frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Do you think 9 11 was an inside job?

Debate Information

Yes.
Blackybluedoaa8168NomenclatureOakTownADreamer
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 14
    Argument Topic: Unequivocally

    If you believe anything else then there is almost certainly something wrong with the way your mind works (probably as a result of swallowing so much propaganda). Fighter jets routinely intercept jet aircraft in the United States when they are suspected of being hijacked.

    As noted by former Assistant Attorney Mary Schiavo -- formerly Inspector-General at the US Department of Transportation -- in the last 30 years there have been 682 hijackings in the United States which have been responded to in accordance with the appropriate FAA procedures. Indeed, in the calendar year prior to 9/11, fighter aircraft were successfully scrambled on 56 occasions in response to such emergencies, within minutes.

    Air traffic controllers routinely request fighter craft to intercept commercial planes for various reasons when problems faced cannot be solved through radio contact.

    As a matter of standard operating procedures, no approval from the White House is required for interception. On the contrary, interception occurs on the basis of established flight and emergency response rules. (Ahmed 2005, p267).

    AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd.

    The one time they couldn't get planes in the air fast enough to intercept the suspicious flights just happened to be the one time the biggest terrorist attack in recorded history was taking place. Give me a break.

    Dreamer
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 439 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Bullsh*t

    The September 11th terrorist attacks were carried out by a group of individuals affiliated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda. This has been widely acknowledged by both the US government and independent investigations. The claim that the attacks were an "inside job" is a conspiracy theory that has been thoroughly debunked by multiple investigations, including those conducted by the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). These investigations concluded that the attacks were planned and executed by the terrorist group al-Qaeda and that there is no evidence to support the theory that the attacks were orchestrated or aided by any individuals within the US government.
    NomenclatureZeusAres42MineSubCraftStarvedOakTownADreamer
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 14
    @JulesKorngold
    The September 11th terrorist attacks were carried out by a group of individuals affiliated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda. 

    I've never heard anything so patently absurd in all of my life. Just for starters, Mohammed Atta, the supposed ringleader, was a known Israeli intelligence asset who, during his time in America, lived NEXT DOOR to his Mossad handlers. Urban Moving Systems was a front company for an Israeli intelligence operation and five of their operatives were arrested after being witnessed DANCING while watching the twin towers burn. When their van was searched by local police they found false passports, box cutters, and the back of the van tested positive for explosives residue. On the same day, Urban Moving Systems sent other employees to "the vicinity of the Flight 93 crash site", before Flight 93 had crashed.  Also on the same day, a truck full of explosives was left on George Washington Bridge, and an anonymous caller left a tip for police that he had witnessed men who "looked Palestinian" exit the truck. Twenty four hours after the FBI searched the office of Urban Moving Systems, the owner packed up the entire business, fled and never returned.

    This has been widely acknowledged by both the US government and independent investigations.

    Anybody who believes the complete sack of nonsense the US government fed the public about what happened on 9/11 needs a brain scan and every reputable scholar who has ever investigated has concluded the US government lied from day one, beginning with political scientist and journalist Nafeez Ahmed:-

    it is hard to see how such a large number of war games and exercises involving key US agencies -- including the CIA, the NRO, NORAD, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, FEMA and the DCANG unit at Andrews Air Force Base -- could all have been planned and/or implemented on or around September 11, 2001 by complete coincidence. (Ahmed 2005, p313)

    AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold
    The claim that the attacks were an "inside job" is a conspiracy theory that has been thoroughly debunked by multiple investigations
    Absolutely, categorically false. Thoroughly debunk this, if you like. It's a side-by-side video of WTC 7 collapsing, next to three different confirmed controlled demolitions.

    https://youtu.be/D7Rm6ZFROmc

    ZeusAres42OakTownA
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 14
    @JulesKorngold

    Your puffed up claims about "investigations" are betrayed by the actual fact that there isn't a single sliver of physical evidence that either al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden had any involvement in the 9/11 attacks. As stated by the FBI director himself:-

    In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper -- either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot.

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2002-05-01-0205010399-story.html

    The American public were fooled by a classic fallacy where the narrative is decided first, and then the evidence to support that narrative is searched for later. Exactly like the "Saddam has WMDs" narrative. 
    the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
    Dig deeper. Several members of the 9/11 Commission quit, with one of them stating publicly that it was "set up to fail". The NIST "investigation" can't even be called an investigation because it was a joke. Its findings have never been peer reviewed, since it won't release its modelling data, and they are contradicted by several other more realistic studies, such as:-

    A study out of the University of Alaska Fairbanks has concluded "definitively" that fire could not have caused the fall of World Trade Centre building 7. Regardless of official government claims that the building came down due to fire.

    https://thepulse.one/2021/09/11/study-fire-did-not-cause-wtc7-to-collapse-explosives-necessary/

    And don't even get me started on the "lead investigator", Shyam Sunder, who is little more than a glorified conman. In the early stages of NIST's involvement, Sunder told Popular Mechanics:-

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

    The process Sunder was describing, where (in the case of the north tower) 11 floors had enough energy to crush the 99 floors it was at rest upon, is physically impossible (as in cannot happen or else Newtonian mechanics is wrong), and so NIST was eventually forced to quietly recant that idea, after much public criticism from experts in physics. The NIST FAQ now reads:-

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

    9/11 showed just how easy it is to con a nation of Bible bashers.

  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 439 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: What Else?

    You obviously feel very strongly about this and wasted a lot of time coming to a ridiculous conclusion.

    There is overwhelming evidence linking Al-Qaeda to the 9/11 attacks. Here are a few key pieces of evidence:

    1. Confessions from Al-Qaeda members: Several Al-Qaeda members, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who is considered to be the "architect" of the 9/11 attacks), have confessed to their involvement in the planning and execution of the attacks.

