Proposal- Was 9/11 an inside job?

[BlueMoose]

why would that be a walk in the park?

What motive was there to take WTC 7 down?

-You wouldnt believe me, so I wont bother, been there, done that

-You think it was taken down ? I thought NIST was rambling something about weakened structure collapsing by fire (in free fall speed)

[John99]

are you working towards your high school diploma as well?

[BlueMoose]

are you working towards your high school diploma as well?

-What use is there for such diploma for conspiracy theorist whom uses tinfoil hat and is smoking weed while drinking kool aid in moms basement ?

-C´mon, you can do better than that...high school diploma...

[John99]

[John99]

well yah, i agree with that.

[scott3x]

Scott, I suggest that you debate only WTC 7, that should be walk in the park

I've been discussing WTC 7 as well as the twin towers mainly in 2 threads that now total more then 4000 posts combined.

The first is 9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

That thread was closed- it was over 2500 posts and it talked about -all- aspects of 9/11, which I think was simply too broad.

The other is WTC Collapses, and talks about the collapse of the twin towers as well as WTC 7; it's approaching 2000 posts.

Despite this massive amount of posts, it seems that no one has been persuaded from either side of the debate so far. However, I do think that some progress has been made.

And, ofcourse, there is also the discussion thread concerning the WTC Collapses thread here:
Discussion: How did WTC buildings collapse?

The difference between that thread and the one is pseudoscience is that I wanted that thread to be more civil; and it was; however, for whatever reason, perhaps because the WTC collapses thread in the pseudoscience forum is much more established, that thread went dormant while the pseudoscience thread is still going.

[scott3x]

I humbly ask for an extension on the 2 week deadline for producing a debate, as someone has now expressed interest in doing such a debate, here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1877

Unfortunately, he's not sure when he can do it, but perhaps this is because he felt that the debate had to be one that took a lot of time; I believe it can be done with relatively quickly and am hoping that the true discussion would happen in the 9/11 discussion thread that would be opened when the debate is opened.

The person in question, Uno Hoo, has asked that the extension last for 2 weeks. Here is what he said in a post in pseudoscience's WTC Collapses thread:

I am certainly interested in doing such a thing. You have really caught me flat footed with the news that the two week deadline is TODAY. For me, it is a one day ( wait, I think it is a no day deadline from my reference frame ) deadline.

Perhaps James the benevolent and merciful administrator would grant another two week extension for me to collect my thoughts? I am not prepared to engage in a serious debate exchange on either side of the issue, but would probably see fit to give one nice kick off post for the initiation. But not on one minute notice. I am not that quick witted. My mind is not like a quick little waterfall. it is more like a glacier with the tenacity of a bulldog, it is slow but it will grind up anything in its path.

If James the merciful will give another two weeks then i will agree to provide a kick off post which will try to cover some of the most important points as i am presently aware of, that work in favor of the establishment position.

[BlueMoose]

Scott,

I´ve been reading those threads time to time, kudos for your efforts.
The reason I suggested to debate WTC 7 only is that otherwise it gets too broad
and complex, too much disinformation floating around. The WTC 7 is the key IMO

Check out this link about it, enjoy
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....light=Building

Notice how the supporters of official position do change their take on the subject,
..."it wasnt demolished, it did collapse because of the weakened structure consumed by fire" and then "there was exploding material that caused building to collapse" and then "it was pulled down because of the safety issues" and so on, they are clueless what happened and yet still attacking without thinking twice what they are going to say, many times no logic or reason what so ever It was hilarious,
but after that, I havent bother to participate anymore in these debates, too much emotional responses with no logic or reason involved which is a shame since after all we are in science forum where logic and rational thought should flourish, but, well...

[scott3x]

Scott,

I´ve been reading those threads time to time, kudos for your efforts.

Thanks :-)

The reason I suggested to debate WTC 7 only is that otherwise it gets too broad and complex, too much disinformation floating around. The WTC 7 is the key IMO

Perhaps the most important key is the insurance that Larry Silverstein took out for terrorist strikes a few weeks before the event. Pilots for 9/11 truth just remastered their film, 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon as well.

Perhaps there's more then one key and, depending on who you are, one or more of these keys may be needed to see the truth. I have found it hard to separate WTC 7 from the twin towers, since there are many elements that are similar- for this reason, I made threads speaking of the WTC collapses in general.

Check out this link about it, enjoy
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....light=Building

Notice how the supporters of official position do change their take on the subject,
..."it wasnt demolished, it did collapse because of the weakened structure consumed by fire" and then "there was exploding material that caused building to collapse" and then "it was pulled down because of the safety issues" and so on, they are clueless what happened and yet still attacking without thinking twice what they are going to say, many times no logic or reason what so ever

It all sounds logical to them. This is the real issue; I think many times people think that because a certain proposition sounds logical to themselves, it must be logical to everyone else. This frequently simply isn't the case.

It was hilarious,
but after that, I haven't bothered to participate anymore in these debates, too much emotional responses with no logic or reason involved which is a shame since after all we are in science forum where logic and rational thought should flourish, but, well...

I agree on the emotional responses. However, I do think that logic and reason do at times surface. I think that my general style of posting, which tends to focus on the evidence instead of name calling can be a big help.

[camilus]

Was 9/11 an inside job?

yezzir.

Evidence: Everything on Loose Change DVD.

End of story.

[Uno Hoo]

I, Uno Hoo, do hereby solemnly swear to uphold the providence of a "first pitch" post in a debate re 9/11 on just two conditions important to me, in the debate and also in the thread, in addition, of course, to any and all conditions determined by scott3x and JamesR merciful administrator, et al.

1. Behavior of participants in the debate and thread must be civil and as respectful as possible, considering that strong opinions and counter opinions are possible concerning the subject matter.

2. I have no problem with references to links or written literature, but the one who makes a reference must provide an adequate summary in their own words.


I have my opening post written and ready to go. Progress was quicker than I expected, and it won't make Shakespeare jealous, but It will probably serve as a starter. I am unfamiliar with Formal Debate procedure, so someone will have to point me in the right direction. Let's roll!

[scott3x]

I, Uno Hoo, do hereby solemnly swear to uphold the providence of a "first pitch" post in a debate re 9/11 on just two conditions important to me, in the debate and also in the thread, in addition, of course, to any and all conditions determined by scott3x and JamesR merciful administrator, et al.

1. Behavior of participants in the debate and thread must be civil and as respectful as possible, considering that strong opinions and counter opinions are possible concerning the subject matter.

2. I have no problem with references to links or written literature, but the one who makes a reference must provide an adequate summary in their own words.


I have my opening post written and ready to go. Progress was quicker than I expected, and it won't make Shakespeare jealous, but It will probably serve as a starter. I am unfamiliar with Formal Debate procedure, so someone will have to point me in the right direction. Let's roll!

Woot :-). Your conditions sound fair enough- I hope that I can use some very short quotes but if not it can be entirely my own words; this debate is simply to get things started, what I really want is just a place where all aspects other then the WTC collapses can be discussed and that that place not be pseudoscience where people laugh and say that it's a forum for 'woo woos'. In fact, I'd like to term 'woo woo', 'psycho' and 'self loathing' to not even be allowed as a tag for the thread or in the discussion :-). Anyway, to start the debate Uno, just post this thread title:
Debate: Was 9/11 an inside job?

And then put your post in that thread.

[John99]

-What use is there for such diploma for conspiracy theorist whom uses tinfoil hat and is smoking weed while drinking kool aid in moms basement ?

Well i guess then you and i both know that there is a lot of truth to that. That is the main problem with smoking weed though. TBH, it would be close to a perfect drug if not for that one issue. There is paranoia and distortion of reality.

There is no answer to my question about motive because an answer does not exist, it just collapsed from the damage and fire but once they start toking the conspiracy takes off like brain damage.

