Do you think 9 11 was an inside job?

JulesKorngold

@Nomenclature said:  I just think you're a pathetic and horrible individual. 
Aw.  I wasn't gonna ask you for a date.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

Aw.  I wasn't gonna ask you for a date.

Awww, that's a shame. You look like such a catch in your profile pic:-

Totally not creepy.

Barnardot

@Dee @Nomenclature @JulesKrongold @ZeusAres42 @Swolliw I'm just lucky that Im nowhere like this girlie boy Adolf because man is he ever cooked in the brain matter as well as being not being a nice person at all. its no wonder that he has all that extreme stuff floating around in his head and that what he spews out in the end. In the end he will get the message because he has totally no want to debate he only wants to dictate and all his evidence are totally fake or nothing to do with pork meat. I have seen some real bad areses on this site but this dufis takes the prize for being the dummest if he thinks people are going to get sucked in by his controlling dishonest baloney.

Barnardot

@Dee @Nomenclature @JulesKrongold @ZeusAres42 @Swolliw I'm just lucky that Im nowhere like this girlie boy Adolf because man is he ever cooked in the brain matter as well as being not being a nice person at all. its no wonder that he has all that extreme stuff floating around in his head and that what he spews out in the end. In the end he will get the message because he has totally no want to debate he only wants to dictate and all his evidence are totally fake or nothing to do with pork meat. I have seen some real bad areses on this site but this dufis takes the prize for being the dummest if he thinks people are going to get sucked in by his controlling dishonest baloney.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Yes, we are being overwhelmed by disinformation.

@Nomenclature

We are being overwhelmed with disinformation and misinformation and have been swamped for a very long time. Quack Quack the Threat of pseudoscience book shows the situation is worse than previously thought. There is so many charlatans it makes it impossible to track down every claim and debunk. One quack tycoon even owned multiple mansions, showing disinformation is very profitable.

The debate tactic you used of just asking questions is unfair.

"Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

That's all the Loose Change disinformation film does is JAQ. Since there is many questions this is also gish gallop.

 

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

We are being overwhelmed with disinformation and misinformation and have been swamped for a very long time. Quack Quack the Threat of pseudoscience book shows the situation is worse than previously thought. 

Dreamer, the problem is that you must have an elementary understanding of science, or at least the ability to think critically, in order to differentiate pseudo-science from actual science. There are numerous highly qualified scientists who have published information which refutes the official 9/11 narrative. People like chemistry professor Nils Harrit and physics professor Steven Jones. Even Professor Jonathan Barnett's metallurgy study for FEMA makes abundantly clear the public were not told the truth about the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Your mind is trapped inside a box where you assume certain things to be true which are not true. You assume that the government is incapable of fooling you with pseudo-science. You assume that the government has no incentive to mislead you. You assume that what you see and hear on mainstream media is an accurate representation of reality rather than a representation of the interests of power. 

You are living in a new type of totalitarian society. A society in which propaganda and deception are used to shape your opinions and limit the parameters of your thoughts. The beauty of such a society is that you will never try to escape it because you have been fooled into believing you are free. You will in fact defend such a society against all forms of criticism and dissent.

The destruction of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001, was not a result of fires, according to the much-anticipated final report issued today by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

https://thewashingtonstandard.com/final-report-issued-by-university-of-alaska-fairbanks-wtc7-not-destroyed-by-fire-on-9-11/

That one study alone proves that you were misled.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I wouldn't trust the first link you mentioned.

@Nomenclature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_&_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

"Their claims and theories lack support among the relevant professional communities." wikipedia

The problem is limited time to debunk all these claims thoroughly.There are plenty of more dangerous claims being made. Just look at the Gerson Miracle for example. Gerson's daughter, Charlotte continued long after her father's death promoting pseudo-science.

In response to criticism from the scientific community Max Gerson retaliated with much of the same lingo you are using. Even though chemotherapy has a chance of saving somebody's life unlike a coffee enema.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_&_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth
"Their claims and theories lack support among the relevant professional communities." wikipedia

You have not addressed the content you were given, which was a study by the University of Alaska. The University of Alaska is not connected to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The way that debate works is that you address what the other person says. You don't attack something else with no relationship to what the other person has just written.

