9/11 Debate

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

I AM CHALLENGING ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THE OFFICIAL STORY TO A DEBATE. Now there are many ways that we can do this, but I think the best would be on skype on webcam. Again this is a challenge for anyone who believes in the official story to a debate, I will gladly put my face behind my beliefs and hopefully you will do the same. We can decide on length and date depending on what’s best for everyone involved.

All I want is for both sides to have a platform to present their ideas (without any name calling) and then we can let the people decide. The bottom line is if you are so adamant about how the government story is the correct one, you will have no problem burying me with the facts. So leave me a message on this thread or send me a pm and we can set this thing up.

2

You’re pulling a creationist tactic here. If you want to debate, let people dig up the evidence to counter that which you will undoubtedly have compiled in front of you. Stop placing questions that have had the answer given and don’t ever speculate what you think the government is capable of. Provide hard facts instead of Youtube statements.

Face to face will only work if there is a debunker as fervent in his beliefs as you. The moment they don’t know something, you’ll declare victory and the entire episode will be wasted time.

Of course, this post will be ignored, so there’s 2 minutes of my life gone.

3

[quote]Makavali wrote:
You’re pulling a creationist tactic here. If you want to debate, let people dig up the evidence to counter that which you will undoubtedly have compiled in front of you. Stop placing questions that have had the answer given and don’t ever speculate what you think the government is capable of. Provide hard facts instead of Youtube statements.

Face to face will only work if there is a debunker as fervent in his beliefs as you. The moment they don’t know something, you’ll declare victory and the entire episode will be wasted time.

Of course, this post will be ignored, so there’s 2 minutes of my life gone.[/quote]

All I said was let both sides present their story and let the people decide, that isn’t possible on here since both sides have a lot to say and that is why a live debate would work better where people have their information ready to go. Go look at the thread and count how many times “debunkers” have called someone a name, it’s just ridiculous how people get accosted for speaking their beliefs.

4

[quote]nik133 wrote:
and that is why a live debate would work better where people have their information ready to go.[/quote]

Like I just said, you think the typical debunker is a fervent in his beliefs. Live debate won’t work for the same reason creation debates fail when live. If you stumped a scientist with a question about evolution, he’ll think “Hm, interesting question, I might go research that”, before that thought is even put into speech, the creationist declares victory.

You’ll do the same thing. You do it even when the debate isn’t live. You set up a standard for debate and get angry when that same standard is applied to you.

Also, if name calling bothers you so much, I recommend growing a pair. I for one am name calling because you all get so worked up about it I have to sit back and laugh my ass off.

Now to lighten the thread, have some music: Queen - Another One Bites The Dust - Rock Montreal - YouTube

5

HA at 1:40

6

There’s nothing to debate. People can view the collapse initiating in the impact zone (which we all saw planes fly into), by simply watching video. Literally. You can actually see the exterior beams bowing in until they finally and completely collapse. Take just this photo, the collapse has obviously initiated in the impact zone. The above portion has tilted and has begun to come through the impact zone. The building below? Intact. That’s not building demolition. See, no need to video a debate.

7

Impact zone collapse.

8

Great that still doesn’t answer why there were buildings closer to the towers that stood yet WTC 7 fell, besides there are many elements of demolition within the buildings pointed out in these Architects and Engineers videos here:

As for your NIST report, AE debunked it here:

Do you really believe that AE could find over 850 PROFESSIONAL Architects and Engineers to demand a new investigation if they felt it wasn’t necessary and that the first investigation was good enough?

9

[quote]nik133 wrote:
850 PROFESSIONAL Architects and Engineers to demand a new investigation if they felt it wasn’t necessary and that the first investigation was good enough?[/quote]

Wow, 850, that’s an impressive number in a country of only… how many?

10

[i]However, an examination of the petition signing process leaves much to be desired. When the site was first opened, there was no vetting of the signatures or credentials of signers whatsoever. Several people demonstrated this ineptitude by signing up as fictional cartoon characters with invented engineering degrees. AE911Truth was forced closer to honesty by this embarrassment and has since done a better job of vetting the people on their list.

Which isn’t saying much. Their current listing of petition signers shows that of the 549 people the group claims to be building professionals, 47 have yet to provide any “hardcopy or other verification” of their degrees and/or licenses to the group. 15 are retired. 12 have expired licenses.

And 230 of them don’t have a professional license at all! They only have degrees in the architectural or engineering fields, the majority with only a bachelor’s degree. This number, by the way, only covers those petition signers in the United States. There is no distinction made in the non-U.S. building professionals listed, and the majority of the non-verified experts come from these 97 names.

And of course the term “engineer” covers a wide spectrum of academic discipline, from structural engineering (the most relevant field to the group’s aims) to things like software or electrical engineers. All are lumped together, as if a naval engineer could claim special insight into the physics of a collapsing building.

To top it all off, the verification process remains absurdly easy to circumvent, as the recent adventures of a certain Mike Rotch demonstrated this past summer (2008). There is simply no reason to take the AE911Truth petition seriously as a tool to rally for a legally empowered investigation.[/i]

Shit stain of an organization.

11

[quote]nik133 wrote:
Great that still doesn’t answer why there were buildings closer to the towers that stood yet WTC 7 fell, besides there are many elements of demolition within the buildings pointed out in these Architects and Engineers videos here:

As for your NIST report, AE debunked it here:

Do you really believe that AE could find over 850 PROFESSIONAL Architects and Engineers to demand a new investigation if they felt it wasn’t necessary and that the first investigation was good enough?[/quote]

Yes, I enjoy tossing my liberties out the window in exchange for a little warm feeling of safety.

12

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Yes, I enjoy tossing my liberties out the window in exchange for a little warm feeling of safety.[/quote]

How can you possibly feel safe knowing how easy it is/was to hijack a plane and destroy 3000 lives in an instant?

