Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

[scott3x]

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.

 

[(Q)]

Spamming the forums - you should be banned.

 

[leopold]

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?

 

[MacGyver1968]

From the debate:

Ok, the one aspect I won't touch on is the WTC collapses- that has its own discussion thread here.

So:
The Pentagon attack/flyover; I've touched on the topic in previous 9/11 threads in pseudoscience and even had a short lived thread on the subject there before it was closed:
9/11- The Pentagon Attack

I believe there is a lot of evidence that no plane actually hit the pentagon; that, in fact, the damage was caused by explosives already placed in the building beforehand; the part of the building that was allegedly hit by the plane had been closed down for renovations- it seems quite possible that explosives were put in at some point during these renovations and the actual plane flew over the building instead of into it.

www.thepentacon.com provides ample evidence that witnesses saw the plane coming from a different angle from the official story. While they all apparently believed that the plane did, in fact, crash into the pentagon, there are 2 very important facts to consider:
1- If the explosion was well timed, happening right after the plane began flying over the pentagon, it could create the illusion that the plane was its cause when in fact it was explosives.

2- If the many eye witnesses who claim that the plane came from an angle contradictory to the official story's angle, there is an even more grave problem with the official story; because the damage to the building could -only- be consistent with a plane entering from the official story's side, it leaves only 2 possibilities; either a bunch of eye witnesses were lying, or else it's the official story eye witnesses who are lying. Due to the extensive work done by CIT, the people behind thepentacon.com, it seems clear that the people who were lying were those who provided the most direct accounts that the plane came from the official story's side.

9/11 War Games during 9/11 by the US military & CIA

There is ample evidence that the people behind 9/11 knew about the war games being conducted that day and the effect that would have on being able to intercept the attacking planes. This suggests that someone on the inside informed them.

The FBI charged Osama Bin Laden with other crimes but it -never- charged him with orchestrating 9/11. Even the official story has changed tack and now says that it was orchestrated by a sheikh who may in truth be a person with mental health issues.

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

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?

 

[scott3x]

Spamming the forums...

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.

 

[leopold]

. . . however, I personally won't respond to posts that are overly offensive.

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.

 

[scott3x]

From the debate:
I thought the debate was "Was 9/11 an inside job?", not "Did a plane hit the pentagon?"

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

Who were the people behind 9/11? Not even a guess?

Lots of guesses:

9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush

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

SECRECY SURROUNDS A BUSH BROTHER'S ROLE IN 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

What was their motives?

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.

How does your belief that the eyewitnesses are wrong prove 9/11 was an inside job?

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.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

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

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?

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?

 

[MacGyver1968]

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

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.

edit:

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.

 

[John99]

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

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?

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.

 

[John99]

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.

 

[scott3x]

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

My respected colleague is complimented for covering a lot of bases in good fashion. As the ensuing discussion thread unfolds, time will tell whether he presents sufficient convincing evidence for his position that the Pentagon disaster was a conspiratorially contrived incident originating not from alien terrorists, but from the evil hearts of native sons. Who knows. Even I might become convinced.

Sounds good to me

Points in favor of Pentagon 9/11 being alien terrorists include:

1. Eyewitness reports say that a plane was seen crashing into the building.

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.

2. Eyewitness reports say that the plane was a large jetliner type.

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

3. Radar reports say that a plane was tracked at the Pentagon at the time of the crash.

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.

4. Eyewitness reports and photos show an impressive fireball at the location subsequently deemed to be the point of impact according to structural damage.

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

5. Photos show a number of debris on the lawn immediately in front of the crash point which look like jetliner remnants.

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.

6. Jetliner parts and an engine compressor wheel were discovered in the interior regions of the building.

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

7. Although the responding fire department reported that the fire was completely knocked down within about 10 minutes or so, obviously there was a large amount of jet fuel dispersed into the building because it was reported that fires still flared up during 60 hours or so. A jetliner carries a large amount of fuel, something like 10,000 gallons. If fires flared up for 60 hours, a large amount of fuel in the building had to have come from a large plane, not a smaller plane, or, no plane, as some people claim.

Incendiaries could have done it as well.

8. The official report says that DNA from everyone on the jetliner was found and identified. How could this be true if some other plane, or, no plane, was involved?

Who did this official report?

9. If conspiracy favorers are correct, then all of the passengers and crew of the jetliner would have to just vanish and never be seen or heard from for these 8 years or so.

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.

Here, in America, how could it be possible that someone could be made to vanish and not have contact with any of their family of friends for such a long time? It is like they were taken to an island somewhere and kept in cages. That idea is just really absurd.

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 .

That is all I can think of for now to present the establishment point of view that Pentagon 9/11 was the act of terrorist aliens and not the act of conspiratorial miscreants.

In closing I wish to thank my worthy colleague opponent, scott3x, for his invitation to take part in starting a civil and respectful discussion on this important subject.

Thanks, you were very civil and respectful yourself .

And I wish to thank JamesR Righteous Administrator for patience while getting this thing started.

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

Gentlemen, Start your thread arguments!

Boogety! Boogety! Boogety!

Let's go thread arguin', boys!

( NASCAR fans will recognize this trash talk as friendly traditional beginning of a race ).

Ah, I see, laugh .

 

[(Q)]

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.

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."

 

[scott3x]

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

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.

How are you so sure?

Please disregard this link.

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

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.

I don't believe that I went 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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[scott3x]

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.

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.

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

Hence, you are free to flood the forums with any conspiracy theory [insults removed]

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.

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

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.

 

[(Q)]

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[leopold]

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?

what about this scott?

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.

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.

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

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.

I have heard that jetliner remnants were planted there.

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?

Speaking of photos and articles pointing out important aspects of them, I think you may find the following articles interesting:

who gives a ratsass about photos and articles?
i want to see your list of WITNESSES, not some "he said, she said" crap.

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.

you need to produce witnesses scott.

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

on what grounds? because someone in california says so?

Incendiaries could have done it as well.

a plane could have done it as well too, it also has the added advantage of "disposing" of the passengers

Who did this official report?

you haven't produced a single eye witness to airplane parts being planted but ask your opponent to produce proof of their assertions?

What happened to the actual jets and alleged passengers of said jets is indeed an interesting mystery if no plane actually hit the pentagon.

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.

 

[scott3x]

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.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

* * * * 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 *

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.

That's not a "formal debate" by the rules of any debating society. But I suppose you get to make your own rules here.

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, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

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!

I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.

Those are personal insults too. Apparently we all have our own ideas about what constitutes civil discourse. Do you see my problem?

Spamming the forums - you should be banned.

I don't see how what he's doing is a violation of our rule against trolling, much less spamming.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[scott3x]

* * * * 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 *

Lol . Thanks Fraggle.

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.

That's not a "formal debate" by the rules of any debating society.

True.

But I suppose you get to make your own rules here.

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.

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, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

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!

Definitely, laugh . Fortunately for me, you showed up .

I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.

Those are personal insults too. Apparently we all have our own ideas about what constitutes civil discourse. Do you see my problem?

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.

Spamming the forums - you should be banned.

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.

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 .

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

I don't know what you mean by that but as an American I support free speech.

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.

We prohibit racism and personal insults and that's about it.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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 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.

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:
www.thepentacon.com

 

[leopold]

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.

the death knell rings.