9/11 - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

9/11
in United States

This was a event that changed American history forever, far more impacting than the 2016 Presidential Election, and the 2018 MSD School Shooting.



These two grand iconic American buildings collapsed, which their collapse would spark fear and intense anger in millions of Americans. I was young at this time and did not comprehend what was happening, but there are still many questions surrounding the events of 9/11. How the buildings collapsed, how the planes hit the towers, what REALLY hit the pentagon, and what was left in a hole in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. What do you think about these theories? And what were you doing on this day?
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

"A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • It was a terrorist attack, like any other, differing only in the scope. While definitely a sad event, I do not think it justified the assault on individual freedoms Bush'es administration launched as a result. Democracy is tested best just by this kind of attacks: will people abandon their ideals in the face of fear and danger, or will they defend them to the end? In this case, sadly, the answer was closer to the former than the latter.

    As horrible as the death of 3000 innocent people was, thinking about the following fact: every day on Earth over 150,000 people die. We never shed tears over this statistic, but we are willing to violate our basic constitutional values over the death of 50 times less people. 

    Maybe we should spend less time mourning the dead (as if mourning them is going to make them feel better), and more time thinking about our irrationality and what we can do about it.
    Zombieguy1987Polaris95
  • @MayCaesar this is exactly why I say Osama won 9/11. Large loss of life, bog down the US in pointless wars, destabalize the middle East. But it's not PC (patriotically correct) to say this
    Zombieguy1987Polaris95
  • @MayCaesar this is exactly why I say Osama won 9/11. Large loss of life, bog down the US in pointless wars, destabalize the middle East. But it's not PC (patriotically correct) to say this
    This is one of the main reasons it was a false flag. TPTB set themselves a boogeyman, in this case, an old man in a cave fortress on dialysis halfway across the earth, with a sat phone and laptop directed the largest attack on the most heavily guarded airspace in the world, where 12 men, who were armed with Dollar tree boxcutters and no previous flight experience hijacked planes and flew wildly off course for over an hour unabated, and the pundits knew exactly who did it within minutes.
    Zombieguy1987George_Horse
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Erfisflat at it again with the tin foil

    First wildfires now 9/11

    What's next? The Titanic was an inside job!?
  • It was a terrorist attack by the Saudi Arabians. The war that followed was about oil. The “terrorists” (yes, I know that there were real terrorists involved) were a scapegoat for oil. 
    Zombieguy1987
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • “This is one of the main reasons it was a false flag. TPTB set themselves a boogeyman, in this case, an old man in a cave fortress on dialysis halfway across the earth, with a sat phone and laptop directed the largest attack”

    * Directed a plan in which 20 ish people were funded and were largely autonomous and needed little external “direction”

    “on the most heavily guarded airspace in the world,”

    - guarded against foreign military bomber and fighter attacks - not the thousands of commercial airliners that fly each other

    “where 12 men, who were armed with Dollar tree boxcutters”

    - 3 - 4 men armed with stabbing weapons, at a time when people hijacked planes to make political points, not to kill everyone.

    “and no previous flight experience “

    - Except For the hours of flight training on the planes, and ignoring that they flew the easiest to fly part of the flight - the bit between take off and landing.


    “hijacked planes and flew wildly off course for over an hour unabated”

    - in a completely new and unknown scenario where Hijacked planes are stolen - transponders turned off - with no communication - layers of bureaucracy and coordination between military civilian radar and control rooms - in several air traffic control centres - preventing timely information about which of the
    100’s of planes in the airspace are the ones the jets have to look at - together with physical distance jets had to travel- meant that the planes went unintercepted after ATC had determine they had been hijacked for:

    26 minutes,  12 minutes, 41 minutes (13 minutes from military being notified), and 27 minutes 

    “and the pundits knew exactly who did it within minutes.”

    - pundits listed the FBIs most wanted, and the head of the only group who has ever attacked the World Trade Center before - kinda obvious!



    Listing the facts and not misrepresentating things makes it sound much less like a conspiracy!
    Zombieguy1987
  • "......but there are still many questions surrounding the events of 9/11. How the buildings collapsed, how the planes hit the towers, what REALLY hit the pentagon, and what was left in a hole in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. What do you think about these theories? And what were you doing on this day?"

    You didn't make it clear as to where these "questions" are coming from.
    By your tone, you seem to be suggesting that:
     * there is doubt as to how the Twin Towers collapsed and how the planes hit them.
     * something other than a plane hit the Pentagon.
     * there is something other than what was found in a hole in a field.

    Do you care to elaborate as to what these "questions" are and who made them or, are you just trying to make unfounded and spurious conspiracy theories just for the heck of it?

    @George_Horse
  • @Erfisflat at it again with the tin foil

    First wildfires now 9/11

    What's next? The Titanic was an inside job!?
    Thats old hat.
    https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/6103/#Comment_6103
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Zombieguy1987


    He appears to be the site buffoon and most his opinions come from You Tube conspiracy channels , incidentally he also believes the earth is covered in a ..... Dome .....
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1555 Pts
    edited September 12
    "You didn't make it clear as to where these "questions" are coming from.
    By your tone, you seem to be suggesting that:
     * there is doubt as to how the Twin Towers collapsed and how the planes hit them."

    This question comes from over 3,000 architects and engineers, amongst others, who are knowledgeable in physics, for example:

    KAMAL OBEID, S.E.
    Structural Engineer
    "A localized failure in a steel-framed building cannot cause a catastrophic collapse like a house of cards at free-fall acceleration."

    SCOTT GRAINGER, F.SFPE
    Fire Protection Engineer
    "All three collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform."

    OSWALD RENDON-HERRORO, PH.D.
    Forensic Engineer
    “Building 7 came down very smoothly. NIST tried to prove the ridiculous theory that this was started by one column.”

    KATHY MCGRADE
    B.S. Metallurgical Engineering
    “In an office fire, you cannot generate enough heat to melt steel. And yet we have evidence of molten iron in the rubble pile.”

    DANIEL BARNUM, FAIA
    Architect
    “I have known from day one that the buildings were imploded and could not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes"

    ROLAND ANGLE, C.E.
    Civil Engineer
    "The official explanation of the failures defies known scientific methods of analysis and is untenable in the face of logical investigation"

    https://www.ae911truth.org

    " * something other than a plane hit the Pentagon."

    Matching the damage to the Pentagon up with ANY passenger plane, let alone the purported 747 that allegedly hit the Pentagon is impossible. 


    The Pentagon is one of the most protected places on the face of the flat Earth. There are more CCTV cameras covering the Pentagon than any other place in the world. Yet there is not one video released to the public that shows a Boeing 747 hitting the Pentagon. This is all we get:



    @Wowsil
    George_HorseZombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @WordsMatter

    I would not say that Osama won 9/11; after all, 9/11 ultimately resulted in his demise, brought down two monstrous regimes on the Middle East and made life of countless terrorist groups in the region so much harder.

    But I do think that America lost 9/11. Just like with Lincoln during the Civil War, with WIlson during the World War 1 and with Roosevelt during the World War 2, the national crisis was resolved by the federal government grabbing a lot of power quickly under the excuse of harsh times justifying this "temporary" measure - instead of, following the example of Washington, saying, "No, this is a test to our democracy, and we will withstand it standing tall and holding on to our core values even more than before".

