 

[Rizen]

Thanks for presenting a counter to my debate. fragbait is in yellow, I'll answer back in white.




Yes, but the "proof" that has been presented by the truth movement has been debunked by many independent scientists. While I don't have these sources off hand, you can easily find ones that weren't government funded, sponsored, contracted, etc.
Like I showed the debunking wasn't accurate or about the specific scientific inaccuracies. The properties of free falling, momentum, metal melting, etc are universal. It doesn't matter who the 'messenger' is. Your questioning the source but not the science.
You don't seem to realize that it's an analogy. What he's saying that it's all a matter of perspective. You use the phrase "educated themselves" here. Isn't this the same thing that the people on both sides of the argument are doing?

Alright. You got a 100+ story tower we can knock down any time soon?
Simply put, there's nothing to compare it to because this is a unique event.

"A unique event' - that's my point, to be scientifically proven an event must be reproducible. Steel frame buildings have never fallen strait down from fires or plain crashes. Nothing falls strait down from burning or side impacts. This alone makes the fire theory very questionable at best.

I'm sorry but this is a cop out. He makes a valid point, because you only use the information available, as all of us do, and claim you understand exactly what happened down to the minute detail, clearly and fully, but that isn't possible to do without the proper education.
Also this thing where you say basically "either I'm right or you're wrong" isn't how a debate works. You make a point, he makes a counterpoint. That's how debate works.
I disagree. A point questioning ones ability to know part of a debate wouldn’t pass as a counterpoint in middle school. People should know the material. It's a safe assumption to say everyone has the internet in front of them. Nothing is preventing anyone from instantly fact checking. For example I google searched 'physics of freefall' and found this in 2 minutes: http://www.physics247.com/physics-homework-help/free-fall.php
There are scientific laws which are correct and can be used to prove a point wrong.
Now, I know I'm putting myself on the line of fire here. I've seen Loose Change, I've seen both Zeitgeists, I've seen plenty of research from the truth movement. I think it's fair to say I was a follower of it for awhile as well. But looking at the evidence, comparing it to what I've learned, using a bit of logic, I've become skeptical.
I mean, if it was really a conspiracy by the government to move into Iraq, wouldn't President Obama be in on it too? That's not something that ends with a presidency, that's something that the next one, and maybe the next one after that, would have to be in on too. Don't forget, he's expressed interests in getting us out of the country ASAP.

As stated, conspiracy theories are more about speculation. The science behind the event is not. It’s a prove fact that controlled demolition brought the towers down. This fact isn’t compromised by speculation about conspiracies.

Also, Ballistics, he makes a valid point. If you said you don't want to get in the Debate Hall, and you're only here to spread around that link, and preach your case without actually backing it up yourself (instead telling people, again, to watch whatever video you're linking) it's Spam, it's not borderline anything.
To be fair, there were a lot of frank opinionated posts without any links or points about the debate too.

Arizen, solid arguments man. I think you would be a good candidate for Debater, but I don't know **** about how SWF Debate works, I only know IRL debate. But let's just say I wouldn't want to be Neg to your Aff.
Thanks. And thanks to everyone who provided information for the debate too.

Airzen (whatever your name is)

I have to drop out of htis for now, I've fallen behind in my school work and I'm trying to get that extra boost to my GPA so unfortunately I ccan't put as much man power into my replies as I like. So if anyone else wants to take my place go right ahead.

Sorry about backing out like this, but I simply don't have the time to devote to it.

That's cool. Thanks for telling me.

Furthermore, there was no ignoring of evidence. I've seen the evidence, I've seen it 100 times over. The fallacies in your arguments have been pointed out, and instead of responding with backing up your evidence or disproving the counterpoint with new evidence, you instead say something along the lines of "I am going to complain because you don't agree with my opinions," and never further back it up.

He did post specific points which weren't addressed in the last one (post #770). Things like lack of pancakes, chemical evidence of thermite, how free fall speed would have been prevented by the lower stories' mass. I think Ballistics doesn't feel heard because his content isn't being addressed except in an overview manner.

 

[Ballistics]

Thanks! I notice you're also a Ness main. Wooo DJC.

1) That's a good point, in fact I don't think they even bring up the 9/11 conspiracy. I think they know that if they bring it up, they give it a feel of legitimacy, which obviously wouldn't be good for them. Now that the Truth Movement is here though, and around 1/3 Americans believe the government was involved (a shockingly high number), I think they would care. Now that they're out of office though it's clearly not going to happen.