Momentarily ignoring the fact that your quote  -- which is both untrue and an argumentum ad populum fallacy -- bears no relevance to anything I just wrote, how many times and in how many ways does it need to be explained to you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information for anything pertaining to controversial political issues? And in particular, in relation to 9/11? If you use Wikipedia as a reference in a university paper you will be failed. Even Wikipedia admits it is not a reliable source:-

As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

You are so incomprehensibly naive that instead of listening to what actual scientists (i.e. experts) have to say about science, you are instead listening to what the faceless non-expert editors of a Wikipedia page have to say about it. Complete strangers who could be operating under any number of different motives, or have any number of conflicts of interest. If the US government can plant false stories in the media -- something which is documented and proven to have happened many times in the past -- do you truly believe they are going to have trouble controlling a Wikipedia page which they can edit themselves?

Talking to you is genuinely like talking to a particularly naive 12 year old child who is too young to understand how the world really works. You are incapable of reason or debate, or even addressing any relevant source material you are given to view. Rather, you perpetually respond with fallacious appeals to (predominantly false) authority in order to avoid ever having to debate anything.

Stop wasting my time please.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

In response to criticism from the scientific community

Jesus H Christ. YOU ARE ARGUING WITH THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. I've literally just linked you to a study performed by the engineering department of the University of Alaska:-

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

https://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: It Was Debris and Fires

The collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) building 7 on September 11, 2001, was caused by a combination of factors, including the structural damage inflicted by debris from the collapse of the nearby North Tower and exposure to intense fires.

The building was hit by debris from the North Tower, which damaged multiple interior columns, starting fires on multiple floors. The fires burned for several hours, causing structural steel beams to heat up and eventually lose their structural integrity. The fires, combined with the damage caused by the debris, caused the building to become structurally unstable and ultimately collapse.

It's worth noting that the collapse of WTC 7 was the first time in modern history that a tall building had collapsed solely due to fire. The incident led to new understandings of fire behavior in high-rise buildings and has influenced the design of new buildings to better withstand such events.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

The collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) building 7 on September 11, 2001, was caused by a combination of factors, including the structural damage inflicted by debris from the collapse of the nearby North Tower and exposure to intense fires.

Laughably false rubbish. In any country other than the United States, such utterly ridiculous nonsense wouldn't fool a bright ten year old:-

The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

https://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

Only one thing causes the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building, and I think we both know what.

Here's a side-by-side comparison of WTC 7 collapsing adjacent to three confirmed controlled demolitions. Have fun denying your own eyes. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc&ab_channel=AE911Truth

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

Danny Jowenko was a Dutch expert in controlled demolition who testified on film in September 2006 when interviewed by a Dutch filmmaker[1] that the destruction of WTC7 could only be due to controlled demolition.[2][3]

https://www.wikispooks.com/wiki/Danny_Jowenko

Barnardot

@Nomenclature ;Danny Jowenko was a Dutch expert in controlled demolition 

And as usual all your sauces are total Exstream dog mess. He was an expert in controlled demolition all right because what he did was kill him self in his own car on a straight road. And they refused to let him tesify because he was so far gone in the brain matter that it wasn't funny.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Why

People believe conspiracy theories because they are looking for an explanation for an event or phenomenon that they don't understand. People may also be drawn to conspiracy theories because they want to feel like they have some kind of power or control over the situation. It can also be comforting to think that there is a hidden force behind certain events, rather than accepting that life can be randomly chaotic. Additionally, conspiracy theories can provide people with a sense of identity and belonging when they join a group of like-minded individuals who share the same beliefs.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Wikipedia is a better source today than most.

@Nomenclature

Wikipedia used to be a bad source and college professors discouraged its use for the reasons you stated. Later, scientists cleaned up much of wikipedia. The fact that anyone can edit wikipedia has its advantages.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/

Here's an in-depth article debunking the conspiracy.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

People believe conspiracy theories because they are looking for an explanation for an event or phenomenon that they don't understand.

Americans are trained like monkeys to believe labelling something a "conspiracy theory" automatically debunks it, with no requirement for further argument. Did you or that silly jughead of yours ever stop for a moment to consider that the official narrative is a theory about a conspiracy of radical Muslims who all failed their flight training? Let me answer that for you. No, you didn't. Your government sold you a conspiracy theory, contrary to all the known facts, and then they somehow managed to convince you that questioning the factual validity of that conspiracy theory makes you a conspiracy theorist. They exploited a well-documented logical fallacy known as The Emperor Has No Clothes.

You literally don't know up from down or left from right. It's shocking to witness the level of brainwashing in your country. Shocking.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

Wikipedia is a better source today than most.