    2. Communication intercepts: US intelligence agencies intercepted communications between Al-Qaeda members discussing the planning and execution of the attacks.

    3. Hijackers' ties to Al-Qaeda: Several of the hijackers who carried out the attacks were known to have ties to Al-Qaeda, and some had trained in Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

    4. Claims of responsibility: Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks in a statement released shortly after the event.

    5. Motive: Al-Qaeda has a history of attacking the United States and had previously carried out attacks against US targets, such as the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

    All of this evidence was presented in the 9/11 commission report and the subsequent investigation by the FBI, CIA, and other agencies.

    I'm curious.  What other conspiracy theories do you strongly believe in?

    1. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was carried out by multiple individuals or organizations, rather than Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone.

    2. The moon landing was faked by NASA and the US government in order to win the Cold War.

    3. The existence of a secret global cabal or "New World Order" that controls governments, financial institutions, and media.

    4. The belief that vaccines are a tool for population control or that they are unsafe and can cause autism.

    5. The belief that the earth is flat and that scientific evidence for a spherical earth is part of a conspiracy to control the masses.

    6. The belief that the COVID-19 pandemic is a hoax or that it is being used to justify government overreach and control.

    7. The belief that aliens have visited or are currently interacting with Earth and that governments are covering up the evidence.

    NomenclatureZeusAres42OakTownA
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 439 Pts   -   edited January 14
    Argument Topic: Why?

    @Nomenclature
    I'm wondering why a person would hold such a ridiculous belief as a 9/11 "inside job."

    One reason is that you may find the official explanation for an event to be unsatisfying or hard to believe, and a conspiracy theory can offer a more compelling alternative. Additionally, you may be drawn to conspiracy theories because they offer a sense of control or understanding in a chaotic or unpredictable world. Social factors, such as the desire to be part of a community or to have a shared sense of purpose, can also play a role. Finally, cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, can lead you to seek out and believe information that confirms your existing beliefs.

    Whatever your reason, I am sure 9/11 was not an inside job.
    ZeusAres42NomenclatureOakTownA
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 439 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Same Same

    @Nomenclature
    In another debate, you said:  "That's the surest sign of a halfwit on sites like these. When they write you a 10,000 word essay because they can't comprehend that you might have better things to do than read through the rantings of a deranged imbecile."

    Now apply that to yourself here.
    ZeusAres42Nomenclature
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -  
    This is one of the weirder conspiracy theories, such as the Flat Earth theory or the "government hides the information about extraterrestrials" theory. They are weird not just in how unlikely they are, given how many ways there are in which the supposed scams could have gone wrong, but also in that the alleged conspirators had literally nothing to gain from them. No government on Earth gets any benefit from presenting Earth as having a globular shape in case it is actually flat, no government on Earth gets any benefit from hiding the knowledge that extraterrestrials exist assuming they do... And the US government hardly gets any benefit from smacking a few planes into buildings, hijacked by CIA agents or whatever posing as Muslim extremists. For the alleged "justification of emergency measures" a much easier conspiracy would have worked much better, something like "a Hussein's agent plants a bomb in the White House that almost takes out the president" - something that does not even have to involve any real actions, and just a small circle of conspirators could have pulled it out, assuming the government is as secretive and devious as the conspiracy theory believers claim.

    I guess people believing in this stuff gain pleasure from thinking that they have figured something out that most other people are not aware of; makes them feel special. While in reality there are billions of people like them, each thinking themselves special, but actually just confusing fantasy with reality. Conspiracy theories, religions, political propaganda - nothing special about picking a grain from this vast patch of sand and saying, "I got the best grain!" Nah, you got the same piece of sand as everyone else.
    Nomenclature
  • @anarchist100

    No......It was about intellectual information beyond the understanding of an entity which holds limited intellectual information as a method of governing....


  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2290 Pts   -   edited January 15
    @JulesKorngold
    The claim that the attacks were an "inside job" is a conspiracy theory that has been thoroughly debunked by multiple investigations
    Absolutely, categorically false. Thoroughly debunk this, if you like. It's a side-by-side video of WTC 7 collapsing, next to three different confirmed controlled demolitions.

    https://youtu.be/D7Rm6ZFROmc

    That guy in question when asked for a source of his claims: 



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 15
    @JulesKorngold
    You obviously feel very strongly about this and wasted a lot of time coming to a ridiculous conclusion

    That's so far beyond laughable I'm unsure where to even begin. Numerous experts have gone on public record to say the official narrative is physically impossible. You haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about. The United States government has a long, documented history of staging events to carve out a case for war, including the Gulf of Tonkin incident and provoking the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor by implementing crippling economic sanctions. To claim that rejecting a nonsensical conspiracy theory which contradicts all of the known facts is "ridiculous" just emphasises how hopelessly brainwashed you are. What you believe is absurd. The Pentagon is the top military target on the entire planet, so the belief that a group of glorified goat herders armed with nothing more than box cutters and harsh language could successfully attack it is so beyond absurd that you literally need a brain scan.

    Confessions from Al-Qaeda members

    Oh, you poor misguided soul. No Al Qaeda members confessed to anything, but I'll get to that momentarily. Firstly, anybody can claim to have done anything. I can claim to have shot JFK if I like. It doesn't necessarily make it true. During the height of the IRA terrorist bombing campaign in the UK, both the Birmingham Six and The Maguire Seven were imprisoned for life on the basis of confessions. The only problem was, it turned out years later that every single one of them -- all thirteen -- were completely innocent, and their confessions had been beaten and/or coerced out of them by police. Confessions prove nothing.

