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

    This discussion is for everyone who would like to comment on the debate concerning whether 9/11 was an inside job to do so here.

    The Debate thread is [thread=90778]here[/thread]. The Proposal thread is [thread=90335]here[/thread].

    Please note the following: I would like it so that no one does the following in this discussion thread:
    Use words such as the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

    I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2009
  2. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Spamming the forums - you should be banned.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    if 9/11 was an inside job then why would the government allow civilians to perform the cleanup?
    why would the government allow filming of such cleanup?
  4. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    From the debate:

    I thought the debate was "Was 9/11 an inside job?", not "Did a plane hit the pentagon?" That was your one post, and no offense, Epic fail! :)
    Who were the people behind 9/11? Not even a guess? What was their motives? How does your belief that the eyewitnesses are wrong prove 9/11 was an inside job?

    If there was a flyover..what the hell is this?


    What purpose would a flyover have for the insiders? Planes were already used as weapons, why change things up?..why would you even need to fake a plane crash, when real ones already happened?
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    I'm not spamming the forums. As far as I know, before this discussion thread, there was absolutely no forum wherein you could talk about aspects about 9/11 other then the WTC collapses; as a result, the WTC collapses has begun to get a fair amount of posts regarding 9/11 that have nothing to do with the WTC collapses simply because there was no other place to adequately put them. With the opening of this discussion, there is now a place for such posts; however, I personally won't respond to posts that are overly offensive.
  6. leopold Valued Senior Member

    apparently you also won't respond to posts you have no answers for either because both my and macgyvers posts have remained unanswered by you.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Whether or not a plane hit the pentagon would certainly constitute evidence for or against the contention that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Lots of guesses:

    9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush

    Marvin Bush: mysterious death - connections to 9/11?


    Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm)

    9-11 Attacks: The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9-11

    The Konformist - Mossad & 911

    Mossad - The Israeli Connection To 911

    From wikipedia's entry on 9/11 conspiracy theories:
    The common suspected motives were the use of the attacks as a pretext to justify overseas wars, to facilitate increased military spending, and to restrict domestic civil liberties.

    Alright, that sentence may confuse some, so putting it in context:
    In the 9/11 debate thread, I contended that eyewitnesses could have been fooled into thinking that the plane crashed into the pentagon. I believe this may have been done using 2 methods:
    1- Explosives were set off so as to explode at around the same time that the plane went over the building.
    2- After only a minor initial blip, all the media reports were saying that the plane did, in fact, crash into the building.

    I'm amused at the fact that you fail to report the most important point, however: that if the plane came in from the angle that most if not all of the most reliable witnesess claim it did, the plane -could not- have hit the building, because the damage was done in such a way that the plane could only have come in from the official story angle; either that or the plane didn't hit at all and the damage was done by explosives, which supports the flyover theory.

    An explosion. Did you even see the video? It supports the theory that the plane didn't hit the building :p.

    I remember hearing that it may have been to make things easier to do. However, I decided to ask the question over at pilots for 9/11 truth:
    Motive For Flyover?
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2009
  8. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Actually no...I posted that link at work, where I don't have rights to view video..I thought this was the grainy surveillance video of the "object" that you once believed to be a missile, hitting the pentagon. Obviously I posted the wrong link..because now that I look at it ..their footage has been edited. Please disregard this link.


    And Scott..I'm sorry if I was a little harsh with you..it's just because I'm very disappointed. You really wanted this formal debate, and I even helped you try to get it started. You had one post to "bring it" and prove you could form a formal argument for you beliefs...and instead you chose to go off topic. Formal arguments are different than replies to discussion threads. Where is your introduction? Where is the body of your argument? Where is your conclusion? If Uno doesn't respond in a fair amount of time...I'm going to present my TS argument on "Was 9/11 an inside job"...just to show you what a formal argument looks like. I would hope James will tell me if I get the format right. :)
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2009
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    The link to the 'pilots' page just has a video's to buy.

    The camera footage, i have seen it before, is a stop motion frame camera to capture still image frames of cars going through the gate, as can be seen by frames of police car.

    The camera is not FMV (full motion video), the narrow field of view and high rate of speed that jet was traveling at cannot be captured by stop motion camera. Size isnt the issue and the same principal would apply to a bullet given narrow field of view and extremely high rate of speed of the object.
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    In addtion to that it loks to be on an incline whereas the field of view is higher than jet itself. Needless to say this camera probably pickup hi rez images at close range due to the type of lens.
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    This post is in response to Uno Hoo's post in the Debate: Was 9/11 an inside job? thread.

    Sounds good to me :)

    I believe that some eyewitnesses may well have been lying even being in a position to see it, while many others may have been fooled into -thinking- that the plane crashed into the building, when in fact it was simply a matter of the explosion going off almost immediately after the plane went over the pentagon.

    The size of the plane is not in question, not by me at any rate.

    Again, not a problem by me- I believe that a plane definitely went into the pentagon's airspace; I just don't believe that it crashed into it.

    I think we can all agree that an explosion took place; the debate is what caused the explosion.

    I have heard that jetliner remnants were planted there. Speaking of photos and articles pointing out important aspects of them, I think you may find the following articles interesting:
    The Attack on The Pentagon

    The 911 Mystery Plane

    The 9/11 Mystery Plane (Part II)

    The lost terror drills -11A - 9 11 training exercises wargames 2001

    I have yet to do much more then skim them, but depending on the vigour of the discussion here, I may go further in the future.

    Again, I contend that they could have been planted there.

    Incendiaries could have done it as well.

    Who did this official report?

    What happened to the actual jets and alleged passengers of said jets is indeed an interesting mystery if no plane actually hit the pentagon. The last link I gave above, The lost terror drills -11A - 9 11 training exercises wargames 2001, gets into it, atleast in part.

    It's much easier if they're killed, ofcourse; I have heard that they may have been killed over an ocean in one of the war games; the people who shot the planes down may have thought that they were dummy planes with no actual passengers in them. Unfortunately, I can't find that particular link right now- I believe it was brought up in one of the 9/11 threads in pseudoscience, but may be a while before it's found, laugh :p.

    Thanks, you were very civil and respectful yourself :).

    I took thank James for bearing with the frequently getting off topic in the proposal thread until we finally got this thread started :).

    Ah, I see, laugh :).
  12. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    In other words, you're expanding your conspiracy theories on the premise there are other aspects of 9/11 that don't include the collapses. Hence, you are free to flood the forums with any conspiracy theory that entertains your pea brain as long as you believe you can justify it as something other than the previous conspiracy theory presented.

    What's really a travesty here is that you wouldn't even consider the fact that your theories are "overly offensive."
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    How are you so sure?

    Perish the thought; it's a welcome addition to those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job :).

    I don't believe that I went off topic.

    For me, a formal debate simply means that the participants agree to some rules for the discussion. We did and we had the debate. I personally found that it was fine.

    Well Uno Hoo has now put up his side to the debate, the debate has now been closed and I've responded to Uno Hoo's side in this discussion forum. Perhaps we could have another formal debate at some point in the future but I hope that this discussion thread can stay open because at present it's the only thread I know of where -all- aspects concerning 9/11 can be discussed, other then the WTC collapses, which have established threads.
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    I'm not expanding my conspiracy theories. Rather, there are more conspiracy theories then what happened to the WTC buildings.

    If I have the freedom to talk about the various issues concerning 9/11 in this forum, it's only because the administrators who moderate it allow it.

    Look, people can offended by many things. I'm sure that many theories that the truth movement believe in can be considered "overly offensive" to some. What the truth movement is trying to do, however, is reveal what they believe to be the truth. And unlike -some- conspiracy theory movements, the truth movement is truly massive. As far as I know, there is no conspiracy theories enjoy more popular support then some of those concerning 9/11.
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    There are no qualms about your freedom to look the idiot, the question is why do you want to look the idiot and continue to expand your idiocy?

    So, you too decided to jump on the idiot bandwagon and offend the intellects of everyone else, because it's popular. Clearly, you've demonstrated beyond a doubt you're unable to think for yourself, don't understand any of the physics or engineering aspects of what happened, and are just following blindly the idiocies of others.

    And, by the fact that you admit you are supporting popular conspiracy theories demonstrates further the need to corral your threads into a single conspiracy theory garbage bin.
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    what about this scott?

    of course the witnesses that fall into this catagory are the ones that uphold the what really happened.
    i've also noticed that you haven't provided a list of witnesses.
    because you aren't interested in finding the truth.
    you have it in your mind that it was "a bomb".
    the size of the plane is most certainly relevant.
    again you have provided no witnesses to the actual "plant".
    who was it that saw theses pieces being "planted"?
    you do realize that the pentagon, AND washington DC, gets thousands of visitors each year right?
    who gives a ratsass about photos and articles?
    i want to see your list of WITNESSES, not some "he said, she said" crap.
    you need to produce witnesses scott.
    on what grounds? because someone in california says so?
    a plane could have done it as well too, it also has the added advantage of "disposing" of the passengers
    you haven't produced a single eye witness to airplane parts being planted but ask your opponent to produce proof of their assertions?
    you were asked by uno hoo to do this debate in your own words.
    so, in you own words what happened to the passengers scott?
    don't forget the proof part.
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Well I reported you (Q), as you called me an idiot and I specifically said it shouldn't be allowed in this discussion. Now I don't know if I can actually have that enforced, but I figured it'd be worth the effort. Anyway, if you want to generally have your points ignored, using base insults is a generally surefire way of getting this accomplished with me.
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    * * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

    * sigh* ... I have not seen this thread and in fact I resolutely stay away from this board because I don't find it the least bit interesting. But whenever anyone files a Report on a post in the Formal Debates subforum, it goes out to ALL THE MODERATORS. Apparently it's our job to moderate this little looney-tunes sandbox whether we have better things to do or not.

    Scott has reported TWO of the posts in this discussion so I finally came over here to see what the yelling was about, and discovered that none of the other Moderators have weighed in. * sigh *
    That's not a "formal debate" by the rules of any debating society. But I suppose you get to make your own rules here.
    Then you came to the wrong website. Those words are common currency here. Personal insults are a violation of the forum rules, but it's difficult to enforce. Especially if none of the Moderators read this stuff!
    Those are personal insults too. Apparently we all have our own ideas about what constitutes civil discourse. Do you see my problem?
    I don't see how what he's doing is a violation of our rule against trolling, much less spamming.
    Hey dude, this is a place of science so feel free to help us enforce the scientific method. If an extraordinary assertion is posted without extraordinary evidence to support it, invoke the Rule of Laplace and challenge it. If the evidence is not forthcoming then the poster must SHUT UP and never pursue that line of reasoning again. And BTW, calling someone a "pea brain" is a personal insult and therefore a violation of the forum rules. I've called you before on your hair trigger. It takes two to drag a discussion into the mud.
    I don't know what you mean by that but as an American I support free speech. We prohibit racism and personal insults and that's about it. Everything else, as far as I'm concerned, is governed by the scientific method. If a theory is simply crackpottery, then invoke the Rule of Laplace. A second posting of the same theory without substantiation is trolling and grounds for banning. It's as simple as that. The administrators are big on turning this website back into the place of science it was ten years ago, so let's help them out.
    Your report is duly noted and Q is hereby reprimanded. If he does it again, please PM the Moderator of the subforum on which this discussion would have to take place if it didn't fall into the bizarre, misnamed category of "Formal Debates."

    In closing, based on what I've gleaned from a quick review of this thread, I'd say it's not going anywhere and you're all wasting your time. You'd probably get more action and even some scholarship on the World Events or Engineering board.

    I currently live in the Washington metropolitan area and drive past the Pentagon routinely. It's in Arlington, a densely populated urban area with an enormous volume of foot and vehicle traffic. It's a couple of blocks from an elevated freeway, a shopping mall, and rows of high-rise hotels and government office buildings. It even has its own subway station. I wasn't here on 9/11, but there is no controversy among the local people about the events of that date.
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Lol :). Thanks Fraggle.


    That's what I was hoping, yes :). This is the only forum in sciforums, as far as I know, where I would hope that a little more civility could be enforced; after all, the title of the forum is 'formal debates'. If people want the usual brawling, I think it'd be best to take it to more informal forums.

    Definitely, laugh :p. Fortunately for me, you showed up :).

    Not exactly. You mentioned that enforcing the 'personal insults' rule is difficult. While I agree with this in principle, I also think that if only a -few- personal insults are restricted, it makes the job of a moderator much easier. This is why I stated specific insults that should be worthy of censorship. As to the last bit, "or any other fairly insulting personal attack", I meant it only as a guideline; clearly, someone could say 'but i think obtuse is fairly insulting' for instance and make a mess.


    Woot :). I added 'pea brain' to the list of insults that shouldn't be allowed in this thread :). I won't add anymore without a moderator saying that it's not allowed. I would also contend that I refuse to get into the mud with the likes of (Q) or anyone else. I have in the past stated that someone had a flock mentality, but I figure that that's not so bad :).

    I think he means that the idea that certain individuals within the U.S. government could possibly have been involved in what happened on 9/11 is overly offensive. My counter is, if it's true, even if it is offensive to some to hear this view, then I think that it should be known.

    While I do believe that you do enforce the censuring of racism, you yourself have said it; you don't generally enforce the rule on personal insults. I think, however, that the main reason is that sometimes something that is insulting also describes a person; depending on the insult it can be more or less true. I think that some insults, however, are generally unhelpful in a discussion; it is these types of insults that I have tried to censor from the start of this discussion.

    I don't think that it's misnamed. Just because it wouldn't pass muster with a debating team doesn't mean that it can't be formal. I think it can simply mean that the rules here are somewhat more structured then elsewhere in sciforums and (hopefully) certain insults are not as tolerated as they are elsewhere.

    Are you saying that we can open up a thread on, say, the WTC collapses in the engineering board? Long ago, I asked if the WTC collapses thread could be moved over there in the SF Open government, but it was turned down; BenTheMan, for one, was against it. So I created a WTC collapses thread here. I think it's been relatively civil. Unfortunately, perhaps because there is a fairly active WTC collapses thread over in pseudoscience, it has gone dormant. I'm fine with creating a new one in the Engineering forum, however.

    I believe you haven't spoken to the right people; I believe that Citizen's Investigation Team did a very good job of speaking to such people; their work can be seen here:
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    the death knell rings.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page