You're simply not listening. If you attempt to use Wikipedia as a reference at university your tutor will fail your paper. The editing format of Wikipedia allows controversial pages to be hijacked by special interest groups and propagandised to fit a particular narrative. I've already demonstrated that to you. The Wikipedia page on beansprouts is probably fairly accurate, but that does not remain true for the pages which have important political ramifications for the mechanics of world power. If you genuinely believe the people who run the world are going to let dissidents jump onto Wikipedia and contradict what they want the public to believe then you frankly haven't got the faintest idea how mass media operates.

No credible scientist or engineer in the world supports the official 9/11 narrative, because the official 9/11 narrative is not credible. It's a complete and total aberration of the most basic laws of physics, and a complete and total aberration of the genuine scientific studies which have been performed. If you'd followed the development of the research like I have for the last eighteen years, you'd be fully aware of the numerous times the government appointed "investigators" were caught with their pants around their ankles telling blatant and enormous lies. Over and over and over again they were caught inventing an alternative reality. If I thought for a moment that you were intelligent and open-minded enough to care, I'd give you examples, but it is abundantly clear to me that you have no idea how to analyse information critically and that you simply believe what you're told, no questions asked.

Given the dozens of eye-witness reports consistent with the use of explosives and/or bombs inside the towers, plus the extremely suspicious symmetry and speed of the collapses, the number one priority of government agencies should have been to eliminate the use of explosives from the enquiry. But that was never done. No tests for explosives residue were ever performed. When somebody calls you a "conspiracy theorist" for simply pointing out clear and objective facts like the government's failure to follow even the most basic and fundamental investigative protocol, that somebody can immediately be assumed to be a halfwit. There were 47 heavy core steel supports surrounding the perimeter of each of the main WTC towers, and hence in order for those towers to fall down vertically, with near-perfect symmetry, all 47 of those core supports would need to fail simultaneously. That's science. Science is not linking the baseless claims of an anonymous bullsh-tter on Wikipedia whose counterargument is, "Nah, never happened and everybody agrees with me."

Dreamer

Argument Topic: This isn't a research paper and wikipedia is still a good source. Economic and political incentives for hate and disinformation.

@Nomenclature

Most of the time I wrong I just simply don't know enough about the subject. There are skeptics that reject your conspiracy theory and are smarter and more knowledgeable than me. When they prove me wrong, often they use wikipedia.

I have a solid critical thinking base. Though it could be much better. As seen above there are liberal skeptics who ignore, shun, and publicly shame me because they see me as too to bother with or a troll. Why do you think I am even on this remote website?

Conspiracy theories are like the boy who cried wolf. Except boys are crying wolf 24/7/365 all over social media on multiple subjects. After awhile it gets old. You may be correct, Nomenclature.

The sheer difficulty of proving a negative is time consuming. Can we really prove 100% sure that the Earth is spherical and no flat Earth conspiracy exists? No, we can't, there is still that one in a trillion chance there really is a grand conspiracy.

How much time is reasonable to devote to this subject? After awhile we have duties to perform and if we spend too much time debunking conspiracy theories then we fall behind in other areas like race and gender.

Instead, I am going to focus on the economic incentives. Youtube got rich off of flat Earth conspiracy theories. Elon Musk makes lots of money off of Twitter's hate.

"10$19 million a year in ad revenue for Elon Musk’s cash-strapped Twitter. 

These 10 reinstated accounts generate billions of Twitter views, all of which Elon Musk can monetize and sell to household brands, such as Apple, Amazon, and the NFL."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/02/09/twitter-ads-revenue-suspended-account/

I will not feed your conspiracy theory anymore. The more I respond the more visibility and thus the conspiracy theorists win. Disinformation is not about making logical arguments it is about flooding the zone, disorientation, overwhelming, visibility, bad political actors, and most of all profit.

https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-twitter-false-news-travels-faster-true-stories-0308

Here's some links to understand what is going on for anyone open minded and caring enough to understand what is happening.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-disinformation-dozen-spreading-anti-vaccine-messaging-on-social-media/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/shadowland-introduction/610840/

https://bigthink.com/the-present/off-the-edge-flat-earth/

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don't_feed_the_Troll#Russian_troll_factory

Basically it all comes down to money and power. Algorithms cater to people's worst attributes, conspiracy thinking, hype, and sensational for political power and profit.

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

This isn't a research paper and wikipedia is still a good source.