    Secondly, nobody in al Qaeda confessed. The first thing bin Laden did after the attacks was claim complete innocence. You can read a transcript of that interview with Pakistani daily, Ummat here:-

    https://www.serendipity.li/wot/obl_int.htm

    The other supposed "confession" comes from a man who has been in US custody for two full decades without ever being tried (which of course should be a massive clue), that the US claims is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The only problem with that theory is that the real Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was killed in an ISI raid in Karachi in 2002. This was reported by the Asian Times and a transcript of that story can be found here:-

    https://rense.com/general75/chill.htm

    The biggest joke of all is the Bin Laden "Confession tape" which was apparently discovered by pure chance in a country the size of Texas. Numerous experts have discredited this tape and his later tapes as forgeries, such as professor Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, who happened to be the foremost world expert on Osama bin Laden:-

    Prof Codevilla asserted: 'The video and audio tapes alleged to be Osama's never convince the impartial observer,' he asserted. 'The guy just does not look like Osama. Some videos show him with a Semitic, aquiline nose, while others show him with a shorter, broader one. Next to that, differences between the colours and styles of his beard are small stuff.'

    There are other doubters, too. Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University's religious studies' department and the foremost Bin Laden expert, argues that the increasingly secular language in the video and audio tapes of Osama (his earliest ones are littered with references to God and the Prophet Mohammed) are inconsistent with his strict Islamic religion, Wahhabism.

    He notes that, on one video, Bin Laden wears golden rings on his fingers, an adornment banned among Wahhabi followers.

    https://pakistanpaper.blogspot.com/2009/09/has-osama-bin-laden-been-dead-for-seven.html

    I mean, exactly what type of crack are you smoking to believe the most well-known religious fundamentalist in the world was producing videos wearing attire banned by his own religion?

    Communication intercepts: US intelligence agencies intercepted communications between Al-Qaeda members discussing the planning and execution of the attacks.

    You are completely absurd. If US intelligence agencies intercepted communications between al Qaeda members then:-

    A. Why didn't they stop the attacks?

    B. Why did the director of the FBI state the exact opposite? I literally illustrated this already, so you are evidently too brainwashed and dense to even read my posts:-

    In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper -- either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2002-05-01-0205010399-story.html

    Several of the hijackers who carried out the attacks were known to have ties to Al-Qaeda

    Oh Christ, I refuse to believe anybody can be this utterly devoid of critical thinking skills. Nobody knows who, if anybody, hijacked those planes, because everybody on board the planes died. There is not a single living witness to testify what happened on board the planes. Moreover, at least six of the men reported to have hijacked those planes are still alive and well because -- not surprisingly when you're committing the biggest act of terrorism ever recorded in history -- the actual hijackers were not using their real identities. The very idea that they would all be using their real names is so mind-numbingly ridiculous I cannot comprehend how you -- or indeed anyone -- could possibly believe that.

    Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

    The world's media has reported that many of the so-called hijackers "fingered" by the FBI are still alive.

    https://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm

    Many of the men on the FBI's list were already known to the authorities as suspected terrorists, so how is it even possible for you to be so categorically thick that you don't see an issue with them boarding US flights using their real identities? On the one hand, you're saying US intelligence picked up their communications, while on the other you're saying they were able to board US flights freely, using their real identities, and -- armed with nothing more than box cutters -- 19 of them were able to take over 5 different planes and then successfully strike 3 of the most important strategic targets in America, completely unhindered by the same fighter jets which in the calendar year previously had intercepted other such planes 56 times!! Have you even the slightest idea of just how insane that story sounds to anybody with even half a functional brain cell?

    Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks

    Don't talk absolute rubbish you delusional robot. This is what the leader of al Qaeda said in a confirmed interview:-

    I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.

    https://www.serendipity.li/wot/obl_int.htm

    You haven't got a single piece of credible evidence, which is why you're performing the stereotypical trick of American quasi-wits and throwing as much mud at the wall as you can, desperate that some of it will stick. But it simply won't. Any person of reasonable intelligence who researches this matter with an open mind will quickly come to the conclusion that neither bin Laden nor his loose knit band of goat herding militants had anything whatsoever to do with these attacks. I reaffirm my earlier point that you need a brain scan.

    All of this evidence was presented in the 9/11 commission report

    You haven't produced any evidence at all. You've simply parroted what you've heard on American TV. I've already told you that several 9/11 commission members quit, claiming it was a whitewash. One of them is quoted as saying it was "set up to fail", so you clearly just don't listen. The question of whether the government's narrative was false was never once even acknowledged or addressed by the 9/11 commission, and neither was the question of whether or not al Qaeda had anything to do with it. These allegations were simply taken for granted by the commission on the word of the government; the same government which claimed Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of WMDs and could launch them at the west with 45 minutes notice.

    On the most basic level, the 9/11 report is a whitewash. The 567-page document is filled with criticisms of the Bush and Clinton administrations and the performance of the government agencies responsible for intelligence, national security and emergency response. But the commission attributes all of these failures to incompetence, mismanagement, or “failure of imagination.” The fundamental premise of its investigation is that the CIA, the FBI, the US military and the Bush White House all acted in good faith.

    The 9/11 report thus excludes, a priori, the most important question raised by the events of September 11, 2001: did US government agencies deliberately permit—or actively assist—the carrying out of this terrorist atrocity, in order to provide the Bush administration with the necessary pretext to carry out its program of war in Central Asia and the Middle East and a huge buildup of the forces of state repression at home.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/07/comm-j24.html

    I really just don't understand how you can be so naive. I find it absolutely shocking, and even more so that you think I'm the one coming to ridiculous conclusions. You don't have a single shred of credible evidence that al Qaeda were involved in these attacks, and the proof of that can be found in the fact that nobody has been convicted for the crime. Osama bin Laden literally offered to stand trial in Peshawar to prove his innocence, and instead Bush simply went ahead and bombed Afghanistan:-

    In late September and early October, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamic parties negotiated bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for the September 11 attacks.