    The unspoken wisdom in politics is that it takes much less time for the system to adapt to an instance of infringement on people's rights, than it takes for it to recover from it. Unfortunately, the 9/11 story confirms it once again - and, in a way, all the encroachments on individual freedoms Obama's and Trump's administrations have committed are merely the continuation of the trend set at the moment when Americans said, "Security is more important than liberty".
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar I'd still call that a win. Other terrorist organizations filled the vacuum, but the taliban is actually starting to turn into a more positive force in the world, more concerned with governing with support of the people rather than governing with fear, but I digress. I see it as David vs Goliath, sure he died and his organization severely crippled, but he stoked so much more hate for America thanks to the wars, which I don't think Hussain should have been toppled. He made one of the largest impacts on the trajectory of America ever. I don't think his goal was ever to topple America.. I think he would be very happy with the results.
  • @Erfisflat ;

    Well, I was right! He actually believes the Titanic was an inside job!


    Joeseph
  • @Erfisflat ;

    Well, I was right! He actually believes the Titanic was an inside job!


    And you can't address anything I said.

    Maybe a video demonstration will help you avoid making this useless fallacy most used by 5th graders in the future, and maybe help you create a more meaningful post.

    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Erfisflat ;

     No, I'm not making a useless fallacy, what you said was insulting to the people who died on Titanic. Not a single Titanic documentary and/or other source has said what your theory is. Just because someone made a book about an event that happened 14 years later is really. really. REALLY. dumb.

    This makes the Titanic/Olympic swap theory look sane!
  • For the conspiracy nuts, your looking at things the wrong way around.

    - Postulate what the government wanted to achIeve.

    - Work out the simplest plan to achieve it, with the fewest people, the biggest probability of success, and the largest chance of not being discovered.

    - then work out what 9/11 would need to have required if it was an inside job. What needed to go right, what could go wrong, how many people were involved, how much, how did it come together, how did the individuals all manage to coordinate, what it would need for it never to have been found out... etc.

    Write both as the plot of a movie: and see which is believable.




    WordsMatterZombieguy1987
  • Gooberry said:
    For the conspiracy nuts, your looking at things the wrong way around.

    - Postulate what the government wanted to achIeve.

    - Work out the simplest plan to achieve it, with the fewest people, the biggest probability of success, and the largest chance of not being discovered.

    - then work out what 9/11 would need to have required if it was an inside job. What needed to go right, what could go wrong, how many people were involved, how much, how did it come together, how did the individuals all manage to coordinate, what it would need for it never to have been found out... etc.

    Write both as the plot of a movie: and see which is believable.




    I don't think you are looking at it the right way. It isn't the government we have to blame, they are merely a scapegoat, the middle man, like the president. Someone put in place for us to blame. They don't care if we discover who "did it". They actually want us to know, not all of us, just the ones who actually have their common sense still left. It's a giant game for them, a ritual even.

    Your speculations, or request of it, does nothing for the overwhelming evidence, no matter how you spin it. They know they'll always have the people like you with a Stockholm syndrome for damage control.


    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/467992/Illuminati-card-game-predicted-September-11-World-War-3

    George_HorseZombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Erfisflat ;

    Conspiracy theories normally involve crafting explanations that superficially explain the evidence that normally has a complex but mundane explanation, but is combined with unsupported speculation and asserted conjecture offered up without evidence to try and explain the glaring logical flaws in the explanation that do not make any sense. They’re normally only believed because the narrative is more emotionally satisfying than reality.


    For example, it may superficially  explained as to why the planes weren’t intercepted, or why the building collapsed - facts that also have other mundane and reasonable explanations. However, when things don’t make sense some unsupported “cover up” is invoked - when obvious evidence should exist but doesn’t.


    In addition, a big problem with conspiracies is that they are often not coherent explanations - with obvious contradictions, or problems that strain credulity - why pretend to hijack and Crash planes into two buildings, and plant explosives - risking the pilot not hitting where the explosives are, deactivating or prematurely detonating them in some way, or having them discovered before the designated date. Obviously, no rational or intelligent person would suggest this over other alternatives - invalidating the conspiracy theory.



    The right way of thinking about things: is not to accept whatever drivel explanation Johnny Tinfoil blogs on Monday.


    The best way is to determine:


    1.) whether it explains all, or most the facts.

    2.) is it a coherent explanation or does it introduce more problems and complexity than it resolves.

    3.) how much unsupported or unevidenced conjecture is required for the “theory” to be believed.

    4.) is the description coherent - or does the basic explanation defy any semblance of credulity when you examine it.


    It is unsurprising to me, that you don’t feel that’s a valid approach.





    Zombieguy1987Erfisflat
  • The reason that there is no video of a Boeing 747 hitting the Pentagon is that no such thing ever happened.
    However, a Boeing 757-223 did hit the Pentagon.
    Because that particular part of the Pentagon was under construction, there was minimal video surveillance.
    It pays to get one's facts correct, doesn't it?
    @Erfisflat
    ErfisflatZombieguy1987
  • “This is one of the main reasons it was a false flag. TPTB set themselves a boogeyman, in this case, an old man in a cave fortress on dialysis halfway across the earth, with a sat phone and laptop directed the largest attack”

    *" Directed a plan in which 20 ish people were funded and were largely autonomous and needed little external “direction”"

    “on the most heavily guarded airspace in the world,”

    - guarded against foreign military bomber and fighter attacks - not the thousands of commercial airliners that fly each other"

    False. NORAD had been set up nearly half a century earlier. 
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) was issued for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.

    “where 12 men, who were armed with Dollar tree boxcutters”

    "- 3 - 4 men armed with stabbing weapons, at a time when people hijacked planes to make political points, not to kill everyone."

    Just so happens, on the same day, an exercise called "Vigilant Guardian" was to commence an hour after the attacks that simulated hijackings.

    Another strange coincidence was an episode of "Lone Gunman" aired just months before the attack, where nearly the exact same scenario played out.

    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/543972/9-11-X-Files-hijacked-plane-Twin-Towers/amp

    After both the buildings in New York were attacked, flight 77 was in direct line of the Pentagon, then, made a 360° circle into the side of it.



    “and no previous flight experience “

    - Except For the hours of flight training on the planes, and ignoring that they flew the easiest to fly part of the flight - the bit between take off and landing."

    A few hours of assisted flight training on single engine planes, multiple suspects even flunked basic training, and never flew at all.

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/lifestyle/people/sdut-garza-flight-instructor-hijacker-september-11-2015jan25-story.html

    The opponent claims it is easiest, but to suddenly take control of a plane mid flight, it would be near impossible to get your bearings and determine your exact position in relation to your target(s) perform a 360° 8,000 foot descending corkscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, a few feet off the ground and smack into the Pentagon. Where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the $2,300,000,000,000,000 (trillion) that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001. Flight instructors said that pilot "...shouldn't even be in the air." And were "..amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon...He could not fly AT ALL."



    https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0801hanjourbad#a0801hanjourbad

    “hijacked planes and flew wildly off course for over an hour unabated”

    - in a completely new and unknown scenario where Hijacked planes are stolen"

    False, the administration had multiple warnings years ahead of time.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/cia-directors-documentary-911-bush-213353

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58615-2004Jul17.html?noredirect=on

    https://web.archive.org/web/20121015182609/http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001110635/0001110635_0001.gif

     - transponders turned off - with no communication - layers of bureaucracy and coordination between military civilian radar and control rooms - in several air traffic control centres - preventing timely information about which of the
    100’s of planes in the airspace are the ones the jets have to look at - together with physical distance jets had to travel- meant that the planes went unintercepted after ATC had determine they had been hijacked for:

    26 minutes,  12 minutes, 41 minutes (13 minutes from military being notified), and 27 minutes 

    “and the pundits knew exactly who did it within minutes.”