This is a research paper:-

https://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

And Wikipedia is not a good source unless your level of education happens to be below university level. At university level we address criticism and opposing arguments directly. What we do not do is ignore what the other person says and simply reply with opposing links, because that solves absolutely nothing.

Most of the time I wrong I just simply don't know enough about the subject. 

I agree. Most of the time you are wrong, and this is one of those times. 

There are skeptics that reject your conspiracy theory

What conspiracy theory? I haven't proposed any theories. All I have said is that the WTC buildings were brought down via controlled demolition, which is self-evidently true and supported by a treasure trove of direct and circumstantial evidence. Disputing the laughable conspiracy theory which you are dumb enough to have fallen for does not constitute a conspiracy theory, and you have somehow managed to avoid reading the part where I have already pointed that out to you twice. I am posting material evidence that what I am saying is true while you are trying to win a game of semantics. You are using smear attacks like "conspiracy theory" as an alternative to actually having any legitimate counterargument to anything I have written.

and are smarter and more knowledgeable than me. 

As are some geological formations, but let's not dwell on such things. Far more important is that even smart people can be fooled. Smart people are not immune to deception or propaganda. There were many thousands of smart Germans who believed the lies Hitler was selling, a pertinent example being the burning of the Reichstag, in which Hitler orchestrated an arson attack on his own building in order to manufacture a pretext for aggression against communists and Jews. False flag attacks are nothing new, and the US government has planned them too, for example Operation Northwoods, in which the US government proposed murdering its own citizens and blaming the Cubans as a pretext for war. Your naive misconception that the US government would never kill its own citizens for political advantage is plain wrong and contradicted by the documented historical record.

I have a solid critical thinking base. 

Don't make me laugh. I have written book content for the university press in the social sciences and I was the proud receiver of a national university award specifically for critical thinking. I'm not saying those things to brag, but rather to explain that I am somebody who is at least moderately qualified enough to inform you that you wouldn't know critical thinking if it arrived at your bedroom door in the early hours of the morning and attacked you with a stuffed animal. 

Conspiracy theories are like the boy who cried wolf.

I have explained the fallacies in your allegations at least half a dozen times and yet you continue to use them. That is not critical thinking. That is religious thinking. That is refusing to alter your belief structure in light of new information which somebody else patiently provides for you. For the sake of clarity, let me try one final time to explain where your thinking is deviating from reason.

1) The narrative sold to the public regards 9/11 is the conspiracy theory. It's a theory about a conspiracy: ergo, it's a conspiracy theory. Quite how you have been convinced that rejecting it makes someone a conspiracy theorist is anybody's guess, but for the record, you are the conspiracy theorist for believing that self-contradictory, literally impossible bag of trash, and I am the lonely voice of reason trying to guide you through the dark.

2) Rejecting any hypothesis exclusively on the basis of an arbitrary label such as "conspiracy theory", and without any concern for the merits of the hypothesis, is a particularly egregious logical fallacy sometimes referred to as a "false association". The premise is very simple, and it works like so. I work at a court and see several Italians jailed for being part of the mafia. The next Italian walks in, and I make a false association between him and the other Italians, concluding that he must be part of the mafia. I do so without actually knowing the first thing about the man. Moreover, the concept of rejecting any hypothesis on the grounds of labelling it a "conspiracy theory", pushes the logical fallacy one full step further, since "conspiracy theory" is an arbitrary label with no basis in objective fact like being Italian is. Hence, if I hold influence with the media, I can simply make sure any hypothesis I don't like is labelled a "conspiracy theory", ensuring it immediately receives negative attention or mockery, regardless of whether it is true or not. Welcome to your class on the mechanics of modern public relations propaganda.

 You may be correct, Nomenclature.

Well, I suppose this is progress, but the truth is that there are no maybes. I am 100 percent, cast iron guarantee correct. 9/11 was an inside job. The only reasonable point of contention when all the facts are taken into consideration is whether it was a soft inside job and the government let it happen, or a hard inside job and the government was actively involved in planning it. That at least is debatable.

Youtube got rich off of flat Earth conspiracy theories. Elon Musk makes lots of money off of Twitter's hate.

And Larry Silverstein got rich off the 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy he'd taken out on the towers 6 months before 9/11. The New York Port Authority had insured the buildings for 1.5 billion dollars, but Silverstein insisted on doubling that coverage. He then sued United Airlines for a further 3.5 billion.