    The deal was that he would be held under house arrest in Peshawar. According to reports in Pakistan (and the Daily Telegraph), this had both bin Laden's approval and that of Mullah Omah, the Taliban leader. (Ahmed 2005, p96)

    AHMED, NAFEEZ MOSADDEQ, 2005, The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism. Moreton-In-Marsh, Gloucestershire, England: Arris Publishing Ltd

    If he admitted guilt, as you claim, then why on Earth would he offer himself up to face trial? What you're saying is just absolutely ludicrous.

    I'm curious.  What other conspiracy theories do you strongly believe in?

    Oh Jesus Christ this is just impossible. It's like speaking to a literal robot. Try to follow my words carefully please...

    I am not offering any clear theory about what happened on 9/11. I am saying that the theory you believe in, which necessitates a conspiracy of illiterate failed pilots from halfway across the world performing aerial manoeuvres which were so advanced that the aircraft controllers at Dulles refused to believe they were being conducted in commercial aircraft, has no credible evidence to support it, breaks several known laws of physics, contradicts most of the known facts, and is quite frankly so ridiculous I am surprised they were able to sell it to six year olds, let alone adults. What you believe is an upside down fantasy where either I believe in your conspiracy theory or else I'm a conspiracy theorist. You are a walking personification of the sheer breathtaking naivety which has taken over your country during the last two decades. 

    ZeusAres42
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 15
    @JulesKorngold

    I'm wondering why a person would hold such a ridiculous belief as a 9/11 "inside job."

    It's because I'm not braindead Jules. I'm capable of performing independent research with an open mind and not believing everything I get told by a US administration which lied its way into two wars and caused the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression. The irony is so thick it's palpable, since I've already demonstrated to you exactly why there must have been complicity somewhere within the administration. Five of the national agencies whose job it would have been to prevent the attacks in real time were engaged in training exercises on the morning of 9/11. If you're dumb enough to believe that was just a big coincidence then that's up to you, but don't tell me I'm the one who is ridiculous. Professor Niels Harrit, a chemistry professor of 30 years at the University of Copenhagen, literally found chemical thermate in five out of five dust samples from the WTC buildings. It's clear to me that you are simply so invested in a false reality that arguing with you further will be like trying to convince the Pope that God isn't actually real.

    ZeusAres42
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    This is one of the weirder conspiracy theories, such as the Flat Earth theory or the "government hides the information about extraterrestrials" theory. 

    Stop being utterly ridiculous. You're using a brazen guilt by association fallacy to ridicule something which you'd understand was absolutely true if you had any reasonable idea how to follow a trail of evidence, or how to differentiate fact from fiction. The US government has a long and documented historical record of telling lies to start wars, so to compare the idea that they lied about 9/11 to the idea that they are harboring aliens is about as intellectually backwards as it actually gets. 

    You will find that most people living outside America are fully aware that 9/11 was an inside job, and it is only thanks to the bubble of insane propaganda Americans live in that they are blissfully unware of this fact. You are the most dumbed down population the world has ever born fruit to, in thousands of years of recorded history.


    ZeusAres42
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold
    Now apply that to yourself here.
    How about you apply the concept of due diligence before opening your rather unintelligent mouth? The reason you are getting lengthy replies back on this particular topic is because it is something I have spent a great deal of time researching, and while most of the evidence has been scrubbed from the public domain, there is still more than enough of it available for a person of even average intelligence to conclude that something clearly isn't right. For example, I see you have made no mention of the FEMA report, which was conducted very quickly after the event, before the government had a chance to get a proper handle on things and before it began pushing its false narrative out through the media. Indeed, the most conclusive evidence that what the government told you is not true comes from those first few days, but since I appear to be boring you I'll just stick to some excerpts from the metallurgy examination produced by Professor Barnett on the WTC steel:-

    Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted.

    Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

    The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

    https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/05/09/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

    As you can plainly see, Professor Barnett found unusual sulfide residue on the steel samples he examined. Professor Harrit also found evidence of this same residue when examining the WTC dust samples. 

    One of the most commonly known methods to make thermite more potent is to add a chemical accelerant such as sulfur or barium nitrate. Not only does this increase its burning temperature, but it also lowers the ignition temperature. Thermite which is treated in this way is referred to as thermate, and the military has used it since the 1950s for incendiary grenades and cutting through tank armour. It would have been perfect for cutting through the steel supports in the WTC buildings and initiating a gravity-based collapse.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: A Delightful Story

    You know guys, here's the truth. 

    I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person. I've got a good grounding in science, maths and English and I've always performed well academically. But for the first three or four years after 9/11, I drank the Kool-Aid just like you did. I never even questioned the possibility that I was being tricked.

    One day, I think it was 2005, a friend of mine came to visit, clutching a DVD in his hand. His eyes were bulging and he kept repeating to me, "9/11 was an inside job". The curious thing is that I distinctly remember thinking at the time that he'd either gone mad or was high as a kite. I didn't believe him at all, but since he was my friend I sat through the DVD. It was a film some of you are probably familiar with called Loose Change.

    After watching the film, I still didn't believe him. The movie was hard to follow and it threw out too much information, far too quickly for my brain to take it all in. A lot of the information however was pretty staggering, and I thought if even 10-20 percent of it was true it would have pretty profound implications. It perked my curiosity just enough that I was prepared to learn more.

    A few years later, I was beginning to realise my friend had been completely right. I'd learned basic Newtonian mechanics during the interim, and so the initial smoking gun for me was that I'd begun to develop an understanding as to why the WTC buildings couldn't have collapsed as described in the official narrative. For example, the observable symmetry of the collapses would have necessitated the simultaneous failure of the supports.

