• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

I want to debate

Sockrates

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
242
Location
Right Behind You
#1
Give me a topic, take your side and I will happily debate you. Some ideas: Abortion, Animal treatment, Human treatment, War...

Please allow me to read something interesting, I'll wait.
 

Animekitty

World A.I. transfomantion is Near
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,428
Location
4D Archaeology computer grid
#2
Artificial Intelligence is dangerous

ethics is a product of intelligence
beyond a point intelligence cannot increase without ethical self reflection
super intelligence would not be super but an idiot savant otherwise
 

peoplesuck

doesnt approve of your life choices
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
584
Location
the fence
#3
would you think the human race will go extinct due to lack of resources or mass genocide? id say genocide.
 

dark+matters

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
463
#4
I spent $1.99 on mascara today and it's really stressing me out. If society wants women to appear a certain way, then by Christ society should have to pay for it. *slams down fist of judgment like a courtroom gavel* I didn't ask to be born this way!!! *reaches for kleenex* If my eyelashes are not long enough, and are not curly enough, then I will not be able to ascend the ranks the way the women who do will. Who can do. Who will can.

*nods* That is my opinion and it is immovable unless my wrongness can be proven to such an extent that my value as a human being comes into question.
 

Grayman

Team Ignorant
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,148
Location
US of A
#6
There is a Formal Debates Subforum within Lounge, where I'm moving this thread.
You should debate this. ^^^ I would do it but I have too many things going on right now like picking my underwear out of my butthole and smelling my finger. When there is no point to life you might as well as find pleasure in the oddest and most simple sensory occurrences. Now, there is a little grayman wisdom for you. Before long everyone will be smelling their fingers.
 

Grayman

Team Ignorant
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,148
Location
US of A
#8
you should debate if the existance of a debate thread on a forum which is designed for public debates has any kind of meaning
A thread to find and discover new topics to debate can have a use as long as the actual debates do not occur in that thread as that would negate the ability of the forum itself to categorize and organize debate topics...

Is that what I am doing now?...maybe, only if you reply in argument establishing this as a debate.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#10
I spent $1.99 on mascara today and it's really stressing me out. If society wants women to appear a certain way, then by Christ society should have to pay for it. *slams down fist of judgment like a courtroom gavel* I didn't ask to be born this way!!! *reaches for kleenex* If my eyelashes are not long enough, and are not curly enough, then I will not be able to ascend the ranks the way the women who do will. Who can do. Who will can.

*nods* That is my opinion and it is immovable unless my wrongness can be proven to such an extent that my value as a human being comes into question.
I'd wonder about anyone who thought a $1.99 bottle of mascara was capable of accomplishing anything useful, even if it was blessed by the armpit of Jesus himself. Shaving black crayons up and mixing them with olive oil might accomplish more.

NEXT CASE!
 

Fukyo

blurb blurb
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
4,325
#12
You should debate this. ^^^ I would do it but I have too many things going on right now like picking my underwear out of my butthole and smelling my finger. When there is no point to life you might as well as find pleasure in the oddest and most simple sensory occurrences. Now, there is a little grayman wisdom for you. Before long everyone will be smelling their fingers.
Good.
 

dark+matters

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
463
#13
You should debate this. ^^^ I would do it but I have too many things going on right now like picking my underwear out of my butthole and smelling my finger. When there is no point to life you might as well as find pleasure in the oddest and most simple sensory occurrences. Now, there is a little grayman wisdom for you. Before long everyone will be smelling their fingers.
Blast! I've been out-sillied... now the light of my attention dims in contrast... it is most uncomfortable. Most uncomfortable...

I'd wonder about anyone who thought a $1.99 bottle of mascara was capable of accomplishing anything useful, even if it was blessed by the armpit of Jesus himself. Shaving black crayons up and mixing them with olive oil might accomplish more.