Several anonymous buyers got mega rich purchasing highly suspicious volumes of put options (i.e. bets on the price of stock declining) on United Airlines prior to the stock collapsing in the wake of the attacks.

Furthermore, according to a US Federal Emergency Management Agency employee, a large quantity of gold bullion which had been stored in WTC 6 was mysteriously removed immediately prior to the attacks.

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

Here's some links to understand what is going on for anyone open minded and caring enough to understand what is happening.

None of your links have any relevance to the subject under discussion. Please, for your own sake, learn why it is irrational to post links about flat Earth and anti-vaccine theories in a debate about 9/11. There is no relationship whatsoever between these things. Scroll back up and read through this paragraph carefully:-

Rejecting any hypothesis exclusively on the basis of an arbitrary label such as "conspiracy theory", and without any concern for the merits of the hypothesis, is a particularly egregious logical fallacy sometimes referred to as a "false association". The premise is very simple, and it works like so. I work at a court and see several Italians jailed for being part of the mafia. The next Italian walks in, and I make a false association between him and the other Italians, concluding that he must be part of the mafia. I do so without actually knowing the first thing about the man. Moreover, the concept of rejecting any hypothesis on the grounds of labelling it a "conspiracy theory", pushes the logical fallacy one full step further, since "conspiracy theory" is an arbitrary label with no basis in objective fact like being Italian is. Hence, if I hold influence with the media, I can simply make sure any hypothesis I don't like is labelled a "conspiracy theory", ensuring it immediately receives negative attention or mockery, regardless of whether it is true or not. Welcome to your class on the mechanics of modern public relations propaganda.

JulesKorngold

The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City were caused by the impact of two commercial airliners, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, that were hijacked by terrorists and flown into the Twin Towers. The subsequent fires caused by the crash and fuel explosions, along with structural damage, caused the towers to collapse.

There is no credible evidence that the collapses were the result of controlled demolition. The 9/11 Commission Report, conducted by the US government, concluded that the collapses were caused by the impact of the airplanes and the subsequent fires. This conclusion is supported by extensive scientific evidence, including studies by engineers and scientists from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

The idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition has been widely discredited and is not supported by credible evidence. It is important to rely on the results of comprehensive, evidence-based investigations, rather than misinformation and conspiracy theories.

JulesKorngold

A conspiracy theory is a belief or idea that suggests that events or situations are the result of a secret and often sinister plot by a group of individuals or organizations. This belief typically lacks empirical evidence and is often based on circumstantial, incomplete, or unreliable information. Conspiracy theories are often fueled by a distrust of authorities, institutions, and the mainstream media, and can spread rapidly through social media and other channels.

Conspiracy theories are baseless, and some can be dangerous, as they can spread misinformation and sow division in society. It's always important to approach claims of conspiracy with a critical and skeptical eye and to seek out reliable sources of information.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

The idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition has been widely discredited and is not supported by credible evidence. 

That claim is so false it deserves to be pinned up somewhere as an example of how to tell an egregious lie with a straight face.

You have literally replied to credible evidence that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition with the claim that there is no credible evidence WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. It doesn't get more ridiculously dishonest than that.

From the engineering department of the University of Alaska:-

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

This is a study of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) — a 47-story building that suffered a total collapse at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001.

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

https://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

Nomenclature

@Dreamer

Wikipedia used to be a bad source and college professors discouraged its use for the reasons you stated. Later, scientists cleaned up much of wikipedia. The fact that anyone can edit wikipedia has its advantages.

No it doesn't. It leaves the site wide open to abuse by alliances of individuals with a common ideology or political goal. Your claim about scientists cleaning up much of Wikipedia is laughable, since it is impossible to post scientific evidence related to 9/11 which refutes the official narrative without it being deleted for fraudulent reasons.

Here's an in-depth article debunking the conspiracy.

That article is trash and it has been debunked hundreds of times by actual scientists and academics. Popular Mechanics is owned by the Hearst Corporation and most of its revenue comes from advertising for the defence industry. The lead researcher on that article was Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, the man who let the "dancing Israelis" caught celebrating the attacks out of jail and sent them back to Israel, contrary to the protests of the FBI agents who had been interrogating them. It's a textbook propaganda piece and a mixture of half-truths, straw men and outright falsehoods. Let's start with this, just as an example:-

In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America

That is laughably untrue:-

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

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Al-Qaeda Did It

There is extensive evidence linking Al-Qaeda, a Sunni Islamic extremist group, to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Here are some key points:

1. Responsibility claim: Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks in a statement issued shortly after the events of September 11.