    Anyway, around this time (probably 2007) I watched the documentary Zeitgeist, and that's what truly convinced me to start researching it more thoroughly. Zeitgeist is split into three parts and one of them is exclusively about 9/11. It's a much better movie than Loose Change because it states its case in a much more ordered and linear way. 

    I spent the next decade looking at all the other aspects besides the physics. I collected eye-witness statements, news reports, read books and academic papers. I looked at everything which was available through the public domain, including the official reports. Unfortunately, over the years almost everything which was available back then has been scrubbed from the internet, and today only the official reports and a few determined opposition sites remain. 

    The media system in America is an incredibly powerful tool and what most people don't appreciate is just how easy it is to manipulate the public when you know what you're doing. The public operates under the assumption that there are hundreds of autonomous media providers which diligently investigate each story to ensure they are providing accurate information, but in reality nothing could be further from the truth. Media ownership is concentrated into the hands of very few people, and in the modern era of rolling 24 hour news cycles there simply isn't the time or incentive to fund high quality investigative journalism any longer. The media is abundantly more likely to rely on nurturing relationships with high level sources and then simply print information fed to it by those sources, which is exactly what happened after 9/11. The media printed the information being fed to it by sources within the government whose precise job it is to control what the media prints. 

    9/11 is like a ball of string. Once you begin pulling on the end, the entire thing unravels in your hand until you eventually realise the full extent of the deception. It's one of those strange occasions where you don't have any idea you are walking around in complete ignorance until somebody snaps their fingers in front of your face. It's a magic trick which leaves you thinking one thing and only later -- if at all -- do you realise that you were duped. The idea which most people have trouble processing is that the government could ever lie so extensively, so blatantly and so coldly to its own citizens, or ever put them in danger to further a political agenda. Do some digging into the Bush Administration however, and you'll quickly find it was crammed with people just like that. People like Paul Wolfowitz, the prized pupil of notorious fascist Leo Strauss. The reason most people can't contemplate the thinking processes of psychopaths is precisely because most people aren't psychopaths. 
    OakTownA
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 439 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: "Research"

    @Nomenclature said:   I have spent a great deal of time researching
    Mr "Researcher", you should have spent your time more productively:
    • Climate change and environmental science
    • Cancer and other diseases
    • Artificial intelligence and machine learning
    • Quantum computing
    • Renewable energy sources
    • Space exploration
    • Neuroscience and brain research
    • Materials science
    • Robotics and automation
    • Biotechnology and genetic engineering
    • Drug development and pharmacology
    • Global health and epidemiology
    • Social and behavioral sciences
    Instead, you post long, idiotic rants on a debate site about an event that happened over 20 years ago.
    ZeusAres42NomenclatureOakTownA
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold
    Mr "Researcher", you should have spent your time more productively

    Jules, you are a textbook example of an American halfwit. You're insufferably arrogant, not very bright, and when somebody criticises the absurdity of your beliefs you attack the criticiser while leaving the criticism completely untouched. I systematically addressed everything you wrote and your response is simply to insult me. The (literal) conspiracy theory you were conned into believing is ridiculous and contradicted by most of the available facts. Somehow -- and God only knows how -- you have been persuaded to believe that anybody who doubts the validity of your conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theorist and must be insulted. I've posted abundant evidence that you have been duped, but like most brainwashing victims you are programmed only to defend the people who brainwashed you.

    ZeusAres42
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    Here's another excerpt about the condition of the WTC steel, this time published in a study from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 2002. Strangely, this study too has been removed from the internet:-

    A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

    Original source:-

    https://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 15
    @JulesKorngold

    Here's a nice story for you, Jules. This one is still available.

    A new report accuses the State Department of staggering lapses in its visa program that gave Sept. 11 hijackers entry into the United States.

    The political journal National Review obtained the visa applications for 15 of the 19 hijackers — and evidence that all of them should have been denied entry to the country.

    Almost all of the hijacker's visas were issued in Saudi Arabia, at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh or the U.S. Consulate in Jedda. Terrorist ties aside, the applications themselves should have raised red flags, say experts. The forms are incomplete and often incomprehensible — yet that didn't stop any of the 15 terrorists for whom the visa applications were obtained from coming to the United States.

    https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130051&page=1#.UM_4YG9RWWw

    Why did the US embassy let 15 suspected terrorists into the country who handed in "incomplete" and/or "incomprehensible" application forms?

    I happen to know someone who applied for a US visa pre-9/11, so I know exactly how strict the process was. Yet these men didn't even fill out their application forms properly, at least some of them were on the US terrorist watchlist, and they simply waltzed right into the country.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2290 Pts   -   edited January 15
    @JulesKorngold
    Mr "Researcher", you should have spent your time more productively

    Jules, you are a textbook example of an American halfwit. You're insufferably arrogant, not very bright, and when somebody criticises the absurdity of your beliefs you attack the criticiser while leaving the criticism completely untouched. I systematically addressed everything you wrote and your response is simply to insult me. The (literal) conspiracy theory you were conned into believing is ridiculous and contradicted by most of the available facts. Somehow -- and God only knows how -- you have been persuaded to believe that anybody who doubts the validity of your conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theorist and must be insulted. I've posted abundant evidence that you have been duped, but like most brainwashing victims you are programmed only to defend the people who brainwashed you.


    Your logical fallacy is:


    NomenclatureJohn_C_87



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    Thanks for proving what I said about you last night is true. You don't have any intelligent input to offer any argument and you simply spend your time posting meaningless gifs and jpegs. 