2) In terms of people involved in total, that number goes into the tens of thousands, including fire fighters, police, air traffic control, the government, the demolition crew, the FBI, the air force and others. Out of those tens of thousands, I'm sure a lot of them had to be in on it. The alternative would be orders coming down from at least 5-6 "steps" above, which would definitely be too difficult to coordinate without certain people lower on the ladder knowing what they're doing. The demolition crew which supposedly set up the bombs would have to be in on it, the people who supposedly murdered the passengers of that one flight (I forgot which number it was), and many more.

Not to mention tons of people in the media who are supposedly covering it up.

Which side are you on again? These are some good points, although I doubt that many people were involved. Lets not forget that the manhattan project had 1,000,000 people working on it and nobody found out about h-bombs until we dropped it.

Because someone can't handle a criticism.

No, IRL we debate with facts we can prove, that have been recognized by independent sources multiple times that have no connection to the case at hand. We use multiple sources, that have different data, present them all, and answer counterpoints with more evidence, not the same evidence over and over. Our evidence is understandable, and not based on conspiracy.

Furthermore, there was no ignoring of evidence. I've seen the evidence, I've seen it 100 times over. The fallacies in your arguments have been pointed out, and instead of responding with backing up your evidence or disproving the counterpoint with new evidence, you instead say something along the lines of "I am going to complain because you don't agree with my opinions," and never further back it up.

And I wasn't making fun of you, I was stating a fact. You would be a detriment to your Debate Club if this is how you debate IRL.
You know what? Yeah. Join a debate club, and do it in my state. Because if I'm sitting across the room from you, I get a free win, because no judge will ever take an argument that keeps pointing to the same evidence time and time again without further proving it. The only redeeming factor of your team would be your partner, and I would hope that he would have the intelligence to somehow salvage your case.

/rant

How am I posting the same evidence over and over? That was the post time I ever posted evidence, I'm not sure you read my post..

Why do you keep bringing up me personally and not the subject of my debate. You are simply trying to mislead my argument with personal attacks and thats not cool. Please address the meat of my post.

 

[Sucumbio]

When was the last time US soil was directly attacked before 9/11? How many threats a day do you think various groups could send in every day? Yes it was a huge oversight, but at that point, it is implying at the most negligence from those in charge, not a direct attack on its own people.

Before 9/11, a lot of american's didn't seem to get the concept of terrorists. In their early days, the IRA got a lot of their funds from American's with Irish family, all while they stages a bombing campaign in the UK.

Combine complacency and under estimating what they could do, I suppose they they decided it wasn't worth following up. Stupid in retrospect, but we can only guess how many other reports they read of planned attacks which didn't happen.

I see, I gotcha. Yeah I can agree to that... it's plausible anyway that the reports on bin Laden were one of several. It's just that it's the ... quintessential red marker all over the page, circles and highlights, big CHECK THIS OUT stamped on the top kinda report. It was the culmination of efforts of the former Clinton administration and it really should have been enough to charge Bush himself with at least gross negligence. I also blame airport security for letting these folks get on board a plane with blades. box cutters, ok yeah, but not like the crappy ones that snap easily, no, like utility knives, enough to hijack a plane with! I'm from Boston, so it really hit home when Logan was involved >< Fools!

 

[gm jack]

Agreed. For an attack by the government to take place at a guaranteed time, they would have to have convinced various members of airport security to intentionally miss highly dangerous weapons. A lot of people could play roles in the attacks and not know a plot, but telling security guards they need to let people through with knives is a bit of a push.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Agreed. For an attack by the government to take place at a guaranteed time, they would have to have convinced various members of airport security to intentionally miss highly dangerous weapons. A lot of people could play roles in the attacks and not know a plot, but telling security guards they need to let people through with knives is a bit of a push.

Actually, it has been said that it wasn't a plane from an airport at all. The plane was said to have no windows.

 

[gm jack]

And evidence of such a statement?

EDIT

Things like eye witness accounts are unreliable, as quite frankly, not many people are going to have got a good look from the ground at a plane going at air speeds at low low an altitude.

 

[Crimson King]

Actually, it has been said that it wasn't a plane from an airport at all. The plane was said to have no windows.

A. That's about the Pentagon plane, which when slowed down clearly has windows.
B. As jack said, eye witness testimony is largely thrown out because memory isn't a camera and is extremely unreliable.

 

[fragbait]

If eyewitness accounts are accepted in a Police Testimony, and is considered evidence, why can't it here?

 

[Reaver197]

I found this similar thread on Reddit. I don't know to what extent you guys have covered or linked to the same things, but figured at least some of you would find it interesting to read through.