    - pundits listed the FBIs most wanted, and the head of the only group who has ever attacked the World Trade Center before - kinda obvious!


    Listing the facts and not misrepresentating things makes it sound much less like a conspiracy!
    George_Horse
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1555 Pts
    edited September 16
    Wowsil said:
    The reason that there is no video of a Boeing 747 hitting the Pentagon is that no such thing ever happened.
    However, a Boeing 757-223 did hit the Pentagon.
    Because that particular part of the Pentagon was under construction, there was minimal video surveillance.
    It pays to get one's facts correct, doesn't it?
    @Erfisflat
    So, your claim that "that particular part of the pentagon was under construction" which goes unsourced, the just, stopped all the CCTV cameras in and around the area, including surveillance of surrounding businesses? No. The 757 hit the budget analysis office where the army was conducting an investigation of $2.3 trillion dollars missing. Does it pay to make sh!t up and ignore half of my argument? @wowsil
    https://classroom.synonym.com/were-9-11-pentagon-tapes-seized-fbi-18501.html
    George_Horse
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1555 Pts
    edited September 14
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat ;

    Conspiracy theories normally involve crafting explanations that superficially explain the evidence that normally has a complex but mundane explanation, but is combined with unsupported speculation and asserted conjecture offered up without evidence to try and explain the glaring logical flaws in the explanation that do not make any sense. They’re normally only believed because the narrative is more emotionally satisfying than reality.


    For example, it may superficially  explained as to why the planes weren’t intercepted, or why the building collapsed - facts that also have other mundane and reasonable explanations. However, when things don’t make sense some unsupported “cover up” is invoked - when obvious evidence should exist but doesn’t.


    In addition, a big problem with conspiracies is that they are often not coherent explanations - with obvious contradictions, or problems that strain credulity - why pretend to hijack and Crash planes into two buildings, and plant explosives - risking the pilot not hitting where the explosives are, deactivating or prematurely detonating them in some way, or having them discovered before the designated date. Obviously, no rational or intelligent person would suggest this over other alternatives - invalidating the conspiracy theory.



    The right way of thinking about things: is not to accept whatever drivel explanation Johnny Tinfoil blogs on Monday.


    The best way is to determine:


    1.) whether it explains all, or most the facts.

    2.) is it a coherent explanation or does it introduce more problems and complexity than it resolves.

    3.) how much unsupported or unevidenced conjecture is required for the “theory” to be believed.

    4.) is the description coherent - or does the basic explanation defy any semblance of credulity when you examine it.


    It is unsurprising to me, that you don’t feel that’s a valid approach.





    For someone who claims to have all the "facts", you sure do make a ton of unsourced claims, this is by definition "without evidence", the very accusations you throw at my arguments! Not surprising indeed. 

    Let's of course continue to ignore the fact that thousands of qualified experts in the field say that the manner that these building collapsed is impossible.
    George_Horse
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer


  • For all the nay-sayers, that is what happens when all of the structures supports aren't taken out at exactly the same time.

    https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/government/2017/11/911-destruction-controlled-demolition-fact-fiction
    George_Horse
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Erfisflat

    The airspace is heavily guarded by radar, and agains foreign fighters and bombers attacking the country.


    There are “plans” and policies, to deal with hijacked planes - requiring specific authorizations - shared information - etc: but the implication that NORAD was vigilantly scanning the skies for hijackings and thus the idea that it would be likely hijackings would not have gone through - is pure fiction.


    Arguing that NORAD exists - or that there is a particular strategy in place to deal with hijackings is laughably irrelevant to support your contention.



    Box cutters are an effective stabbing weapon. Multiple individuals with stabbing weapons could reasonably take over a plane of unarmed civilians - especially when they didn’t not necessarily think they were in immediate danger.


    Your implication that it’s unreasonable to conclude that were possible - is made up as a result.


    I’m not sure why you believe what was in TV at the time is relevant to refuting my argument, but it seems like a completely irrelevant red herring to the point I’m making.



    In addition, you seem to not be paying much attention to the fact that the hijackers received training on Boeing flight simulators. The idea that they only received training on single engine planes, is a lie.


    http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf


    As I said, you don’t have to be a very good pilot if you don’t need to take off, land or fly particularly well: and the idea that these attackers had to be proven aviation experts to believe it possible for them to steer a plane into a building seems nonsensical.



    Now finally, at the time: no one has hijacked planes and used them as weapons. This is factually correct - as I can find no other example of this hijacking was regularly. 


    While there were warnings - this hadn’t translated to any substantial warnings at the civilian arc level, or the military interception level, or on matters of policy with regards to the people actually making the necessary decisions: when to inform the military, what to do, how to do it.


    Quite frankly for the reasons above, nothing you’ve said backs up any of the insane conclusions you’ve drawn.


    You’re making up wild conspiracies, based on drawing wild conclusions that the facts don’t implicitly support, cherry picking data and outright lies.



    Especially when a counter explanation is provided just by a wikipedia search.



    As I pointed out: this is not the way to go about coming up with a valid position.




    Now: if you think ignoring all the facts and major flaws in your argument whilst inventing unsupported, unevidenced speculation to explain why your explanation doesn’t fit the facts, by all means go ahead and explain why. But we both know that’s retarded.




    At this point, this is frankly absurd: I could say they sky is blue and you would go onto a ranting post about how I provide no evidence.


    Frankly, I’m not sure what type of evidence I would need to provide to justify the claim “unsupported conjecture is not a good basis for a valid position”, nor what evidence you would have to provide in order to show otherwise.


    Do I really have to present evidence that box cutters are sharp?


    Do you want me to post citations that there were 22 hijackers?


    Are you objecting to any of the times - based on an easily confirmable Wikipedia timeline?





    This would be like me not answering any of your points: but asserting that you’ve provided no evidence that the twin towers even existed...



    This is just a rhetorical tactic: you’re making vague and non specific objections about me not providing evidence because you know the facts are accurate and can’t really argue them.


    If you were specific and said what you thought was false, and unsupported: then I could make you look like a dumba** by posting a basic Wikipedia page showing how obvious the fact is.




    It seems you’re really good at rhetorical ploys, subject changing and tactical idiocy: not so great at the “logical argument” part.





  • @WordsMatter

    In my view, all of these things would have happened regardless, maybe later than they did, but still. What 9/11 really changed that would not change (or, at least, would take a different event of a similar scale to change) otherwise is the people's interaction with the government. Just like in case of Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt, the collective consciousness shift happened once again, with people seeing the government as more of the powerful protector of their lives, than their servant and the protector of their rights. The US became slightly closer to an oligarchy versus a republic than they were before - although still very far away from becoming an actual oligarchy, let alone a dictatorship. It is the events like this that, accumulated over centuries, can destroy a democracy. Not terrorist attacks or wars themselves, but people overreacting to them and forgetting about something more important than resolving the short-term problem: long-term core principles of the societal organization.

    It is very easy to introduce a few regulations encroaching on people's freedoms in the name of fighting against terrorism. It is much-much harder to revoke those regulations later, once people are used to them and take them for granted.
  • Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    The airspace is heavily guarded by radar, and agains foreign fighters and bombers attacking the country.