    Attempting to deflect criticism with criticism is something known as the tu quoque fallacy. You should probably look that one up. I'm sure there are plenty of gifs.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 272 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    Just because some one worked out how the building was made it doesn’t meen that was an inside job because when you analize it any kid who stacks a heap ok blokes on top of each other knows that if you throw some thing at 3 quarters up then the hole lot will come down and any way those pilots lived here for years and trained here so they were all ready on the inside yet they were rally out sides 
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 16
    @Barnardot
    Just because some one worked out how the building was made it doesn’t meen that was an inside job

    Buddy, they didn't just work out how the building was made. Professor Harrit evidenced that the main WTC buildings had been loaded with military grade TH3 or a similar derivative to cut through the core support columns. Where would al Qaeda acquire large quantities of military grade thermate and how would they smuggle it into the WTC buildings without being caught by security? How would they even expect to fly planes into buildings without being shot down first by the American Air Force? As a plan, that makes absolutely no sense. Not unless:-

    A. They had help from the inside. Or...

    B. It wasn't them in the first place. 



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    when you analize it any kid who stacks a heap ok blokes on top of each other knows that if you throw some thing at 3 quarters up then the hole lot will come down
    No, I'm afraid it won't. Test it right now and see. Build a house of cards and flick away the row three quarters of the way up. Prepare to be astonished when the bottom three quarters stays exactly where it is.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 272 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    Yes but you made a big mistake because cards is not blokes so there not the same. Because when you do it with blokes in the end you sea that the bloke that you knocked trips up the one below it which does the same below that then the others on top knock over the rest. So some people say things with out really knowing because they didn’t try it so that’s how you start thinking wrong things just saying 
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    Yes but you made a big mistake because cards is not blokes so there not the same

    The laws of physics don't change buddy. They work exactly the same whether you build your house from cards, wood, bricks or Lego. 

    Because when you do it with blokes in the end you sea that the bloke that you knocked trips up the one below it which does the same below that

    No brother. That is physically impossible. Let me try to explain exactly how you've been fooled by a clever fallacy. 

    Gravity is always pushing down on all things at all times, and so in order for a building to stay upright there needs to be a force equal to gravity which pushes back. That force is found in the structural resistance of the building (i.e. in the physical material it is constructed from). The crucial fact of note is that this resistance is accumulative. It is the sum of the entire building. Hence, the sum of the entire building was pushing back against the weight of the damaged floors.

    What the pancake theory did was cleverly present the building's resistance to gravity not as the sum of the entire structure, but as a series of individual parts (i.e. floors) which, individually, could not support the downward force of the damaged floors above. In the simplest possible terms, imagine the resistance to gravity as being equivalent to 1 x 93 floors, which would be the total part of the building which was undamaged. This should have been more than sufficient to support the damaged section, and so what the government did to circumvent the laws of physics was present the resistance to gravity as 93 x 1 floors. That way it could argue that the damaged section overpowered the superior resistance in the lower structure in increments (i.e. one floor at a time). Of course, this is a total aberration of classical mechanics, but Joe Public doesn't know that.

    Eventually, after many exasperated communications from bemused physicists, the government finally recanted its pancake theory, but at that stage it didn't particularly matter, because most ordinary people had already been brainwashed by the myth. Not even NIST would dare publish such utter crap, and if you check their public FAQ, they are very clear that there was no progressive collapse of the WTC buildings.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 272 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    What I was talking about was that we did the experiment at school and it worked so I don’t know where you got your evidence from but it’s wrong because a house of cards is different because it doesn’t have multiple floors. Because when we did it in science class we stacked up the blokes and the teacher threw a model plane at 3 quarters up and we videowed and sure enough the hole lot went down. So I reckon you accidentally used the wrong analogy because buildings are not built like a card hose at all.
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 16
    @Barnardot
    What I was talking about was that we did the experiment at school and it worked

    Oh, you broke the laws of physics at school? That's nice. I hope it was fun.

    Because when we did it in science class we stacked up the blokes and the teacher threw a model plane at 3 quarters up and we videowed and sure enough the hole lot went down.

    Brilliant. So you struck a vertical building with a force on a horizontal vector, three quarters of the way up (i.e. significantly above centre of gravity) and the "blokes" collapsed straight down. That's amazing. I suggest you call NASA and let them know you've changed the laws of physics. You might need a translator though. You seem to have attended a school which cares so much about science it doesn't teach its pupils English.

    Just out of interest, did your model building also outweigh the model plane by a factor of 6,250? 

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    Are these eye-witnesses all wrong that there were bombs in the buildings which went off before the planes hit?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlMXkWW_LM&ab_channel=sidneyoh
  • BarnardotBarnardot 272 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    Are these eye-witnesses all wrong that there were bombs in the buildings which went off before the planes hit?

    I reckon that your wrong if you seriously think that any one who’s got not much brains is going to believe that sort of set up baloney. So just so I can get this straight are you saying that that video is legit and not set up yes or no

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot
    I reckon that your wrong if you seriously think that any one who’s got not much brains is going to believe that sort of set up baloney.

    Are you aware that your English is shockingly poor?

    So just so I can get this straight are you saying that that video is legit and not set up yes or no

    Of course it's legit. It's televised news coverage of eye witness reports you total banana. There was a ton of this material in the public domain before it was scrubbed. Firefighters coming out of the building saying there were bombs inside and a whole bunch of other stuff. Even the WTC janitor claimed a bomb had gone off in the basement before the first plane hit.

    So I was talking to the supervisor, and at 8:46 we hear "BOOM!" An explosion so hard that pushed us upwards in the air. Upwards. And it came out from below us. From the mechanical room that was right below us. And it was so loud and so powerful that all the walls cracked, the false ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system got activated, and everybody started screaming so loud because they didn't know what was going on.