13

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Yes, I enjoy tossing my liberties out the window in exchange for a little warm feeling of safety.

How can you possibly feel safe knowing how easy it is/was to hijack a plane and destroy 3000 lives in an instant?[/quote]

Perhaps you should consider this quote:

They that can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety

I agree.

Condi actually meant it when she said, “No body in the Administration imagined that they would use planes and fly them into buildings.” ???

The Pentagon drill a year prior didn’t happen???

The war games on 9/11 weren’t really scheduled in advance???

The Tenet/Rice meeting in July of 2001 meant nothing???

The PDB of Aug. 2001 wasn’t real???

14

[quote]nik133 wrote:
Great that still doesn’t answer why there were buildings closer to the towers that stood yet WTC 7 fell, besides there are many elements of demolition within the buildings pointed out in these Architects and Engineers videos here:

As for your NIST report, AE debunked it here:

Do you really believe that AE could find over 850 PROFESSIONAL Architects and Engineers to demand a new investigation if they felt it wasn’t necessary and that the first investigation was good enough?[/quote]

Great picture. However, you do realize these buildings are mostly air, correct? That is, they’re volume is largely air. When untold tons are crashing down from above, as seen in your own picture, where do you expect that air to go? You ever push down a plunger in a syringe?

[i]BILL BUTLER, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: We took two steps down from the fourth floor and the building started to shake.

SALVATORE D’AGOSTINO, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: You could hear the floors pancaking one on top of the other, huge explosions.

LIM: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and faster as they get closer. What I remember the most was the wind. It created almost like a hurricane-type force and actually pushed one of the firemen right by me.

MIKE MELDRUM, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: I was flown down a flight of stairs, a little groggy for a while. I noticed somebody on a half landing just up from me, a few stairs and I thought it was one of our guys and it was David Lim.[/i]
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/07/pitn.00.html

As far as the closer buildings…and? Distance from another building is now the key factor in why and how buildings collapse? The answer is because WTC 7 recieved sufficient damage and heat to collapse.

15

I have decided these loons are right, what changed my mind? This : Radio Recall - MWOTRC

We didn’t have the secret agent decoder rings. Drink more Ovaltine!

16

[quote]Sloth wrote:

SALVATORE D’AGOSTINO, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: You could hear the floors pancaking one on top of the other, huge explosions.

LIM: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and faster as they get closer. What I remember the most was the wind. It created almost like a hurricane-type force and actually pushed one of the firemen right by me.

[/quote]

Here are some fantastic and rare ground zero pictures taken on 9/13.
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/

Here is the big problem though in terms of reverse forensics … the majority of the debris is located outside of the building footprint, rather than concentrated within it. These photos indicate that the mass travelled laterally more so than it travelled vertically given its range of scatter and the LACK OF A CENTRALIZED HEAP AT THE BOTTOM.

“Pancake theory” postulates that the mass of the structure remained intact, moving in a focused manner down the length of the building, as the floor supports rapidly failed one by one, unable to resist the increasing downward force of the accumulating failed floors.

The chief pre-requisite for gravity driven completely symmetrical and vertical “pancake theory” to work is that the mass must remain intact, dense, focused, and perpendicular throughout the collapse in order for its energy to efficiently transfer. Unfortunately what is observed during the collapse is, rather than remain intact, dense, focused, and perpendicular … the mass, in a very un-focused manner, broke apart into voluminous clouds of small unconcentrated particles.
IPB Image
To the degree that the tiny particles that compose this unconcentrated mass are traveling “in a focused manner” … it is clearly much more of a horizontal and outward path rather than in an intact, focused, and perpendicular one.

Second as if the mid-collapse photos contradicting the theory was not enough, the post-collapse photos do not corroborate the theory that the floors remained intact, dense, and focused either. If a vertical pancake had genuinely occured there would be visible stacks of mostly intact floors. Instead, they are quite literally indiscernable if not completely unpresent. Why is there no “pile at the bottom” if the floors remained dense, intact, and focused ?

If floors did it … then where are they ???

This is what it looks like when floors vertically pancake themselves :

17

Additionally,

When concrete breaks, it does not turn into powder - it cracks into chunks and pieces.

And yet on 9/11 - concrete turned into powder in the middle of the air … it didn’t just turn into powder … it turned into a lot of powder

18

What FEMA, 9/11 Commission, Discovery, PBS, Popular Mechanics, and FEMA have done is called “the big lie” technique, and I am here to play the role of child telling the emperor that he is naked. They make the lie so enormous and shockingly implausible that people conclude it must be true. Who can with any intellectual honesty claim that floors “stacked” themselves when observed reality shows there are no floors stacked at the bottom ? Both buildings have been turned into hollowed out exo-skeletons … with no discernable intact portions of any floors at the bottom of either structure… Again, look at it - exoskeletons and NO heap of floors :

19


Here are some examples of them flat out LYING and trying to make it appear authoritative and official sounding!!!

They pretend the buildings were hollow, except floors attached only to the exterior of the building … when reality is that each building had 47 of the world’s largest, most rigid, and most redundant interlocking networks of columns running through the middle of the structure and carrying the bulk of the gravitational load !!!

Here are some construction photos - where the enormous 47 core columns that our government and media told us was not there … are completely visible.

20

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Additionally,

When concrete breaks, it does not turn into powder - it cracks into chunks and pieces.

And yet on 9/11 - concrete turned into powder in the middle of the air … it didn’t just turn into powder … it turned into a lot of powder[/quote]

How the fuck can you be this retarded. Even your precious Engineers and Architect for 9/11 Truth have fucking photos of the compressed floors on their website, not that they’d know what they’re looking at.