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/dkkli/i_am_a_fan_of_randi_sagan_and_dawkins_i_love/

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

A. That's about the Pentagon plane, which when slowed down clearly has windows.
B. As jack said, eye witness testimony is largely thrown out because memory isn't a camera and is extremely unreliable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq7ZYeKuQcE

It is said about the plane that hit the Twin Towers as well. And that is very true, eye witness testimony isn't always reliable.

 

[KrazyGlue]

If eyewitness accounts are accepted in a Police Testimony, and is considered evidence, why can't it here?

They have to have other evidence as well. For a criminal prosecution, you can rarely get by solely on eye-witness testimonies. And if you did, you would have to have a LOT of witnesses and almost none for the other side. In the vast majority of cases, you need to have all sorts of physical evidence, a motive, and a theory of how the crime was committed. You might also use evidence such as DNA at the scene of the crime and gunpowder residue. Additionally, you might want to use gun experts, blood experts, psychologists, sanity tests, lie detector tests, etc. In short, eyewitnesses are only considered valid if they are supported with a lot of other evidence.

 

[Crimson King]

If eyewitness accounts are accepted in a Police Testimony, and is considered evidence, why can't it here?

They stopped relying on eye witness testimony for convictions years ago.

 

[Namaste]

I have a question. Supposing this wasn't a Government job, and these experts are just creating a "conspiracy", what exactly would be the motive behind doing this be? Is there some sort of money to be made from this?

I think you're forgetting that the people who start this most likely honestly believe it. They just see it was evidence and so try to show people

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

By the way, this is kindof irrelevant, but isn't this the PG? Why are so many DHers here?

 

[fragbait]

They stopped relying on eye witness testimony for convictions years ago.

Didn't mean that they should be relied on at all. I simply said evidence, which is only part of the larger overall case.

By the way, this is kindof irrelevant, but isn't this the PG? Why are so many DHers here?

They can still particpate, but we're the main debaters here.

 

[Dre89]

I think you're forgetting that the people who start this most likely honestly believe it. They just see it was evidence and so try to show people

But if the conspiracy is rubbish, then the experts would be fabricating evidence, meaning they would know it's not true.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

They can still particpate, but we're the main debaters here.

Ofcourse, I just usually see more PGers debating, and the DHers Moderating.

 

[Rizen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq7ZYeKuQcE

It is said about the plane that hit the Twin Towers as well. And that is very true, eye witness testimony isn't always reliable.

Newscorp broadcasted that. Since the time the tragedy occurred they have supported the plane theories.

The debate has again jumped to conspiracy theories. So far no one has defended that the planes brought the towers down against the controlled demolition I debate here:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11288825&postcount=31
and continued with to here:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11305566&postcount=56
With special emphasis on this:

For the plane theory to be accurate, this^ would have to be ignored. I'd like to hear conformation or opposition to this case.

 

[Sucumbio]

it's been explained to me that when they started to collapse they did so due to the weight of the floors above, and as each floor gave way, the weight of debris was of course added to it, making each subsequent floor that much more likely to also give way. had the towers been hit at a higher floor the collapse may never have happened. had it been at a lower floor it would've happened sooner.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

the building was built using lighter weight materials. this was a design choice due to it needing to be built quickly. concentration was put heavily in wind-gust control, due to its height. there were several redundancies involved in designing the stress columns, sort of an "egg-crate" design. however several of these columns were compromised from the impact and fire. the resultant "bowing out" of the remaining columns caused a failure in angle-joints which started the domino effect you see in videos.

also it should be noted that the collapse is nothing like a demolition. rather than falling straight down, the towers actually collapsed outward, then down, creating a "mushroom" of sorts.

 

[Rizen]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

also it should be noted that the collapse is nothing like a demolition. rather than falling straight down, the towers actually collapsed outward, then down, creating a "mushroom" of sorts.

Good read and good point.
It's not a standard building demolition but that doesn't mean it's not controlled demolition.