NEXT CASE!
Blast again! Those cursedly clever earth monkey mind muddlers... Having had my personal worth denigrated due to my extreme wrongness, I must now change my entire outlook on life. If someone who buys $1.99 mascara is incapable of accomplishing anything useful, and we want members of society to accomplish as much as possible, then the price of mascara must increase as high as possible. *begins public shaming campaign against rollbacks in Wal-Mart's cosmetics department*
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#16
Yes, I have evidence all the workers in the two towers smuggled in plane parts to rebuild and then explode a plane in each building; the images of planes approaching was handled with film projectors and dry ice; and it took months to smuggle up all that plane fuel in metal thermoses.

Or, I mean, Oliver Stone does.
 

dark+matters

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
463
#18
Don't we debate most topics that come up on this forum almost automatically in either a direct or sideways manner?

If we pick a topic to debate for the sake of debating, we need to choose some rules for how to go about it and why. We also need to determine not to go outside the realm of the participants' knowledge/expertise. Maybe Sockrates should pick the subject so that we know what he feels reasonably comfortable... knowing.
 

Sockrates

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
242
Location
Right Behind You
#19
9/11 attacks were an inside job.

Debate.
You want me to debate which side? Pro-terrorism or Pro-Insider Job.

Why debate at all.
Convince us in a debate.
How else are people going to hear different perspectives to different issues?

Don't we debate most topics that come up on this forum almost automatically in either a direct or sideways manner?

If we pick a topic to debate for the sake of debating, we need to choose some rules for how to go about it and why. We also need to determine not to go outside the realm of the participants' knowledge/expertise. Maybe Sockrates should pick the subject so that we know what he feels reasonably comfortable... knowing.
I listed a few in my primary post that I am most certainly comfortable with debating, any of those would do.

I would prefer to stay away from conspiracy theories since the evidence is biased, although I'll entertain any conspiracy theory so long as there are decent points made.
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,124
Location
someplace windswept
#20
How else are people going to hear different perspectives to different issues?
By looking at the world, listening and applying reason. No debate required, simply list all your positions and everyone could learn them.

There is a very high chance that most of your perspectives are widely available, known and otherwise possible to obtain without engaging in a personal confrontation or dialogue.

No offense meant, but there is a number of great people that have already debated stuff and a number of great people that put it well together so that others can understand.
 

Sockrates

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
242
Location
Right Behind You
#21
By looking at the world, listening and applying reason. No debate required, simply list all your positions and everyone could learn them.
If that were true then why is it that people still debate? Sheer boredom?

Humans aren't all knowing nor are they all inferring. Who is to say who's reason is correct without all of the facts, which are generally not always observable by the common man.

Your last paragraph is something awful to think about. There can be no more improvements upon thought and reason? Well let us end humanity right now since there is no more progression left.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,610
Location
Charn
#22
If that were true then why is it that people still debate? Sheer boredom?

Humans aren't all knowing nor are they all inferring. Who is to say who's reason is correct without all of the facts, which are generally not always observable by the common man.

Your last paragraph is something awful to think about. There can be no more improvements upon thought and reason? Well let us end humanity right now since there is no more progression left.
I think he was saying that you can just read all that stuff, then write up your own ideas into a coherent theory that can drop the stuff you disagree with.

Different strokes for different folks. I think debate can also suck when it ends up being more about style versus content; I see too many online debates where the 'winner" is the person who outlasts the other because either their style is frustrating to deal with (and refuses to admit failure) or where they operate more from subtle invective or tactical word twisting and misrepresentation. Not enough of just putting the ideas out there and letting them speak for themselves.

maybe a happy medium is good?
 

Sockrates

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
242
Location
Right Behind You
#24
America is a communist country.

Debate whichever side of that you want.
I wouldn't call it outright communist, but a fascist oligarchy seems about right.

America is far from a communist state, mainly because over 20% of the working class can't find work. There's also a great lack of community, in my opinion, throughout this nation. The state has become the family, while the family no longer exists.
 

Grayman

Team Ignorant
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,148
Location
US of A
#25
By looking at the world, listening and applying reason. No debate required, simply list all your positions and everyone could learn them.

There is a very high chance that most of your perspectives are widely available, known and otherwise possible to obtain without engaging in a personal confrontation or dialogue.