    And the first thing I'm going to say is that a generator just blew up on the B2 level—the level below me. And everybody's screaming. And when I'm going to verbalize it, six to seven seconds after, we hear "BAH!" The impact all the way on the top of the building of the plane.

    Two different events separated by almost seven seconds. Separated by time. And now, I work in the building for 20 years. I know the difference of the sound coming from the top and one from the bottom.

    https://www.corbettreport.com/9-11-whistleblowers-william-rodriguez/

  • BarnardotBarnardot 272 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    No body ever said there was any bombs and that Spick guy is con artist and tells whoppers any way because he used to do that stuff for a living like stirring up things by saying things out of sync. And if any one believes a single bit of the dog mess that Corbett tries to make people believe without actually saying it then they must be really sucked in. 
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot
    No body ever said there was any bombs

    I've literally just linked you to many different people who said there were bombs. Christ, people in your country are so thick.

  • BarnardotBarnardot 272 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    Nobody in the links said there were bombs. The firemen said they were explosion s but they got there long after what that lying spick was saying when he said there were 2 explosion s 7 seconds before the planes crashed. And then a man comes out with a melted face and tries to make you believe it was from 2 bombs but he didn’t actually say that because he is a know n con artist and anarchist who hates the government. And even blind Freddy can see that those explosion s at the bottom of the building were over dubbed . It was so amateur and also all the people who said there were explosions were talking about something else because there were explosions going on all the time and it wasn’t from bombs . The hole video is a fraud And you still refuse to say that you believe that the video is right and that there were bombs. So are you going to say yes or no to the question s?
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot
    Nobody in the links said there were bombs
    Do you literally not understand English? The video begins with the news reporter saying:-

    These ladies who are with me were in the WTC, in the first building, and escaped through the lobby, where they report they believe there was a bomb.



    Just actually how thick are you?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -   edited January 17
    Nomenclature said:

    You will find that most people living outside America are fully aware that 9/11 was an inside job, and it is only thanks to the bubble of insane propaganda Americans live in that they are blissfully unware of this fact. You are the most dumbed down population the world has ever born fruit to, in thousands of years of recorded history.
    First, how many people believe in something does not in any way affect whether it is true or not. Second, your claim is false, and in every single country where I have lived or whose citizens I have interacted with a lot (and that is a LOT of countries) people holding this position are in the tiny minority. Third, I grew up outside of America and only came here in 2014, and at no point did I have any reason to seriously consider this conspiracy theory. And fourth, if you think that the American population is "the most dumbed down the world has ever born fruit to", then you are a pretty thick one.
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    First, how many people believe in something does not in any way affect whether it is true or not

    Blatant straw man fallacy. I didn't say (most) people outside America "believed". I said they were "fully aware". I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from disingenuously altering my language in order to make it easier to attack. Thanks.

    Second, your claim is false

    No it isn't. 

    in every single country where I have lived 

    You performed a full census on the matter, compiled the results and then patiently calculated statistical conclusions? Don't make me laugh. Your baseless anecdotes don't mean a thing. 

    The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites. 

    The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

    https://www.islamtimes.org/en/article/283184/new-studies-conspiracy-theorists-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile

    Third, I grew up outside of America and only came here in 2014

    I don't believe you. You clearly suffer from the exact same painful combination of infuriating arrogance and childlike naivety which plagues most other domestic Americans.

    at no point did I have any reason to seriously consider this conspiracy theory.

    Then you don't understand the laws of physics and indeed probably struggle to tie your own shoelaces without assistance.

    A new report accuses the State Department of staggering lapses in its visa program that gave Sept. 11 hijackers entry into the United States.

    The political journal National Review obtained the visa applications for 15 of the 19 hijackers — and evidence that all of them should have been denied entry to the country.

    Almost all of the hijacker's visas were issued in Saudi Arabia, at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh or the U.S. Consulate in Jedda. Terrorist ties aside, the applications themselves should have raised red flags, say experts. The forms are incomplete and often incomprehensible.

    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130051&page=1#.UM_4YG9RWWw


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 17
    @MayCaesar

    Listen, let me extend a little olive branch to you here. We all have our own particular areas of expertise in life, and I'm absolutely sure there are things you are abundantly more qualified to talk about than I am. However, on this particular subject, you can consider me an expert. I've read and analysed every academic paper, every news article, every book, and every wild theory out there, from the official narrative to thermonuclear devices in the basement. I know more than enough to draw an absolute, unequivocal conclusion that the official narrative is categorically false and that these attacks could not have succeeded without the complicity of high-level representatives in the US government.

    However, my advice to you would be not to believe me. There is nothing but trouble waiting for you if you begin tugging on this string. It ends with you being forced to change your entire belief system and swimming against a current of despair. For me, truth is more important than anything else in life, but even I would think twice before heading down this road again. Where this matter is concerned, ignorance is bliss.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 272 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    Your still avoiding the question and what I'm saying is that you won't answer it because the hole thing is false. it doesn't matter what those women said because how would they know a plane hit the building, so they said they believe, they did not say they know because they didn't know and they said believe because someone else said a bomb went off. And you won't answer why everybody else who was interviewed said a bomb went boom boom boom because I learnt at school that a bomb goes off once and you wont say why the firemen and others said there were explosions when they didn't arrive until hours later. And you wont explain why the movie makers super imposed a picture of an explosion on the film clip and you still wont answer why any one believes Colbett who confesses he is an anarcist and why Rodriguez is an anarchist who told a lot of lies like he was the last one pulled out and that he saved a lot of people when all he did was open a door to the stairwell. And you still wont say whether you believe there was bombs that were planted and went off.
    Are you going to tell everyone here why you refuse to address those points and why you have not said a single thing. All you say is what others say so you did not say one single thing. The video begins with the news reporter saying and where they report there was a bomb. That's saying nothing because I can say the same thing and so what. You never said anywhere that bthere were bombs and you still refuse to say which is the talk od dishonest anarchy conspiratists who hate the government and try to look big by trying to make people listen to your dog mess without having the guts to say any thing.
    Numbner three time do you believe there were bombs in the world trade center and I can make a bet that you will not answer again and you wont answer to all the other fakes that were pointed out. 
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 17
    @Barnardot
    Your still avoiding the question