2. Hijackers: The 19 hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks were members of Al-Qaeda and several of them had trained in Afghanistan, where the group maintained training camps.

3. Plotting and planning: Evidence shows that the 9/11 attacks were planned and directed by Al-Qaeda's leadership, including Osama bin Laden, who was the organization's leader at the time.

4. Financial support: Several individuals and organizations linked to Al-Qaeda provided financial support to the hijackers and helped them carry out the attacks.

5. Connections to other attacks: There are also links between Al-Qaeda and other attacks that took place around the same time, such as the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

In 2021, the FBI released a newly declassified document about the 9/11 attacks, which revealed details about the logistical support given to two of the hijackers in the lead-up to the attacks. The evidence indicates that the two hijackers received logistical and financial support from a handful of people inside the United States with connections to al-Qaeda.

Nomenclature

Argument Topic: Stop Myth-Building.

@JulesKorngold

When you quote things, include sources so they can be scrutinised. Failing to ever provide your sources only illustrates what a sickeningly dishonest person you are.

The hijackers "left no paper trail," FBI Director Robert Mueller said in the text of an April 19 speech the FBI released Monday.

"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," he said.

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

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold

What is the motive?

You are not describing any argument of grievance about an inside job, but rather simple questioning State or Federal intervention made in an ongoing disaster. Not that these suggestions are fact but as example a motive would be a story along the lines of Congressional rulings on past computer proprietor ship, possible evidence of organized crime gambling conspiracies in vast payouts to state lotteries, even the outlandish idea 9/11 is a signature for an attack made on the American people based on the unlucky victim of the crime as the people of America. The axiom of GOD which would be by comparison shown as the correct date of 08/09 has influence over such things as taxation balance. The axiom also relates to complex intellectual ideas of deep space navigation under the presumption all current methods being limited by its own requirements and Tech.

Barnardot

@Nomenclature ;When you quote things, include sources so they can be scrutinized.

In your case thats not necessary is it since no body wants to scrutinize such dum twisted exsteamist stuff any way. Any way even if any body goes to the sauces of your dum wiredo sites they wouldnt stop laughing any way. And your trying to tell that guy that he is sickenly dishonest Well strike me down if ever that was being even a bit rich coming from someone who invented the words dishonest and lie.

Nomenclature

@Barnardot

Listen buddy, if you don't have anything constructive to contribute to the debate then just go away you pointless troll.

Barnardot

@Nomenclature ;Listen buddy, if you don't have anything constructive to contribute to the debate then just go away you pointless troll.

Okay I will then but since I have contributed to the debate and am not a troll then I won’t go away then. Finding people out who lie and are dishonest and try to toe people along with exstream sites and made up stuff is a very good contribution don’t you think. Never actually saying something and refusing to answer and ignore and calling every one names and talking down and dictating to them like an Adolf is not contributing any thing don’t you reckon 

Kekee

Yes

I have seen the footage and it is so fake. Like a video where the plane looks like it literally just disappears as it is about to hit. 

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Again

The 9/11 attacks were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda against the United States on the morning of September 11, 2001. The attacks resulted in 2,977 fatalities, over 25,000 injuries, and substantial long-term health consequences, in addition to at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage. It is important to note that there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.

Some of the most common conspiracy theories about 9/11 include:

* The Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, not by the impact of the planes.

* The Pentagon was not hit by a plane, but by a missile.

* The U.S. government knew about the attacks in advance and allowed them to happen.

* The attacks were staged in order to justify the War on Terror.

There is no evidence to support any of these claims. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of the Twin Towers and concluded that they were brought down by the impact of the planes and the resulting fires. The NIST investigation was peer-reviewed by a panel of independent experts, and its findings have been accepted by the scientific community.

There is also no evidence to support the claim that the Pentagon was hit by a missile. The U.S. military has released multiple videos and photographs of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and these images show that it was a commercial airliner.

The claim that the U.S. government knew about the attacks in advance and allowed them to happen is based on the fact that some intelligence agencies received warnings about the attacks in the months leading up to 9/11. However, these warnings were vague and did not specify the date or time of the attacks. It is therefore impossible to say for certain that the U.S. government knew about the attacks in advance.

The claim that the 9/11 attacks were staged in order to justify the War on Terror is also based on speculation and conjecture. There is no evidence to support this claim.