No offense meant, but there is a number of great people that have already debated stuff and a number of great people that put it well together so that others can understand.
I find myself needing to take the path myself although their path can be very informational. I am an experimenter and cannot learn what about what paint is and all it's possibilities just by seeing it used and staring at it but instead learn by mixing it without different colors to discover just how it forms and looks under certain conditions.

I do not see confrontation as inherently bad either, so why avoid it? Isn't our growth in evolution driven by a sort of natural confrontation?
 

redbaron

consummate salt-extraction specialist
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,566
Location
38S 145E
#26
Argue that 9/11 was an inside job.
 

dark+matters

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
463
#27
If that were true then why is it that people still debate? Sheer boredom?

Humans aren't all knowing nor are they all inferring. Who is to say who's reason is correct without all of the facts, which are generally not always observable by the common man.

Your last paragraph is something awful to think about. There can be no more improvements upon thought and reason? Well let us end humanity right now since there is no more progression left.
I call straw man! Not an accurate representation of Blarrun's original statements. I'm not sure his statements qualified as an argument either. He seemed like he was stating those things as facts, not as arguments (or conclusions supported by premises). :D I'm not sure what our role is supposed to be in this debate... are we all supposed to be debating directly on the topic with Sockrates? *flails in the lawlessness* Are we accepting logic as the standard determining satisfying responses versus unsatisfying ones? *gets out crayon shaving mascara blessed by a televangelist*
 

dark+matters

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
463
#28
I wouldn't call it outright communist, but a fascist oligarchy seems about right.

America is far from a communist state, mainly because over 20% of the working class can't find work. There's also a great lack of community, in my opinion, throughout this nation. The state has become the family, while the family no longer exists.
Oooooh, very nice.
 

Absurdity

Prolific Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2,358
#29
I wouldn't call it outright communist, but a fascist oligarchy seems about right.

America is far from a communist state, mainly because over 20% of the working class can't find work. There's also a great lack of community, in my opinion, throughout this nation. The state has become the family, while the family no longer exists.
You must not have read the article. He anticipates this response.
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,600
Location
Crap
#30
You want me to debate which side? Pro-terrorism or Pro-Insider Job.
Go Insider Job, because they're far too goofy for me to try to argue seriously.
 

dark+matters

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
463
#33
How sincere is this?



I didn't read but the first five paragraphs. I have other things to do.

Care to summarize it for me so that we can continue?
Sincere! I try to avoid sarcasm online because it's far too easy to misinterpret people's tone or intent. I don't really debate or nit-pick generally though because I don't want to hurt people's feelings. It only pops out when I'm stressed, if I feel that a principle has been violated, or if someone really presses me for my reasoning. But I did think that was a nicely phrased paragraph to start a debate with.

(But then again, I didn't read the article either. Man, that thing was long. And too many feels for me. I started in and I was like... wooooooah. That's like... an assumption a minute to pick apart mixed with references I don't know anything about on a topic I'm not very interested in. It reminded me that I should be focusing on my homework. ) :(
 

Sockrates

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
242
Location
Right Behind You
#34
Argue that 9/11 was an inside job.
Go Insider Job, because they're far too goofy for me to try to argue seriously.
To you both, allow me to gather my thoughts tonight/tomorrow morning and I will give you my argument for why 9/11 was an inside job. Should be fairly easy to prove.

You have better things to do like wait for people to give you topics to debate on the internet?
No, just reading that article wasn't worth the effort. I jumped to the end and it doesn't seem too educational, just an opinion. Do you think the US is in a communist state?

Sincere! I try to avoid sarcasm online because it's far too easy to misinterpret people's tone or intent. I don't really debate or nit-pick generally though because I don't want to hurt people's feelings. It only pops out when I'm stressed, if I feel that a principle has been violated, or if someone really presses me for my reasoning. But I did think that was a nicely phrased paragraph to start a debate with.

(But then again, I didn't read the article either. Man, that thing was long. And too many feels for me. I started in and I was like... wooooooah. That's like... an assumption a minute to pick apart mixed with references I don't know anything about on a topic I'm not very interested in. It reminded me that I should be focusing on my homework. ) :(
Your second paragraph is part of why I didn't read it either.

But I am glad to see you are sincere, that's interesting, along with everything else that you said. My response is that what you said is fair and I won't be the one to press you in any way about a topic, but please add your opinion if/when you deem fit.
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,124
Location
someplace windswept
#35
If that were true then why is it that people still debate? Sheer boredom?

Humans aren't all knowing nor are they all inferring. Who is to say who's reason is correct without all of the facts, which are generally not always observable by the common man.

Your last paragraph is something awful to think about. There can be no more improvements upon thought and reason? Well let us end humanity right now since there is no more progression left.
Don't strawman what I said. I didn't say anything that would allow such conclusions on your side.

What I said in essence is that I don't see you as capable of providing a valuable debate.

It seems you are doing it out of sheer boredom and you would like people to provide you with interesting material to read.

My previous post was about how there can be much more knowledge in the already existing works compared to this debate thread, if people came to this thread willing to learn perspectives, or learning to argue.

Since the direction of this thread is: I argue not to learn but to entertain yourself and other people that post here, then your premise is irrelevant.
 

Sockrates

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
242
Location
Right Behind You
#37
Don't strawman what I said. I didn't say anything that would allow such conclusions on your side.

What I said in essence is that I don't see you as capable of providing a valuable debate.

It seems you are doing it out of sheer boredom and you would like people to provide you with interesting material to read.

My previous post was about how there can be much more knowledge in the already existing works compared to this debate thread, if people came to this thread willing to learn perspectives, or learning to argue.

Since the direction of this thread is: I argue not to learn but to entertain yourself and other people that post here, then your premise is irrelevant.
I hadn't intended for the straw man, just a sincere misunderstanding of what you meant.

Who do you see as capable of providing a valuable debate and why?

It appears you are the one now using the straw man.

My idea is to expand upon any existing debate topics and to bring new perspectives that aren't already know or popular. You being completely against such an idea is irrational. I debate to learn, as I had mentioned previously, and the wording of your sentence was poor; work on that.
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,124
Location
someplace windswept
#38
I hadn't intended for the straw man, just a sincere misunderstanding of what you meant.

Who do you see as capable of providing a valuable debate and why?

It appears you are the one now using the straw man.

My idea is to expand upon any existing debate topics and to bring new perspectives that aren't already know or popular. You being completely against such an idea is irrational. I debate to learn, as I had mentioned previously, and the wording of your sentence was poor; work on that.
You are correct, I have in fact misrepresented your position in an attempt to have it countered by a favourable resolution.

I don't think it's pointless, it would be very nice if what you propose could happen. We'll see?

Animekitty, I agree, I also don't see why people are so emotionally superimposed to using or accepting the realm of virtual reality, which has all the tools to become as real as what they have. Being afraid of taking shortcuts marks man's acknowledgment of the inability to control their urges.
 

Sockrates

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
242
Location
Right Behind You
#39
Go Insider Job, because they're far too goofy for me to try to argue seriously.
So to begin on such a debate, I would first like to remind everyone what had happened on 9/11. What we were all told on this day, from all media sources, is that the two buildings, WTC 1 & 2 were struck by a Boeing 767 each within 20 minutes of each other. WTC 2 collapsed at 9:59 am and WTC 1 collapsed at 10:28 am. These planes were claimed to have been hijacked by the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda, along with two other flights, one that supposedly hit the pentagon and another that crash landed in a field in Pennsylvania, which were both Boeing 757s.
WTC 1 = North; WTC 2 = South
Now what the media didn’t tell you is on that same day the world trade center 7 also collapsed, what the media after that day said was due to WTC 1 debris that then set fire to this building leading to its complete collapse.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU.
This building collapsed in the afternoon around 5:20 pm. That means that there were fires going on in this building for about seven hours and they could not be put out, which then led to a total collapse of this building.

All of that aside, in the early 1960s (1962), Operation Northwoods was passed which outlined plans in order to fake terror attacks on US citizens in order to create support for a war with Cuba, and potentially Russia or the Soviet Union at that time. This leads one to think that if the US was willing to do this in the 1960s, with Cuba who wasn’t much of a threat to begin with (The Soviet Union was the threat), why wouldn’t they conform to do something similar for “the War on Terror” which, by name, appears to be much more scary as an opponent since civilians of the US “never” know when a terrorist attack is supposed to happen.