    There are “plans” and policies, to deal with hijacked planes - requiring specific authorizations - shared information - etc: but the implication that NORAD was vigilantly scanning the skies for hijackings and thus the idea that it would be likely hijackings would not have gone through - is pure fiction.


    Arguing that NORAD exists - or that there is a particular strategy in place to deal with hijackings is laughably irrelevant to support your contention.



    Box cutters are an effective stabbing weapon. Multiple individuals with stabbing weapons could reasonably take over a plane of unarmed civilians - especially when they didn’t not necessarily think they were in immediate danger.


    Your implication that it’s unreasonable to conclude that were possible - is made up as a result.


    I’m not sure why you believe what was in TV at the time is relevant to refuting my argument, but it seems like a completely irrelevant red herring to the point I’m making.



    In addition, you seem to not be paying much attention to the fact that the hijackers received training on Boeing flight simulators. The idea that they only received training on single engine planes, is a lie.


    http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf


    As I said, you don’t have to be a very good pilot if you don’t need to take off, land or fly particularly well: and the idea that these attackers had to be proven aviation experts to believe it possible for them to steer a plane into a building seems nonsensical.



    Now finally, at the time: no one has hijacked planes and used them as weapons. This is factually correct - as I can find no other example of this hijacking was regularly. 


    While there were warnings - this hadn’t translated to any substantial warnings at the civilian arc level, or the military interception level, or on matters of policy with regards to the people actually making the necessary decisions: when to inform the military, what to do, how to do it.


    Quite frankly for the reasons above, nothing you’ve said backs up any of the insane conclusions you’ve drawn.


    You’re making up wild conspiracies, based on drawing wild conclusions that the facts don’t implicitly support, cherry picking data and outright lies.



    Especially when a counter explanation is provided just by a wikipedia search.



    As I pointed out: this is not the way to go about coming up with a valid position.




    Now: if you think ignoring all the facts and major flaws in your argument whilst inventing unsupported, unevidenced speculation to explain why your explanation doesn’t fit the facts, by all means go ahead and explain why. But we both know that’s retarded.




    At this point, this is frankly absurd: I could say they sky is blue and you would go onto a ranting post about how I provide no evidence.


    Frankly, I’m not sure what type of evidence I would need to provide to justify the claim “unsupported conjecture is not a good basis for a valid position”, nor what evidence you would have to provide in order to show otherwise.


    Do I really have to present evidence that box cutters are sharp?


    Do you want me to post citations that there were 22 hijackers?


    Are you objecting to any of the times - based on an easily confirmable Wikipedia timeline?





    This would be like me not answering any of your points: but asserting that you’ve provided no evidence that the twin towers even existed...



    This is just a rhetorical tactic: you’re making vague and non specific objections about me not providing evidence because you know the facts are accurate and can’t really argue them.


    If you were specific and said what you thought was false, and unsupported: then I could make you look like a dumba** by posting a basic Wikipedia page showing how obvious the fact is.




    It seems you’re really good at rhetorical ploys, subject changing and tactical idiocy: not so great at the “logical argument” part.





    I scanned it over to see if my guess was correct, and I was! 

    "Let's of course continue to ignore the fact that thousands of qualified experts in the field say that the manner that these building collapsed is impossible."


    George_Horse
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    The airspace is heavily guarded by radar, and agains foreign fighters and bombers attacking the country.


    There are “plans” and policies, to deal with hijacked planes - requiring specific authorizations - shared information - etc: but the implication that NORAD was vigilantly scanning the skies for hijackings and thus the idea that it would be likely hijackings would not have gone through - is pure fiction.


    Arguing that NORAD exists - or that there is a particular strategy in place to deal with hijackings is laughably irrelevant to support your contention.



    Box cutters are an effective stabbing weapon. Multiple individuals with stabbing weapons could reasonably take over a plane of unarmed civilians - especially when they didn’t not necessarily think they were in immediate danger.


    Your implication that it’s unreasonable to conclude that were possible - is made up as a result.


    I’m not sure why you believe what was in TV at the time is relevant to refuting my argument, but it seems like a completely irrelevant red herring to the point I’m making.



    In addition, you seem to not be paying much attention to the fact that the hijackers received training on Boeing flight simulators. The idea that they only received training on single engine planes, is a lie.


    http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf


    As I said, you don’t have to be a very good pilot if you don’t need to take off, land or fly particularly well: and the idea that these attackers had to be proven aviation experts to believe it possible for them to steer a plane into a building seems nonsensical.



    Now finally, at the time: no one has hijacked planes and used them as weapons. This is factually correct - as I can find no other example of this hijacking was regularly. 


    While there were warnings - this hadn’t translated to any substantial warnings at the civilian arc level, or the military interception level, or on matters of policy with regards to the people actually making the necessary decisions: when to inform the military, what to do, how to do it.


    Quite frankly for the reasons above, nothing you’ve said backs up any of the insane conclusions you’ve drawn.


    You’re making up wild conspiracies, based on drawing wild conclusions that the facts don’t implicitly support, cherry picking data and outright lies.



    Especially when a counter explanation is provided just by a wikipedia search.



    As I pointed out: this is not the way to go about coming up with a valid position.




    Now: if you think ignoring all the facts and major flaws in your argument whilst inventing unsupported, unevidenced speculation to explain why your explanation doesn’t fit the facts, by all means go ahead and explain why. But we both know that’s retarded.




    At this point, this is frankly absurd: I could say they sky is blue and you would go onto a ranting post about how I provide no evidence.


    Frankly, I’m not sure what type of evidence I would need to provide to justify the claim “unsupported conjecture is not a good basis for a valid position”, nor what evidence you would have to provide in order to show otherwise.


    Do I really have to present evidence that box cutters are sharp?


    Do you want me to post citations that there were 22 hijackers?


    Are you objecting to any of the times - based on an easily confirmable Wikipedia timeline?





    This would be like me not answering any of your points: but asserting that you’ve provided no evidence that the twin towers even existed...



    This is just a rhetorical tactic: you’re making vague and non specific objections about me not providing evidence because you know the facts are accurate and can’t really argue them.


    If you were specific and said what you thought was false, and unsupported: then I could make you look like a dumba** by posting a basic Wikipedia page showing how obvious the fact is.




    It seems you’re really good at rhetorical ploys, subject changing and tactical idiocy: not so great at the “logical argument” part.





    I scanned it over to see if my guess was correct, and I was! 

    "Let's of course continue to ignore the fact that thousands of qualified experts in the field say that the manner that these building collapsed is impossible."


    Wait, 


    So you ignore what I pointed out about:


    • the complexity of the operation being less than you imply.
    • That boxcutters are pretty effective stabbing weapons, and as such the hijack is believable.
    • That what was on TV has no bearing on the above.
    • That hijackers were trained for hours on Boeing flight simulators - despite your claims otherwise.
    • That the defense apparatus is set up to defend the nation - but not from hijacks. And neither Norads existence, nor having a basic policy in place for dealing with hijackings change that. 
    • That pundits pointing quickly to the fbis most wanted - who previously attacked the WTC and organized suicide strikes, is not a big leap
    • That your claims about how long jets were “unimpeded” were grossly understated and - in reality - were actually mostly very short from when the military were informed to the jet was crashed.
    • That just because administrations were warned about a particular type of attack a does not mean the individuals involved in the decision making anticipated or were trained for this eventuality.
    • That there is a general lack of believability of conspiracy due to the size and complexity of the conspiracy, together with the fact that anyone who wanted to achieve similar aims could have conducted a much smaller and much different attack.
    • That the number of points of failure for your claimed conspiracy are so substantial to be a clearly terrible plan for a smart Uber-group
    • That you’re mostly using “no evidence” as a rhetorical ploy where you can pretend you’ve argued against a fact that is actually obviously supported - without actually pointing out.
    • That most conspiracy theorist throw out inaccurate claims, and unsubstantiated conjecture to explain the major flaws in their position.