    I'm not avoiding any question. You claimed my link made no mention of bombs, that claim was patently false, and I demonstrated such. The problem here does not rest with me, it rests with you. It rests with your inability to climb over the wall of your own personal bias and look at things objectively.

    it doesn't matter what those women said

    Really bud? It doesn't matter what multiple eye-witnesses said who were present in the building at the time? 

    Your first reaction was to tell me the video was fake, so now you're simply exchanging one absurd claim for another one.

    so they said they believe, they did not say they know

    Is it your usual common practice to deny all bombings, or just this one in particular? When you see news footage of people stumbling out of buildings in the middle east with debris and soot all over their faces, is your first reaction to say, "No there were no bombs, because these people only believe they were in a bomb blast. They don't know"???

    I mean, your marbles are clearly not all in the correct bag, are they?

    No government agency ever tested for explosives residue. 

    Let me repeat that again so it sinks into that rather dull mind of yours. No government agency ever tested Ground Zero for any type of explosives residue. 

    Given the multiple eye-witness accounts of bombs going off, why would the government fail to conduct basic tests for explosives residue? How could/would the government ever hope to eliminate explosives from the inquiry without testing for explosives residue?

  • BarnardotBarnardot 272 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    I'm not avoiding any question. 

    Well ok then I reckon that may be I got a bit carried a way a bit and didn't see the answers to the questions so Im real sorry about that. So since now that I know that your not avoiding any questions what i really want to know is ask you this question and i know that if you dont answer it then that means we know what the answer is any way. Any way the question is are you being honest yes or no?

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    No problem. And yes, I'm being honest. I have no reason to lie to you. What you believe or don't believe doesn't affect my life in any capacity.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2290 Pts   -   edited January 18
    If by an inside job, you mean moles within security giving intel to terrorists on how to bypass airport security, etc that was actually proved to be the case then yes. If you mean some planned government conspiracy then no. And let's also not forget this was a time when airport security was no way near as stringent as it is today.



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 18
    @ZeusAres42
    If by an inside job, you mean moles within security giving intel to terrorists on how to bypass airport security, etc that was actually proved to be the case then yes. If you mean some planned government conspiracy then no.

    Moles in security doesn't provide anywhere near a satisfactory explanation for the facts. There was complicity at a much higher level than the intelligence agencies. 

    First, there's the matter of all the relevant Air Force response units being tied up on military training exercises. Second, there's the question of Norman Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 commission, which suggests the Vice President may have ordered fighters not to engage flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon. Third, there's the matter of at least 15 of the alleged hijackers being issued US visas by the state department, despite submitting "incomprehensible" and/or "incomplete" application forms. Fourth, there's the matter of how explosives were smuggled into the WTC buildings, past security being run by George W Bush's younger brother, Marvin Bush. 

    You literally have to put a blindfold over your eyes to miss the connections. 

    Finally:-

    What did Kurt see?

    Sporting bleached blond hair, Kurt wove his way through the rubble of Manhattan’s downtown financial district.

    He shot hours of footage but never handed it in.

    Of particular interest was what he found beneath World Trade Center 6.

    He says inside the building he came across a vault that had been cleared of its contents before the planes struck.

    In a documentary filmed in Argentina, Kurt said the discovery is proof that America knew the attacks were coming, at the very least.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1376503/september-11-cameraman-claims-hes-got-proof-the-george-w-bush-administration-was-behind-terror-attacks/

  • BarnardotBarnardot 272 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    No problem. And yes, I'm being honest. I have no reason to lie to you. What you believe or don't believe doesn't affect my life in any capacity.

    Well it was funny because I showed my pop the video and it was just as well that he was waring his special pants because he started laughing so much when he saw the fake super imposed bomb blast and the over dubbed voice which was a shame be cause when I asked him about the multitudes of people who said there was a bomb he didn't see any because he must have been laughing so much through those bits especially when I said it was done by Colbett so any way I showed him where you said you don't avoid questions and then where you said that wasn't the question when it was and you also quoted it  then avoided it and then he slapped his head because hes ethnic and then he said that he doesn't know how you sleep at night. Then he laughed some more because he looked at all the other posts and said that the only question that you answered you actually got wrong any way because it was where you said that you are honest.

  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    I don't think you're being fair you could at least attempt to address the arguments Nom is putting to you he has made the effort to respect your point of view and address your questions can you not afford him the same courtesy?
    NomenclatureBarnardot
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    That's great buddy. I'm glad your pop and his semi-literate son were laughing at me instead of addressing my arguments. It really puts me in my place when swamp dwellers from the Alabama backwash who can't muster a better retort than yelling, "fake!!", ignore every piece of evidence I put in front of them.
    Dee
  • BarnardotBarnardot 272 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    So since you are honest like you said and since you don't avoid questions like you said may be you can answer this questions
    1 Is the explosion at the bottom of the building in the video super imposed yes or no?
    2 Do you believe that there was a bomb or was some bombs in the world treade centre yes or no?
    3 Are colbett and Rodriguez known to be extremist anarchists yes or no?
    DeeNomenclature
  • I am pretty sure the planes came from outside and not inside.
    Dreamer



Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch