Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by scott3x, Feb 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Listen, leopold, I know you don't approve of the evidence I provide when it's from from 9/11 Research. However, you've provided absolutely no evidence that 9/11 Research isn't a credible site, while Headspin and I think it's quite good and even shaman_ has used it to back up his official story claims. Here is what they have to say concerning the cleanup in their WTC Steel Removal article:

    After a few weeks filming was -not- allowed. I've told you this and you simply say that it didn't happen from the start. So what? I have never stated that every government official was in on the deception; far from it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Or atleast that's what you believe.


    http://www.thepentacon.com/ does more then provide a list; it interviews the relevant witnesses and captures the interviews on video.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It sounds to me like you haven't read any of the sticky threads that head this subforum. If you're going to moderate the forum, you really should familiarise yourself with its special format and rules.

    While this particular debate may not follow the "rules of any debating society", that does not necessarily disqualify it from being a valid debate, especially according to the rules of the subforum.

    If you take a look at previous debates, you will in fact find that several of them do closely follow a traditional debate format similar to that of virtually any debating society you'd care to name.

    I don't mind criticism, but I'd prefer informed criticism rather than uninformed tangential sniping, thanks Fraggle.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    On second thought, I've come to think that you're right in regards to the size of the plane in one way; while I'm fine with the idea that the size of the plane flying over the pentagon was the same size as the flight 77, the size of the hole that the plane allegedly made is far too small for the plane to have actually made the impact.
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    So what? It seems that if you don't hear of someone catching the crooks red handed, it won't cut it for you. There's lots of evidence that suggests it was planted though:
    Did Flight 77 really crash into the Pentagon? - Suspicious plane debris...


    That doesn't mean that any of them were in a position to see debris being planted.
     
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    When they represent evidence, I'd think that any person serious in finding out the truth.


    Here's an excellent list of witnesses:
    Witness List Broken Down - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I've now gotten an answer as to why they didn't simply crash flight 77 into the pentagon:
    Motive for flyover?


    I have never claimed to have any eye witnesses to airplane parts being planted. Uno -did- claim that an official report claimed that "DNA from everyone on the jetliner was found and identified". For this reason, I think it's a perfectly valid question.


    That was the rule for the debate part. We're now in the discussion part and no such rule was stipulated for that part of it.
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i have no idea, but i do know that access to the site by civilians wasn't restricted during the early hours and days after the attack.
    like i stated before, the cleanup and the rescue effort was civilian (non government) directed. these civilians arrived from all parts of the US.
    i looked for a list of witnesses but couldn't find any.

    if i remember correctly the hole was about the location of where the right engine would have struck the building. the hole does look small though.


    a forum?
     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I already answered the question to Uno Hoo; I even did so in my own words; as a matter of fact, you're quoting my answer.


    I don't need to prove where they are. I only need to offer solid evidence that the official story as to where they ended up has fatal flaws. As to theories as to what happened to the passengers, or even if there -were- passengers, there's a thread on the subject in Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
    Where Might Be The Bodies (like Barbara Olsen)?, Claims (or theories) about victims' bodies?. I just now asked 2 questions in the thread to clarify why 2 different people believe in separate theories regarding this point.

    I believe I've seen a better theory before, involving the plane being shot down in an ocean in what was supposed to be one of the war games going on that day, but I can't find it now..
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2009
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Scott created identical threads in two forums, what does that constitute in your opinion?

    Sorry, and you've seen that occuring here? Where?

    The discussion never came out of the mud to begin with, Fraggle.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Good one, Frag!!!

    Yes, let's protect and coddle the wackos, nice work, Frag. That will really help in bringing back to science. Well done. :bravo:
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    well you made some excellent arguements in that regard EXCEPT for the list of witnesses that actuall y seen the jet fly over the pentagon instead of into it.
    even a list of witnesses will do little good for the fact that their character cannot be ascertained. are they attention whores? are they pathological liars? are there cops and firemen that seen the flyover?

    why not just fly the plane load of passengers into the building scott?
    doesn't that make more sense than what you are proposing?
    be honest with yourself scott, doesn't it make more sense to do tat?

    my references earlier as to the cleanup and rescue efforts was in regards to WTC 1 and 2.
     
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I assume I'm one of the people you're labelling as a 'wacko'. I'm glad that Fraggle stepped in, but I'm not exactly feeling coddled by the people I'm actually debating. I thought I could do this, but I'm just beginning to think that the whole thing is too toxic right now. Perhaps I'll be able to address other points made here at some point in time, but not now.
     
  16. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    I completely agree with McG, this debate was a huge disappointment!!! After all the proposal setup, a huge letdown! You failed to convince us. I might read your links provided in this thread and I have a feeling this thread is going to be actually more interesting than the debate...

    This whole flyover idea is plain silly, because of Occam's razor. Why not just let the plane hit whatever they can?(assuming it can reach an important target) What is the guarantee that the plane actually can make it to the Pentagon? Or it can go actually close enough to the "bombed" area??? Why complicate things when it isn't necessery???

    And wouldn't there be a bunch of eyewitnesses, (specially after an explosion) stating that they saw a plane flying away???

    There are some inconsistencies with the Pentagon attack, but this flyover theory just makes the rest look bad...
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2009
  17. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    As a judge I have to give a draw though for the debaters. Scott had 2 points and the 2nd one was actually a good one and Uno completely failed to address it. The statistical probability of having the wargames randomly on the same day as the attack is probably around 1 to 1-200, assuming there are 1-2 this kind of wargames a year.

    I generally agree with Scott that certain organizations (foreign secret services) and some people high up in the US administration knew about the upcoming attack, but it is a question just how much they knew (how many details) and one has to realize there isa huge difference between letting something happen and actively participating in it.

    Just like PH, they let it happen, but they didn't actively participated in it. Why would they? They had the Arabs set up for that...

    By the way one very good evidence for you Scott is the large option purchases in a German bank, that had a high ranked CIA guy as a former director. It is well documented, although not very well known... I don't believe in such a coincidence...
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2009
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    how would you like the debate to be served up? on fine china?
    in other words you really can't think of any good reason why the jet would fly over the pentagon instead of into it.
    i also noticed that your last post did not include any witnesses stating the jet flew over the pentagon instead of into it.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the military is ALWAYS conducting readiness tests, all kinds of them.
    there are always "bomb threats" being called into our airports by all manner of attention seekers. i assume this same scenario can be applied to the white house, so in this regard one could say the governmemt "knew" it.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The Debate was only ever a thinly-veiled pretext to have yet another 9/11 endless conspiracy thread. I can only assume that's why scott3x put so little effort into it.
     
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Just my personal opinion - but I believe several others here agree with it: We've had ALL the 9/11 conspiracy threads we can stand! The proponents - mostly Scott - do nothing in them but regurgitate the same old tired arguments over and over again. It's VERY boring!! There's NOT a thing new that can possibly be added to them and keeping all these threads is nothing but a huge waste of space.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Read-Only:

    Apparently, there are plenty of members who still wish to participate in such discussions.
     
  23. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Always is a bit too much. But please post how many wargames were planned in 2001 where the notion was terrorists ovetaking an airplane. I bet there were no more than 2-3.....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page