    You ignore all of those points: and through some weird logic, because I didn’t explicitly respond yet another claim which a) you offer no support for, b) is essentially both an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity...


    you claim “I am the one ignoring things?”





    As I said, logic doesn’t appear to be your strong point.

  • Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    The airspace is heavily guarded by radar, and agains foreign fighters and bombers attacking the country.


    There are “plans” and policies, to deal with hijacked planes - requiring specific authorizations - shared information - etc: but the implication that NORAD was vigilantly scanning the skies for hijackings and thus the idea that it would be likely hijackings would not have gone through - is pure fiction.


    Arguing that NORAD exists - or that there is a particular strategy in place to deal with hijackings is laughably irrelevant to support your contention.



    Box cutters are an effective stabbing weapon. Multiple individuals with stabbing weapons could reasonably take over a plane of unarmed civilians - especially when they didn’t not necessarily think they were in immediate danger.


    Your implication that it’s unreasonable to conclude that were possible - is made up as a result.


    I’m not sure why you believe what was in TV at the time is relevant to refuting my argument, but it seems like a completely irrelevant red herring to the point I’m making.



    In addition, you seem to not be paying much attention to the fact that the hijackers received training on Boeing flight simulators. The idea that they only received training on single engine planes, is a lie.


    http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf


    As I said, you don’t have to be a very good pilot if you don’t need to take off, land or fly particularly well: and the idea that these attackers had to be proven aviation experts to believe it possible for them to steer a plane into a building seems nonsensical.



    Now finally, at the time: no one has hijacked planes and used them as weapons. This is factually correct - as I can find no other example of this hijacking was regularly. 


    While there were warnings - this hadn’t translated to any substantial warnings at the civilian arc level, or the military interception level, or on matters of policy with regards to the people actually making the necessary decisions: when to inform the military, what to do, how to do it.


    Quite frankly for the reasons above, nothing you’ve said backs up any of the insane conclusions you’ve drawn.


    You’re making up wild conspiracies, based on drawing wild conclusions that the facts don’t implicitly support, cherry picking data and outright lies.



    Especially when a counter explanation is provided just by a wikipedia search.



    As I pointed out: this is not the way to go about coming up with a valid position.




    Now: if you think ignoring all the facts and major flaws in your argument whilst inventing unsupported, unevidenced speculation to explain why your explanation doesn’t fit the facts, by all means go ahead and explain why. But we both know that’s retarded.




    At this point, this is frankly absurd: I could say they sky is blue and you would go onto a ranting post about how I provide no evidence.


    Frankly, I’m not sure what type of evidence I would need to provide to justify the claim “unsupported conjecture is not a good basis for a valid position”, nor what evidence you would have to provide in order to show otherwise.


    Do I really have to present evidence that box cutters are sharp?


    Do you want me to post citations that there were 22 hijackers?


    Are you objecting to any of the times - based on an easily confirmable Wikipedia timeline?





    This would be like me not answering any of your points: but asserting that you’ve provided no evidence that the twin towers even existed...



    This is just a rhetorical tactic: you’re making vague and non specific objections about me not providing evidence because you know the facts are accurate and can’t really argue them.


    If you were specific and said what you thought was false, and unsupported: then I could make you look like a dumba** by posting a basic Wikipedia page showing how obvious the fact is.




    It seems you’re really good at rhetorical ploys, subject changing and tactical idiocy: not so great at the “logical argument” part.





    I scanned it over to see if my guess was correct, and I was! 

    "Let's of course continue to ignore the fact that thousands of qualified experts in the field say that the manner that these building collapsed is impossible."


    Wait, 


    So you ignore what I pointed out about:


    • the complexity of the operation being less than you imply.
    • That boxcutters are pretty effective stabbing weapons, and as such the hijack is believable.
    • That what was on TV has no bearing on the above.
    • That hijackers were trained for hours on Boeing flight simulators - despite your claims otherwise.
    • That the defense apparatus is set up to defend the nation - but not from hijacks. And neither Norads existence, nor having a basic policy in place for dealing with hijackings change that. 
    • That pundits pointing quickly to the fbis most wanted - who previously attacked the WTC and organized suicide strikes, is not a big leap
    • That your claims about how long jets were “unimpeded” were grossly understated and - in reality - were actually mostly very short from when the military were informed to the jet was crashed.
    • That just because administrations were warned about a particular type of attack a does not mean the individuals involved in the decision making anticipated or were trained for this eventuality.
    • That there is a general lack of believability of conspiracy due to the size and complexity of the conspiracy, together with the fact that anyone who wanted to achieve similar aims could have conducted a much smaller and much different attack.
    • That the number of points of failure for your claimed conspiracy are so substantial to be a clearly terrible plan for a smart Uber-group
    • That you’re mostly using “no evidence” as a rhetorical ploy where you can pretend you’ve argued against a fact that is actually obviously supported - without actually pointing out.
    • That most conspiracy theorist throw out inaccurate claims, and unsubstantiated conjecture to explain the major flaws in their position.



    You ignore all of those points: and through some weird logic, because I didn’t explicitly respond yet another claim which a) you offer no support for, b) is essentially both an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity...


    you claim “I am the one ignoring things?”





    As I said, logic doesn’t appear to be your strong point.

  • @MayCaesar well can go buy an island somewhere where we don't have citizens actively inviting the government and tech companies deeper and deeper into their personal lives? It's really disheartening how many people willingly give up their agency or privacy while few of us are screaming about the dangers. 
  • "The airspace is heavily guarded by radar, and agains foreign fighters and bombers attacking the country."

    Not only this, but the attack on the twin towers, not just one, but both, should have put the entire US military on high alert, an hour after the first plane hit the first building, the most protected building under the most protected airspace is attacked UNABATED.



    "There are “plans” and policies, to deal with hijacked planes - requiring specific authorizations - shared information - etc: but the implication that NORAD was vigilantly scanning the skies for hijackings and thus the idea that it would be likely hijackings would not have gone through - is pure fiction."



    As I stated above, any plane discovered to be wildly off course, on a collision course with the Pentagon, shouldn't have come within 20 miles of it, let alone within 1 mile, circled, then again on a collision course.



    "Arguing that NORAD exists - or that there is a particular strategy in place to deal with hijackings is laughably irrelevant to support your contention."

    Is it? Why kick the stone? You just going to leave that as is? Why not explain why you assert this without explanation?



    "Box cutters are an effective stabbing weapon. Multiple individuals with stabbing weapons could reasonably take over a plane of unarmed civilians - especially when they didn’t not necessarily think they were in immediate danger."

    Civilians, maybe, but 10+ years military trained pilots, behind locked doors? You must not have had military in your family.

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-region-pilot-on-flight-11-was-everything-friend-2011sep10-story.html

    https://thepointsguy.com/news/remembering-the-8-pilots-and-25-flight-attendants-who-died-on-9-11/

    "Your implication that it’s unreasonable to conclude that were possible - is made up as a result."