Quoted from the above link:
"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."
This is based on a (relatively) common occurrence in structural failure. The premise relies on a domino effect of one floor collapsing from the weight of the collapse above. This is possible but simply did not happen to the WTC towers. There are several inconsistencies, including visible waves of demolition spanning several stories under the collapse, the instant start and acceleration of the fall, large chunks of the building blown out with force enough to hurl them into other buildings considerable distances away, squibs,and other things. The properties of the fall its self disprove the above theory of why it happened. This (5:32 minute) footage addresses the point well.
I opened this with windows media player, others should work.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/NTowerExploding.avi

 

[Sucumbio]

Interesting, but it seems unsubstantiated. I know that the prevailing theory may seem just as unsubstantiated, however I tend to lean more towards supporting the accepted version of events. Your video's narrative points out "flaws" in the accepted explanation, offering alternative explanations to the observed occurrences like the explosive debris, the squibs, etc. However, I'm more apt to believe that everything seen in that video is explicable by the official analysis. This was a unique building, for one. Its construction was of light materials, as stated above. It's not a far stretch to see the collapse as resultant of a domino effect. It's not that mysterious why the debris was powdery and not giant chunks all over. It's not even that mysterious as to why some chunks that did survive only did so by being hurled (by the massive downward force) outward. As the video repeats the collapse over and over again, and little arrows get drawn pointing to "strange" or "unexplained" things, I see those things and think "no, it makes sense it'd have done that." Besides, the video is concentrating on the last few stories as the collapse is at its ending point. At that point in the collapse the debris field which he find so "odd" is not very odd, considering how many stories of debris has added up by that point. I don't see the squibs as explosions, either. It's just what happens when that much weight is applied to that particular building. It makes it look like mini-detonations, but really it's just the concrete splintering under the weight.

Basically until they build another WTC, exactly like the original, then fly a plane into it, just like on 9/11l, and it DOESN'T collapse just like the one in 9/11, well I really cannot see myself entertaining the possibility that the collapse was in any way unusual, or somehow not the result of the plane impact alone.

 

[Crimson King]

But if the conspiracy is rubbish, then the experts would be fabricating evidence, meaning they would know it's not true.

You are misunderstanding the concept of delusion. When you operate under the belief that everything must not only be questioned, but facts surrounding everything are probably lies, you are operating without logic.

Let's use the example of the moon walk. Using Occam's Razor, we walked on the moon in 1969 because there would be no direct benefits for lying about that, the moon walk created a vast amount of technology to accomplish, and we have been to the moon numerous times via unmanned vessels. However, if you believe the government had a reason to lie (and then you begin the assumption that they did lie), you wouldn't be creating lies, you'd be accepting other things as complete truths OVER the moon walk 1969.

So, with 9/11 they believe everything about the reported claim is false for some insidious claim. They see the conspirers as super intelligent and evil people who will gladly kill 3,000+ people for their aims. That's their focus, and we are all duped into that story so they must enlighten us.

 

[fragbait]

You are misunderstanding the concept of delusion. When you operate under the belief that everything must not only be questioned, but facts surrounding everything are probably lies, you are operating without logic.

Let's use the example of the moon walk. Using Occam's Razor, we walked on the moon in 1969 because there would be no direct benefits for lying about that, the moon walk created a vast amount of technology to accomplish, and we have been to the moon numerous times via unmanned vessels. However, if you believe the government had a reason to lie (and then you begin the assumption that they did lie), you wouldn't be creating lies, you'd be accepting other things as complete truths OVER the moon walk 1969.

So, with 9/11 they believe everything about the reported claim is false for some insidious claim. They see the conspirers as super intelligent and evil people who will gladly kill 3,000+ people for their aims. That's their focus, and we are all duped into that story so they must enlighten us.

Sounds solid, most interesting thing here to me is Occam's Razor. I like this concept.

 

[Rizen]

Interesting, but it seems unsubstantiated. I know that the prevailing theory may seem just as unsubstantiated, however I tend to lean more towards supporting the accepted version of events. Your video's narrative points out "flaws" in the accepted explanation, offering alternative explanations to the observed occurrences like the explosive debris, the squibs, etc. However, I'm more apt to believe that everything seen in that video is explicable by the official analysis. This was a unique building, for one. Its construction was of light materials, as stated above. It's not a far stretch to see the collapse as resultant of a domino effect.

You saw multiple floors explode in the demolition wave. Quoted from http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html

"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."
The official theory is based on something that didn't happen. If a single floor collapsed in each 'link of the domino chain' it would work. But the pressure was from multiple demolition waves at different areas of many floors simultaneously. The domino effect did not occur.

It's not that mysterious why the debris was powdery and not giant chunks all over.

That wasn't the focus but since you mentioned it, how could compressed air grind concrete into powder and shoot it over a 600+ft radius without some kind of desolation method? Falling concrete does not break into powder. And why didn't the air pressure escape through the path of least resistance, the windows, instead of blasting everything, including steel and concrete reduced to a cloud of powder away?
Without demolition involved this seems mysterious.

It's not even that mysterious as to why some chunks that did survive only did so by being hurled (by the massive downward force) outward.

The force of the upper floors falling could not cause large steel girders and chunks of concrete to be shot into buildings across the street at 70mph. The pressure would blow out windows but elements of the structure would fall with the pile driver. I don't understand your logic.

As the video repeats the collapse over and over again, and little arrows get drawn pointing to "strange" or "unexplained" things, I see those things and think "no, it makes sense it'd have done that."

Why? I just can't see your reasoning.
How did the collapse pressure destroy floors above the crash?

The video also mentions there's no pile driver to create enough force to cause the chain of collapses. The upper floors exploded and didn't leave one. Where did the mass come from?

I don't see the squibs as explosions, either. It's just what happens when that much weight is applied to that particular building. It makes it look like mini-detonations, but really it's just the concrete splintering under the weight.

What are you basing that on?

A squib is visible in the right picture^. Why did air pressure go down several stories and burst out of that, and only that spot? Shouldn't it burst out a wider weak area where the pressure is suppose to be concentrated?

Besides, the video is concentrating on the last few stories as the collapse is at its ending point. At that point in the collapse the debris field which he find so "odd" is not very odd, considering how many stories of debris has added up by that point.

There are tall buildings in the fore ground. That showed almost the entire collapse. The debris required to cause the pressure should be in and near the tower's foot print. Not spread over a huge area.

The official theory (by the way, why are you calling it official?), even if it had happened that way, only presents an alternative to the controlled demolition theory but doesn't disprove it.

Basically until they build another WTC, exactly like the original, then fly a plane into it, just like on 9/11l, and it DOESN'T collapse just like the one in 9/11, well I really cannot see myself entertaining the possibility that the collapse was in any way unusual, or somehow not the result of the plane impact alone.

I put a lot of effort into this but I can't do that for you. A realist starts a pessimist and ends an optimist. I have a strong belief that a problem can be fixed as what it is but not as how I want to see it.

 

[Sucumbio]

Generally the simplest explanation is the correct one. It's not as if the buildings weren't designed with plane impact in mind. But for 737's not 767's. It just wasn't meant to take that kind of abuse. High velocity impact, raging fire... I mean these were TALL buildings, twice the height of anything else in NYC. Way back in the day the Empire state building was hit by a US bomber. Same kinda deal, huge hole in the side of the building, big fire. But they were able to extinguish the flames quickly enough to prevent any structural fatigue, and the impact itself did not compromise the structure. Maybe if they'd been able to get fire crews up there quickly enough they could have saved it. But it was too high up, and they were so busy helping people escape...

I don't want to write off necessarily what AE911's have set forth, I just tend to think that they're looking too deeply into the footage. Perhaps if they could make computer models using the original building's specs and the specs of a 767, the amount of fuel involved, the speed, etc... and -reproduce- the effects, even in a lab, I'd buy it. Without that though, it'll be tough to accept.

Not to mention there were existing reports before Bush took office about this attack. bin Laden wanted those towers down.

I also thought of another thing too. Lets assume for a moment that this -was- a planned demolition, and that the plane crashes were meant to camouflage it.

1.) Planned demolitions take weeks-months to prepare for. How was it that the building was rigged to explode without anyone noticing? I mean, it'd take 1 man thousands of hours of work to get it done. Day in and day out, round the clock work, painstakingly preparing the giant building for destruction. 2 men, half the time. To do it quickly (and quietly) enough without a single solitary person noticing seems impossible. There were enough survivors too, who'd definitely have said something like "yeah, come to think of it, there were these strange guys coming and going for about 2 months prior, kept cutting holes in the walls and sticking blocks of white play-doh to them.

2.) Why wait until that specific moment? The planes had hit, why wait that exact time? Why wait until only SOME of the people have escaped, and not all, all those police and firemen, etc. Why wait at all? Could have blown it 10 minutes after impact. Or 20? Also, what is the supposed justification for doing this in the first place? So that we'd have an excuse to invade Iraq??? I mean, that doesn't even fit. We invaded bin Laden's stronghold, Afghanistan, first. When he announced he was going into Iraq next, I was furious, because I knew they had nothing to do with it, and he just wanted to finish what his daddy had started (and should have finished himself when he had the whole world backing him up.)

3.) How does this alternate theory account for the 3rd and 4th planes, one hitting the pentagon, and the other downed in a field with an assumed destination of the White House? I've seen the video of the pentagon a bunch, they though it was a missile, not a plane, but... there was a plane hijacked, and it did crash, and people on board were all killed. So... what's the deal, were all 4 meant as a diversion from the planned demolitions of just the WTC?