In conclusion, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. The attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda, and there is no evidence that the U.S. government was involved in any way.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: The Indisputable Timeline

The timeline leading up to and during the 9/11 attacks is complex and involved many different organizations and individuals. Here is a brief overview:

- In 1988, Al-Qaeda was formed by Osama bin Laden with the goal of establishing a pan-Islamic caliphate.

- In the early 1990s, Al-Qaeda began attacking U.S. targets, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

- In 1992: Al-Qaeda attacked U.S. troops in Somalia.

- In 1998, Al-Qaeda issued a fatwa calling for Muslims to kill Americans, including civilians and military personnel, anywhere in the world.

- In 1998: Al-Qaeda bombs U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people.

- In early 2000, several of the hijackers began traveling to the United States under false identities, where they enrolled in flight training programs.

- In June 2000, CIA officials learned of a possible Al-Qaeda plot to hijack a commercial airliner and use it as a weapon.

- In July 2001, the U.S. government received multiple warnings of an impending terrorist attack, including a memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" delivered to President George W. Bush.

- On September 11, 2001, 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes, with two planes flown into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, one flown into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and one crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to overtake the hijackers.

- The attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and caused significant damage to the buildings and surrounding areas.

In the aftermath of the attacks, there were extensive investigations by various government agencies and independent organizations to determine the timeline of events and who was responsible. These investigations ultimately led to the conclusion that the hijackers were acting on behalf of Al-Qaeda and were not working with any other organizations or governments.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Motivation

There are several factors that can contribute to the development and spread of 9/11 conspiracy theories. One common motivation is a desire to make sense of a tragic and traumatic event that can sometimes seem incomprehensible or beyond explanation. Conspiracy theories offer a simple and seemingly coherent explanation that can provide a sense of control, order, and understanding.

Another factor is a lack of trust in institutions, including the government and the media. In some cases, people may feel that the official narrative doesn't match up with their own experiences or beliefs, leading them to question the validity of the information provided by official sources.

Conspiracy theories can also offer a sense of camaraderie and belonging, as people who share similar beliefs can come together and form communities around their shared views. This can create a sense of identity and purpose, particularly for those who may feel marginalized or disconnected in other areas of their lives.

Unfortunately, misinformation and conspiracy theories can also spread rapidly in online echo chambers and social media networks, making it difficult to distinguish between accurate information and falsehoods. It is important to critically evaluate sources of information, rely on credible evidence-based information, and challenge misinformation and conspiracy theories whenever possible.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Antisemitism

There are several antisemitic 9/11 conspiracy theories that have been circulated in various forms over the years. Some of the most common include:

- Jews were warned not to go to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11: This conspiracy theory alleges that Jewish people were warned in advance of the 9/11 attacks and told not to go to work at the World Trade Center, implying that they were involved in the plot. However, there is no evidence to support this claim and it has been thoroughly debunked.  Many Jews were victims of the attack.

- Israel or Jewish groups were involved in the 9/11 attacks: Some conspiracy theories allege that Israel, or Jewish groups within the United States, were involved in the 9/11 attacks either directly or by working behind the scenes. These theories often rely on anti-Semitic tropes that portray Jews as secretive and manipulative. There is no credible evidence to support these claims.

- Jews profited from the 9/11 attacks: This conspiracy theory alleges that Jewish individuals and businesses profited from the 9/11 attacks, either by short-selling stocks or through other means. Like the other conspiracy theories, this claim has been debunked and has no basis in fact.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: The Pentagon

It is not accurate to claim that no evidence was found at the site of the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon on 9/11. Eyewitness accounts, photographs, and physical debris provide ample evidence of the crash and the destruction caused by it.

While it is true that the impact of the crash did not cause the same level of damage to the building as might be expected from a high-speed collision, there are a number of factors that can help explain this apparent discrepancy. The Pentagon is constructed of reinforced concrete and designed to withstand significant force, which would have helped to contain the impact of the crash. Additionally, fragments of the plane's fuselage, engine, and landing gear were indeed found at the scene, and eyewitness accounts describe seeing debris from the plane scattered in and around the impact site.

The heat and smoke damage that were present were consistent with the fire that occurred when the plane crashed into the building. The fire spread quickly and was fueled by the jet fuel from the plane, but it was ultimately contained and extinguished by the efforts of first responders.

It is important to distinguish between credible evidence and claims made without proper evidence to support them. The 9/11 attacks were a tragic and complex event, and while legitimate questioning and inquiry are important, it is also important to rely on evidence-based research and analysis.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: The Towers

It is true that prior to the 9/11 attacks, no skyscraper made of steel had collapsed entirely due to fire. However, the unique nature of the events on 9/11 makes it difficult to draw direct comparisons to other building collapses.

The World Trade Center towers were struck by commercial airliners traveling at high speed, causing significant structural damage and initiating a series of fires throughout the buildings. The unique combination of factors, including the severity of the impact and the intensity and duration of the fires, led to the collapse of the towers.

It is also worth noting that while no other steel building has been destroyed by fire since 9/11, there have been instances of significant structural damage and partial collapses due to fire in other buildings, including the Windsor Tower in Madrid and the Address Downtown Hotel in Dubai.

In any case, it is important to rely on credible evidence when making claims and to avoid drawing overly broad conclusions based on limited data points. The collapse of the World Trade Center towers was a complex and multifaceted event, and continued research and analysis can help us better understand the unique factors that contributed to their destruction.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Flight 93

It is a common misconception that cell phone technology in 2001 was not capable of allowing phone calls from an airplane in flight. While it is true that making reliable phone calls was more difficult at high altitudes due to a lack of cell towers, it was still technically possible to make calls using cell phones or seatback phones on airplanes.

On 9/11, many of the phone calls made by passengers on Flight 93, as well as other hijacked planes, were made using the seatback phones provided on the aircraft. These phones used Airfone technology, which was specifically designed for in-flight phone calls.

Additionally, while the quality of these calls may have been variable and not always reliable, it is important to remember that the passengers and crew members on Flight 93 were likely under extreme stress and may not have been able to provide completely accurate descriptions of their circumstances.

It is also worth noting that investigations into the 9/11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report, have confirmed the veracity of many of the phone calls made on that day. The evidence gathered from these phone calls and other sources has helped to build a detailed understanding of the events of 9/11 and the heroic actions of passengers and crew members who attempted to halt the hijacking of Flight 93.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: "Disapearing" Planes

Kekee said:

I have seen the footage and it is so fake. Like a video where the plane looks like it literally just disappears as it is about to hit. 

The footage of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center has been extensively analyzed and authenticated by experts in the years since the attacks. While there are certainly instances of altered or doctored images or videos circulating online, it is important to rely on credible evidence and analysis when evaluating such claims.

Regarding the specific claim that the plane in the footage "just disappears" as it is about to hit the tower, it is likely that this is an optical illusion caused by the camera perspective or other factors. In reality, the planes flown into the towers did make contact with the buildings, causing significant damage and initiating a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse of the towers.

JulesKorngold

Braindead nonsense by Nomenclature.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Nomenclature's Nonsense

Calling Nomenclature's claim nonsense is simply a counter-claim, not a personal attack.

Nomenclature playing victim again.  

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: More Than Nonsense

Nomenclature's claims are pure conspiracy theory bullsh*t.  Not worth the time to debunk.  Bullsh*t in huge font is still bullsh*t.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Coward


Nomenclature refuses to disclose his ethnicity or country.  What is he scared of?  They must suck.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Oops

RobertoDuran just answered to the username Nomenclature.  How is that possible??

What a dufuss.

Barnardot

@RobertoDuran Any one with half of a brain for a brain can debunk that sort of stup idity because its all total extreme non sense that copied and pasted from extreme sites proving that you have way less than half of a brain and cant even think straight for your self. You should be ashamed for being so dum

Barnardot

@RobertoDuran ;Not testing for explosive residues is either the biggest example of government negligence in modern history, or it's a cover up.

They didn't test for explosives because they have a bit more brains than conspiracy stupidos and are not going to look for irrelevant things just because dum foolish dum wits like you have a mental problem.

Joeseph

@Barnardot



Do us favour buddy , will you just shut your enormous ignorant spunk filled American gob. 


You want to talk about people? You're  from a nation that voted that  dumb bustard Tump into office , he actually believed the continental army took over the  AIRPORTS in 1775 

Then the man Americans think another genius,  the spastic Bush said ........


" Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”—Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Yes!

9/11 was an inside job!  Inside Nomenclature's substandard, diseased brain.

Joeseph

@RobertoDuran


I think it's J K's  sprog from a piglet ......ya know the way kikes love pork 

Joeseph

@RobertoDuran

He always wins races by a .......nose ........yeeee haaaaaaa

Joeseph

@RobertoDuran

Can they do photos that big ?