    And you can assert your opinions as much as you like.



    "I’m not sure why you believe what was in TV at the time is relevant to refuting my argument, but it seems like a completely irrelevant red herring to the point I’m making."



    It is completely relevant, as the Pentagon was hit in the office where this investigation was occurring, and the $2.3 trillion dollars was subsequently forgot about.



    This is a motive.



    Are you going to try and ignore it? Along with the thousands of expert evaluations?



    "In addition, you seem to not be paying much attention to the fact that the hijackers received training on Boeing flight simulators. The idea that they only received training on single engine planes, is a lie.



    http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf"


    You strawman me, I never said that, regardless, simulators aren't actual planes. According to Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer and a pilot, (and contradictory to your nonsensical assertions made earlier)



    There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

    What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes...

    In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft...


    ...Take-offs—even landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy”, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist “outside” the cockpit.

    But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues, and is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)

    As I said, you don’t have to be a very good pilot if you don’t need to take off, land or fly particularly well: and the idea that these attackers had to be proven aviation experts to believe it possible for them to steer a plane into a building seems nonsensical."


    https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2010/08/13/nila-sagadevan-911-the-impossibility-of-flying-heavy-aircraft-without-training/

    So the statement you made earlier: "Except For the hours of flight training on the planes, and ignoring that they flew the easiest to fly part of the flight - the bit between take off and landing.", unless you can provide credentials the equivalent or better than his, can, as you say, be "ignored"





    "Now finally, at the time: no one has hijacked planes and used them as weapons. This is factually correct - as I can find no other example of this hijacking was regularly.

    Maybe not in the US, that we can find, but elsewhere this was happening.

    "While there were warnings - this hadn’t translated to any substantial warnings at the civilian arc level, or the military interception level, or on matters of policy with regards to the people actually making the necessary decisions: when to inform the military, what to do, how to do it."

    At least you acknowledge now that they were forewarned. The second part of your statement ignore the referenced arguments from before that you conceded to:

    "There are “plans” and policies, to deal with hijacked planes - requiring specific authorizations - shared information - ..."


    Contradictory to your earlier statement:

    “Arguing that NORAD exists - or that there is a particular strategy in place to deal with hijackings is laughably irrelevant to support your contention."

    So now, separately, you've conceded to "they were forewarned", when your statement was previously: "...completely new and unknown scenario where Hijacked planes are stolen" but, “then flipped flopped to: "There are “plans” and policies, to deal with hijacked planes - requiring specific authorizations - shared information - etc: "

    If we combine your “counter-arguments”, we can say that they were forewarned, and they had "plans" and policies to deal with hijacked planes, specifically to destroy those planes, and your flip flopping, contradictory arguments are destroyed, just as the planes should have been, had this not been an obvious inside job.

    "Quite frankly for the reasons above, nothing you’ve said backs up any of the insane conclusions you’ve drawn."



    Assertions that assume your arguments are irrefutable.



    "You’re making up wild conspiracies, based on drawing wild conclusions that the facts don’t implicitly support, cherry picking data and outright lies."



    I'm basing my arguments on well sourced material, and a position that any logical thinker would assume was correct.





    "Especially when a counter explanation is provided just by a wikipedia search."



    Pure and vague assertion, and basing your entire argument on "but, but, muh Wikipedia" or a single, lonely .gov site is not an argument.



    "Now: if you think ignoring all the facts and major flaws in your argument whilst inventing unsupported, unevidenced speculation to explain why your explanation doesn’t fit the facts, by all means go ahead and explain why. But we both know that’s retarded."



    We see who is providing facts, and expert opinions and who is ignorantly asserting their entire argument. My arguments are well-sourced, with evidence, and yours are pure assertions, and opinions based on your opinions.


    The back half of your post (in actuality, about 90% of your posts) is just the usual rhetorical banter, bragging, opinions, and ad hominem/verbal diarrhea. If I didn't address anything relevant or other than the above, please direct my attention to it.

    @Gooberry/Rammshutu

    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • What was that fallacy, @Zombieguy1987
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Gooberry, as for this statement:

    "...I didn’t explicitly respond yet another claim which a) you offer no support for, "

    The claim is supported by every relevant expert in every relevant field, as well as the thousands of examples of controlled demolition videos. 

    "b) is essentially both an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity"

    Not really, this is deffering to authority. At logically fallacious.com, we find this exception:

    "Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionallyIt is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

    The appeal to authority is more about claims that require evidence than about facts. For example, if your tour guide told you that Vatican City was founded February 11, 1929, and you accept that information as true, you are not committing a fallacy (because it is not in the context of argumentation) nor are you being unreasonable."



    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Erfisflat

    So let’s start off with the Military response.


    Unfortunately I don’t know what facts or information you’re basing your conclusions on. You’re not making any  specific claims about what the military should have done, how or why, Nor are you presenting any facts or evidence to support your accusations. Which is ironic as you seem adamant I am the one making “vague assertions”.


    What were the standing orders of the day? What are you expecting the Military to have done. What was their expected response, how would that have been carried out, and who would have been responsible for coordinating the various parties?


    Without any of these details, your claims here are mostly insinuations: you don’t provide any evidence or validation of what should have happened: you just are just emphatically stating that it didn’t.


    Even worse: it’s not even clear what you’re claiming beyond that. You seem to be claiming that the military didn’t do what it should: but make no specific claims about who should have done what, when. You don’t outline what you think the alternative explanation is, nor provide evidence that it happened. Strangely though: apparently I am the one asserting things. #thatsodd.


    This is important, as we know the specific individuals in all the key positions and the people around them: if you claim the FAA didn’t do something: then if you know what they didn’t do, it would be clear which person didn’t do it. That could be investigated and your claims could be verified. But I suspect that’s not what you want


    So before I begin: the only supporting arguments you’ve said as to why the military should have done something is that NORAD exists, and there were policies in places to do with hijacking.


    That’s not close to supporting your position, as just because policies and norad exist: it doesn’t mean they attack sufficient to deal with the threat: an argument of mine you misrepresented as me implying that they’re weren’t policies - a straw man.


    So now that we’ve outlines which part of your claims are unevidenced and unsupported, and left relatively vague: let’s go back to the facts.



    Firstly, like you have done repeatedly: you are doing your best to over exaggerate the time line. There was 51 minutes between the first flight hitting the WTC and the third hitting the pentagon. But only 34 after the second hit - whenit was obvious this was an attack - and even less (about 4 minutes) between the military picking up flight 77 after knowing it was hijacked and it crashing into the pentagon.


    As the military did not and does not have standing orders to shoot down passenger planes until 10:20am - that’s not enough much time to do much of anything.


    Standing orders for hijacking were - and mostly still are - treating hijackings as a law enforcement issue. The military would assist the FAA and escort planes - but the military would be vectored and directed by the Civilian ATC.


    For the military to “do something” about a given flight they need to be told it was hijacked - be directed to where it was - site the plane - and gain authorization to shoot it down. Each stage going through a chain of command or process not designed for a terrorist attack like this - much involving civilians of the FAA not trained to deal with a terrorist attack of this nature. 


    Stage 1 - would be for the FAA to tell the military a plane was hijacked. It took 30 minutes for flight 77 information to get to the FAA headquarters - and details were given to norad where NEADS radar technicians may have picked up the plane at 9:35 - 2 minutes before it hit the pentagon.


    Indeed standing orders were changed to shoot down unresponsive aircraft - at 10:20 from the VP - and the go ahead was given to engage flight 93 at 10:10 - 7 minutes after it had already crashed.


    So no: I think given the practicalities, the groups involved, and the process at the time - that the plane was allowed to continue unabated is actually perfectly reasonable. More of a testament as to how the FAA and Military process for hijackings were not configured to quickly and properly respond to an attack of this nature - more than some nefarious plot


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks


    So no. While the military and civilian response could have been better: the response wasn’t bad enough or unreasonable enough to conclude there was deliberate wrongdoing on any ones part - leave alone a conspiracy of any kind.


    Now: you’ve also made the claim that commercial airliners were used as weapons prior to 9/11


    “Maybe not in the US, that we can find, but elsewhere this was happening.”


    I call bullsh*t. I can find not a single example of any airplane hijackings using this type of tactic used prior to 9/11.”


    As I intimated: you like to throw out the odd link here and there, but leave the more absurd claims - like this one -unsourced, and unevidenced. The claim I’m not providing any proof. #thatsodd.


    But importantly: you also continue to misrepresent both my position and reality:


    There were intelligence warnings, and intercepts about attacks similar to this:


    Having those warnings does not translate into policy - tactics - integrated and streamlined approaches between the FAA and Military - strategic analysis and most importantly - training for the hundreds of individuals involved in the direct response.


    The idea that having a forewarning means that the military - and civilian agencies should be automatically able to deal with it - is insane. Again you provide no evidence of argument as to why if should.


    You just wave “forewarnings” and “military should have responded” then claim that because of one the other should be true. That is a non-sequitor.






    Now: let’s move on to some of your cherry picking.


    You’ve said the civilian pilots were military. Okay, let’s go with that: one peice of data.


    They were also outnumbered 2:1. In cramped conditions. Cockpit doors were not reinforced. They were unarmed and the assailants were unarmed. Operating procedure up until that point was to cooperate with the hijackers - and not do anything to risk lives. And hijackings up until that point were non lethal do there was no reason not to cooperate. In addition calls from individuals on almost all the planes indicated that they had been hijacked - and ATC recordings.


    So that’s one vague reason you’ve cited - with no real explanation or justification as to why you feel they should have been able to take one all the hijackers unarmed: and 10 major reasons why your claims make no sense that you ignore - this includes objective proof that the planes were hijacked despite your protestations. 


    Most of the big parts of what I’ve said that aren’t obvious, are here. 

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking


    Ignoring 10 major and obvious pieces of evidence that go against your position and focus on one that does: is cherry picking.




    So moving on, I think we should start off with this


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/12/us/richard-russell-q400-flight-simulator.html


    Recently - an individual with no formal flight training took off, flew, performed some “amazing maneuvers”, then crashed his plane.


    So when you argue that I need a more credible source to indicate how someone with no formal flight training could fly a plane: this reality trumps someone’s opinion.


    That in and of itself casts terminal doubt on the credibility of the claims: when they’ve separately been proven wrong.



    Now: you again cherry pick when intimating Landing and taking off are “easy”. You have visual references - but you also have to use flaps, maintain the plane at lower speed - control stall speed - and descend on a fixed glide path (often via instruments), all at the same time: is harder than flying fast and broadly level, controlling basic plane movements. Take off as well - flaps, landing gear, thrust, take off angle, etc - all require much more significant judgment and experience to pull off than simply flying. That’s why trainee pilots are handed the controls while airborne well before learning to take off and land.


    Information about that is all here (you can also go to part 1+2 too).

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a16290/learning-to-fly-joshua-ferris-part-three/




    What seems odd though, is that you seem to recognize the basic facts here Hanjour - who crashed into the pentagon held a commercial pilots license from 1999.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour


    Atta and Shehhi were both instrument rated in November 2000: and obtained commercial pilots licenses.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta


    And all of them had training in flying jet airliners in simulators.

    https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf (241-245)



    So the argument that instrument rated, dedicated individuals who trained for months to become trained pilots with commercial pilots licenses that had trained on simulators to familiarize themselves with the planes in question - didn’t have enough skill to use instruments or fly the planes we know they hijacked - makes utterly no sense.


    Your “source”, undersells this training and makes it sound like that these individuals - who trained for months-years for this - as if they had no training whatsoever.


    Flying a plain is hard - but let’s be clear - they all had the requisite experience to be able to basically operate the airliners in question - maybe not to a professional pilots standard - but enough to know how to turn off the auto pilot, and to subsequently crash the plane.


    Despite this fairly basic logic that glosses over the objective training that these pilots received - you demand this source be treated as valid because of his credentials is - as should be obvious - an argument from authority. 


    But just in case: try this one:

    http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf


    This pretty much picks apart everything your source said in detail. And is also has decent credentials.




    These guys were probably bad pilots - and would have no careers as commercial aviators - but they didn’t have to be great pilots to fly a plane into a building. Which leads me to the final piece of cherry picking on this subject.


    Hanjour wasn’t a great or experienced pilot. That’s why he was too high approaching the pentagon and wasn’t able to hit it on the first approach, then made a turn finally coming low into the pentagon - and almost crashed in the car park outside. That doesn’t sound like he was an expert - that sounds as if he wasn’t particularly good. Don’t you think?


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77



    So: sources presented, facts presented, and one specific real world example destroys your source here







    But even so, remember that we have objective and direct evidence that these planes were hijacked: and you’re continual implication that they didn’t happen because of some circumstantial evidence that turns out to be mostly wrong, seems largely nonsensical. Flight 77 - had two people on the flight phone out to say they had been hijacked.



    Moving on quickly


    “The idea that they only received training on single engine planes, is a lie.”


    “You strawman me, I never said that”



    Yes you did:


    “A few hours of assisted flight training on single engine planes, multiple suspects even flunked basic training, and never flew at all.”


    You should pay more attention to what you say.





    “"You’re making up wild conspiracies, based on drawing wild conclusions that the facts don’t implicitly support, cherry picking data and outright lies."



    I'm basing my arguments on well sourced material, and a position that any logical thinker would assume was correct.”


    As I showed: you’ve made claims about  the military response that ignored the reality: you’ve exaggerated time lines and information: you’ve held up a source that claimed something we’ve seen happen in reality is impossible. You’ve ignored multiple pieces of data that don’t agree with you concerning pilots training, and relating to whether the commercial pilots could or would have fought off the terrorists.


    All of this has been emulated and sourced above.


    So far, you have provided a single source in your reply that is directly relevant for one claim: and no sources that directly support any of the other more specific claims you make (which I have pointed out), and even this source you set up from an argument from authority that doesn’t really match the evidence or reality.



    Worse: you’ve provided absolutely no evidence and no actually specifics as to the conspiracy you claim exists either. At best you are just pointing out some peripheral problems that don’t make sense (but which do when you analyze the information).


    Positive evidence for a conspiracy is important, nothing you mention here qualifies as that, as it doesn’t show malefeasance or wrong doing - without it your basically pushing a narrative without evidence and could be even less believable - and supported by even fewer facts that the problems you think there are with the one that is in place.




    “Pure and vague assertion, and basing your entire argument on "but, but, muh Wikipedia" or a single, lonely .gov site is not an argument.”


    You demand sources: then when sources are provided you reject the sources as being invalid - for no reason.


    In addition: you don’t seem able to explain why of my claims are “vague” or “assertions”, I’ve provided links to sources that indicates my claims are true, and I’m being highly specific in almost everything I’m saying. 


    Ironically: claiming the military could have or should have done something without saying, what, how, why and providing no evidence, that most assuredly is a pure and vague assumption.



    “We see who is providing facts, and expert opinions and who is ignorantly asserting their entire argument. My arguments are well-sourced, with evidence, and yours are pure assertions, and opinions based on your opinions.”


    Yes! Let’s! My arguments stand for themselves. If all you have left is generalized attacks like these, feel free to run with that if you want.


    your posts are getting ironic enough that they’re almost beyond parody.


    You’re detailed complaints list everything you’re doing so succinctly that it gives the appearance you’re projecting so hard that IMAX is going to start charging you royalties per post.







  • Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  •  "there's also these "coincidents"."

    ....Which is precisely why Al Queda targeted the Twin Towers. It had always had notoriety for being a symbol of Western capitalism and had been targeted by terrorist attacks before. 
    It is feasible enough to understand that the intellectual maturity of somebody like Bin Laden was such that he got his ideas from comic books.
    @Erfisflat
  • Erfisflat said:
    This is the type of unsupported and unevidenced speculation I’m talking about.

    What evidence do you have that they aren’t coincidences - you’re the one making the claim after all.

    Do you think a handful of examples of 9/11 or similar themes appearing in 20 years worth of cinema and television is “above the level of pure noise” - on what basis do you think that.

    Whats you’re explanation though? How did Matt Groening - or the wacowski brothers, or the producers of airplane and gremlins know about terrorist attacks that would be happening (in some cases up to 20 years later)? How did they find out the attacks were going to happen? Much less the specific date they were going to happen 20 years earlier. Why didn’t they go to the press? Or one of 4 different administrations of multiple parties? Or law enforcement? Were they all in on it too? For what reason? Because the Illuminati overlord likes Mr Burns?

    You have no evidence. No facts, No arguments, no justification and no explanation, and don’t seem to even be making any claims.

    The combined sum of this is essentially you posting some images and then saying “woooooooooooo” I told you so!




  • I don't think that you connected well with the gist of my point.

    The fact (assuming that the cartoons are chronologically correct) that the Twin Towers was the target of such a sensational attack by cartoonists in the first place is why Bin Laden chose to put it into practice.

    You could be damned sure that if some nutter could make a giant ape, he would stage a reenactment of King Kong.

    Then, of course, all the conspiracy theorists crawl out of the woodwork and try to make out that the event was predicted.

    Come on, give it a rest.

    Try to focus your wayward thinking on the next conspiracy, why don't you?
    @Gooberry
  • Wowsil said:
    I don't think that you connected well with the gist of my point.

    The fact (assuming that the cartoons are chronologically correct) that the Twin Towers was the target of such a sensational attack by cartoonists in the first place is why Bin Laden chose to put it into practice.

    You could be damned sure that if some nutter could make a giant ape, he would stage a reenactment of King Kong.

    Then, of course, all the conspiracy theorists crawl out of the woodwork and try to make out that the event was predicted.

    Come on, give it a rest.

    Try to focus your wayward thinking on the next conspiracy, why don't you?
    @Gooberry
    Wrong person :P
    Zombieguy1987
  • Yeah, sorry, I shall send it to Flathead.
    @Gooberry
  • I don't think that you connected well with the gist of my point.

    The fact (assuming that the cartoons are chronologically correct) that the Twin Towers was the target of such a sensational attack by cartoonists in the first place is why Bin Laden chose to put it into practice.

    You could be damned sure that if some nutter could make a giant ape, he would stage a reenactment of King Kong.

    Then, of course, all the conspiracy theorists crawl out of the woodwork and try to make out that the event was predicted.

    Come on, give it a rest.

    Try to focus your wayward thinking on the next conspiracy, why don't you?
    @Erfisflat
  • "I don't think that you connected well with the gist of my point."

    Try again.

    "The fact (assuming that the cartoons are chronologically correct) that the Twin Towers was the target of such a sensational attack by cartoonists in the first place is why Bin Laden chose to put it into practice."

    So you are suggesting there may be a connection. A sort of "brainwashing" (of Osama bin laden)

    I like this one:






    "You could be damned sure that if some nutter could make a giant ape, he would stage a reenactment of King Kong.

    Then, of course, all the conspiracy theorists crawl out of the woodwork and try to make out that the event was predicted."

    That didn't make a lot of sense.

    "Come on, give it a rest.

    Try to focus your wayward thinking on the next conspiracy, why don't you?
    @Erfisflat

    And you could focus on unintelligent knock knock jokes.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • You are still taking things to extremes.
    The very fact that the Twin Towers were always a sitting duck target of ridicule by anti-US detractors is why Bin Laden pulled off the stunt.

    Unwittingly, the construction, usage, and symbolism of the Twin Towers made it inevitable that an attack would one day be imminent.
    @Erfisflat
    Zombieguy1987
  • Wowsil said:
    You are still taking things to extremes.
    The very fact that the Twin Towers were always a sitting duck target of ridicule by anti-US detractors is why Bin Laden pulled off the stunt.

    Unwittingly, the construction, usage, and symbolism of the Twin Towers made it inevitable that an attack would one day be imminent.
    @Erfisflat
    Correction to your statement: ...why Bin Laden (broke the laws of physics)
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1555 Pts
    edited September 18
    Wowsil said:
    You are still taking things to extremes.
    The very fact that the Twin Towers were always a sitting duck target of ridicule by anti-US detractors is why Bin Laden pulled off the stunt.

    Unwittingly, the construction, usage, and symbolism of the Twin Towers made it inevitable that an attack would one day be imminent.
    @Erfisflat
    Maybe you aren't aware that this is all not "unwillingly"? Are you aware that the government is a mind control device?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Are you aware that the government is a mind control device?

    Well, yeah.
    I heard that you should never ever get a vaccination of any sort.

    What happens is that the Government is in bed with the big corporate pharmaceutical drug lords and they put microscopic nano-chips into every vile of vaccine that goes to all the poor folk. 

    These nano-chips can then be programmed remotely via satellite to make them do all sorts of things.

    Verrrry scary. 
    @Erfisflat
  • Wowsil said:
    Are you aware that the government is a mind control device?

    Well, yeah.
    I heard that you should never ever get a vaccination of any sort.

    What happens is that the Government is in bed with the big corporate pharmaceutical drug lords and they put microscopic nano-chips into every vile of vaccine that goes to all the poor folk. 

    These nano-chips can then be programmed remotely via satellite to make them do all sorts of things.

    Verrrry scary. 
    @Erfisflat
    So you don't know about MKULTRA.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • It’s a good job there are conspiracy theorists and other assorted paint chip eaters without any cogent mind to control to be here to refer us to the truth of how the government controls our minds!

    Your sacrifice is appreciated. It would be my honour to help you place your straw into your Capri Sun whenever you want your mouth to feel fuzzy after you’ve brushed your teeth.
    Erfisflat
  • Yes, it is pretty interesting stuff and I think it is an extension of what the Nazis were doing.
    Except, the CIA in the 60s were experimenting with LSD....bloody idiots.
    @Erfisflat
  • Wowsil said:
    Yes, it is pretty interesting stuff and I think it is an extension of what the Nazis were doing.
    Except, the CIA in the 60s were experimenting with LSD....bloody idiots.
    @Erfisflat
    Operation paperclip helped to bring all that research and experimentation over to the US. And it wasn't just LSD.  but you just believe what you are told, k?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch