Discuss 9/11 debate

[jimnyc]

The debate between Sertes and myself is now complete. Feel free to discuss the debate here if you wish or ask any questions. Hope you all had fun reading it!

[Kathianne]

The debate between Sertes and myself is now complete. Feel free to discuss the debate here if you wish or ask any questions. Hope you all had fun reading it!

I must say, the two ongoing debates have been very interesting. I think Sertes did the best he could, considering the stance. Jim won, but had way more to do with the fact of positives overcoming negatives. Conspiracies just don't cut it for me, especially when we are speaking of 'thousands' possibly involved. Face it, some ideologues would just have to 'spill the beans.'

[Gaffer]

I have never bought into the conspiracy theory on this. There were too many clinton hold overs in the Bush administration for any of this to go on without it being exposed by someone. Not to mention anyone with a bit of common sense would be able to see what happened.

[Abbey Marie]

I guess the most interesting issue for me is why someone is likely to believe something like this could be conspiracy-driven.

[mrg666]

I guess the most interesting issue for me is why someone is likely to believe something like this could be conspiracy-driven.

and the folk who believe this cant say why it would be a conspiracy . what would be the gains ( apart from inciting hatred and distrust that allready exsists )
what would be so valuable that countered being caught out to make it worth losing everything something that would belittle even watergate that would result in trials not seen since nuremburg .
im curious all you with these theories must have an idea as to why

[Gaffer]

and the folk who believe this cant say why it would be a conspiracy . what would be the gains ( apart from inciting hatred and distrust that allready exsists )
what would be so valuable that countered being caught out to make it worth losing everything something that would belittle even watergate that would result in trials not seen since nuremburg .
im curious all you with these theories must have an idea as to why

I've asked the same question. Never got an answer.

[darin]

Yeah - I greatly appreciate the effort behind the 'it was an inside job' debater...but geesh...some of the things he stated as fact were WAY beyond the scope of my 'common sense' radar.

[Sertes]

I've asked the same question. Never got an answer.

Well, I answered you, quoting you, in the thread where you made the question.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...08&postcount=7

I can copy the answer here, if you want to discuss it here.

[Gaffer]

Well, I answered you, quoting you, in the thread where you made the question.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost...08&postcount=7

I can copy the answer here, if you want to discuss it here.

That didn't answer the question. What would the government gain by blowing up the WTC and the pentagon? We have been continually closing bases every year all around the world. we have enough bases to project military force anywhere in the world. We have 12 carrier groups that can go anywhere they are needed. What do bases have to do with the WTC attack? We also have bases in Turkey and Kuwait.

The NYT is a commie rag with no credibility so its best to find other sources.

[Sertes]

That didn't answer the question. What would the government gain by blowing up the WTC and the pentagon? We have been continually closing bases every year all around the world. we have enough bases to project military force anywhere in the world. We have 12 carrier groups that can go anywhere they are needed. What do bases have to do with the WTC attack? We also have bases in Turkey and Kuwait.

The NYT is a commie rag with no credibility so its best to find other sources.

No, that was the answer, I can explain my point of view further because again the single points you name are true, but we disagree on the bigger picture, to me those elements mean something else.
It's true you are closing bases around the world, but you're also opening them. You're moving the bases further away, a process that started with the fall the wall, you're closing bases in Germany (or threatening to do so, as Germany is somewhat economically dependant from them) to move them closer to Russia, for example. The missile shield location is closer, and a missile shield against nuclear ICBM that is causing so much strife is not built to protect from terrorists.
You should review Neocon's Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and a plan called Rebuilding American Defenses.
They call for an upgrading of US military, they state there's need for a continued presence of US army in the middle east to control a resources-critical region.
You say you're closing bases, of course! You have moved and deployed more than a hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan! And we all know where they're heading to...

So going back, what gave US the justification for invading sovereign nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, which never were a threat to the US? 9/11.
Us stated they indeed posed a clear and present danger or would become one really soon.
So 9/11 paved the way for the Cheney doctrine, the self-appointed right to retaliate anywhere anyhow because you were allegedly attacked by terrorists.
Before 9/11 that wouldn't have been possible.

As Section V of Rebuilding American Defense, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", tells us:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

[Sertes]

I must say, the two ongoing debates have been very interesting. I think Sertes did the best he could, considering the stance. Jim won, but had way more to do with the fact of positives overcoming negatives. Conspiracies just don't cut it for me, especially when we are speaking of 'thousands' possibly involved. Face it, some ideologues would just have to 'spill the beans.'

The numbers sum up to 200, I explained it in the thread.

When asking Jimnyc how many kept the secret on the Manhattan Project he said 130,000

And if you don't believe that false-flag plans are made that predict to use 200 participants that would have to keep their mouth shut forever, look for Operation Northwoods. I covered it too, in the thread.

[Kathianne]

Now this is scary, the moonbats are in the majority.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11242007...ity_318165.htm

'BLAME U.S. FOR 9/11' IDIOTS IN MAJORITY
'PLOTS' THICKEN IN SHOCKING POLL
By ANDY SOLTIS


November 24, 2007 -- Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the federal government had warnings about 9/11 but decided to ignore them, a national survey found.

And that's not the only conspiracy theory with a huge number of true believers in the United States.

The poll found that more than one out of three Americans believe Washington is concealing the truth about UFOs and the Kennedy assassination - and most everyone is sure the rise in gas prices is one vast oil-industry conspiracy.

Sixty-two percent of those polled thought it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials turned a blind eye to specific warnings of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Only 30 percent said the 9/11 theory was "not likely," according to the Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll...

[Sertes]

Now this is scary, the moonbats are in the majority.

Ask yourself why you dismiss the Inside Job from the start on without looking to eventual evidence.

[Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the federal government had warnings about 9/11 but decided to ignore them, a national survey found.

That's the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose), as opposed to MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose).
The fact the three 9/11 "collapses" have more than ten points in common with controlled demolitions while showing none of the elements of gravitational collapses demostrates planning that won't happen with the LIHOP theory. But that's a start.

(this claim is made by more than 200 real life architects and engineers, all listed with name, surname and qualify here: http://www.ae911truth.org)

[jimnyc]

Aggggghhhhhhhh crap! Now we have to listen to this twit rant in this thread too?

[jimnyc]

Here's some funny reading, one of the other twits that Sertes masturbates too claims that the Oklahoma bombing was fake too, and that it was likely a "mini nuke" that caused the destruction. Lots of other fun reading from some guys in the field over at this thread while they laugh at the "truthers"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84412