[John99]

Weed just magnifies things and makes people too emotional. People tend to over think issues and take things more seriously and become super sensitive. So i will be the bad guy to some but i dont really care because if i tell the truth then what does it matter?

[Ladicius]

My goodness. It wasn't a frickin inside job. IF anyone in the government....EVER tried to commit an act like this. Not one of us would have realized it. In fact all the inside jobs being commited RIGHT NOW wouldn't be notice. It's called mainstream, theres no conspiracy that someone has truly uncovered or there'd be a second civil war. If they were to commit a conspiracy they'd spend so much time on it, untill it was executed perfectly. For you all to be so naive to neglect this fact is disgusting, and you shouldn't waste so much time on this one topic. Look for a real conspiracy.

[scott3x]

My goodness. It wasn't a frickin inside job. IF anyone in the government....EVER tried to commit an act like this. Not one of us would have realized it. In fact all the inside jobs being commited RIGHT NOW wouldn't be notice. It's called mainstream, theres no conspiracy that someone has truly uncovered or there'd be a second civil war. If they were to commit a conspiracy they'd spend so much time on it, untill it was executed perfectly. For you all to be so naive to neglect this fact is disgusting, and you shouldn't waste so much time on this one topic. Look for a real conspiracy.

I'm just happy James hasn't shut down this proposal thread yet. Perhaps he will now, as Uno Hoo has now agreed to enter in a debate with me. He's made it quite clear that this thread isn't to debate whether 9/11 was a conspiracy, but to come to terms for discussing it formally, in a debate thread. Once the debate thread has started -then- a discussion thread can be created. But not before. Uno Hoo has stepped up to the plate, I'm now simply waiting for his post.

[BlueMoose]

Well i guess then you and i both know that there is a lot of truth to that. That is the main problem with smoking weed though. TBH, it would be close to a perfect drug if not for that one issue. There is paranoia and distortion of reality.

There is no answer to my question about motive because an answer does not exist, it just collapsed from the damage and fire but once they start toking the conspiracy takes off like brain damage.

-LOL. Havent been smoking looooooooong time and guess what, I still hold my position, maybe those firefighters whom talked about secondary devices and bombs in the building were smoking weed too
-I assumed you can recognize sarcasm, but hey, maybe you were on weed...
-And what goes for debate, its kinda low to try ridicule the messenger instead the message, weed or not. ? .
-The answer for the why part, well, what does it matter to you when you have already made up your mind ? There were more than one motive, that I can tell you.

Weed just magnifies things and makes people too emotional. People tend to over think issues and take things more seriously and become super sensitive. So i will be the bad guy to some but i dont really care because if i tell the truth then what does it matter?

-Are you speaking from experience
-Actually I dont see you as bad guy, you just want to poke around here, maybe for fun, I dont know, but most of the times you really dont have any meaningful to offer what I have noticed, just poking around.

[John99]

I am not ridiculing anyone. You brought it up and went in this direction when i asked for what purpose would be to take WTC 7 and keep it a secret? If they wanted to demo it they would hve demoed it. It fell hours later and who would have cared if they did deliberately bring it down for safety purposes. Even the weakest argument cannot be made for a conspiracy related to WTC 7, all you say is basically i dont think it could have collapsed? But you are not qualified to make that determonation. You judge by emotion and not logic.

There is a video of a building in Denmark, same type collapsing in same manner due to fire. But i am sure people obsessed with this know what i am referring to so let them post the link. I am not getting paid to be here or dont have dvd to pawn or have no reason to defend people i never met before and have no relation to. Just common sense.

[BlueMoose]

Whatever man, I have a monster memory in some things, go the original WTC 7 thread I linked earlier and see whom brought up the weed issue, in ridiculing sense I might add If I recall it right your remark was "too much weed for you man"... And I recall in same thread from you something about vibrations that made it collapse.
Like I have said earlier, I´m not into debating something that has been already once debated.

[John99]

You brought up both issues here. you dont expect people to respond? no problem.