Again, we can put that aside and make the claim that “the US would never do such a thing in regard to terrorism and Al-Qaeda.” Fair enough. We can believe that the US government isn’t that evil and wouldn’t do such a thing to its citizens, regardless of the circumstance. The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), the most funded intelligence agency in the world at the time and to this day, must have really dropped the ball on this event. Since they were already on the man-hunt for Osama Bin Laden, this makes him an easy scape-goat for such an act of terrorism. There is a problem with this idea though, and that is, the CIA had been searching for “OBL” for years prior to the attacks on 9/11, but only 4 years before this attack, CNN, ABC, and Time magazine all conducted interviews with this man in 1997, 1998, and 1999 respectively. This just doesn’t add up. The CIA, which can watch me type this if they really wanted to, along with any other person on the face of this planet, couldn’t find some guys who was apparently hiding in some mountains in Afghanistan. I’ll stop paying my taxes right now, thank you.

If you have never heard of Bill (William) Cooper, real name Milton William Cooper, I suggest you type that name into google and do just a little research. He was a member of the Intelligence Briefing team, which is on the staff of the commander-in-chief of the US Pacific fleet, where he laid information from a plan called Majesty 12 that contained an operation called Operation Majority. This person said that there would be an enormous terrorist attack on US soil in the following months in June, 2001, and that it’d be blamed on Osama Bin Laden.

Also just some other interesting facts, the WTCs were both meant to be able to take a hit from airplanes larger than those that hit them. The WTCs were also made up of steel that wouldn’t budge from the heat produced from burning jet fuel used by these airplanes. There were traces of chemical elements that are used in bombs found on the sight of where the buildings collapsed.

This is just my beginning, I can go into more detail on this topic. I acknowledge that this isn't perfect nor complete, but that is why I am here to debate.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
784
Location
I'm intrinsically luminous, mortals. I'm 4ever
#41
argue for or against a 40 hour work week vs shorter or longer work week
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,600
Location
Crap
#42
All of that aside, in the early 1960s (1962), Operation Northwoods was passed which outlined plans in order to fake terror attacks on US citizens in order to create support for a war with Cuba, and potentially Russia or the Soviet Union at that time.
While this certainly outlines the capability and willingness for some people with political power to do such a thing, the fact if the matter was that it wasn't actually passed. It was proposed and turned down.

Again, we can put that aside and make the claim that “the US would never do such a thing in regard to terrorism and Al-Qaeda.” Fair enough. We can believe that the US government isn’t that evil and wouldn’t do such a thing to its citizens, regardless of the circumstance. The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), the most funded intelligence agency in the world at the time and to this day, must have really dropped the ball on this event. Since they were already on the man-hunt for Osama Bin Laden, this makes him an easy scape-goat for such an act of terrorism. There is a problem with this idea though, and that is, the CIA had been searching for “OBL” for years prior to the attacks on 9/11, but only 4 years before this attack, CNN, ABC, and Time magazine all conducted interviews with this man in 1997, 1998, and 1999 respectively. This just doesn’t add up. The CIA, which can watch me type this if they really wanted to, along with any other person on the face of this planet, couldn’t find some guys who was apparently hiding in some mountains in Afghanistan. I’ll stop paying my taxes right now, thank you.

Here, I can simply say you're under-estimating Bin Laden. I mean, there's a significant difference between contact with people trying to kill you and contact with people trying to talk to you peacefully. He was well aware that journalists don't carry firearms, as most people are, and they could be searched by his men before an interview. The CIA and any other military whose job it was to capture or kill him, well, that's a wholly different situation.

If you have never heard of Bill (William) Cooper, real name Milton William Cooper, I suggest you type that name into google and do just a little research. He was a member of the Intelligence Briefing team, which is on the staff of the commander-in-chief of the US Pacific fleet, where he laid information from a plan called Majesty 12 that contained an operation called Operation Majority. This person said that there would be an enormous terrorist attack on US soil in the following months in June, 2001, and that it’d be blamed on Osama Bin Laden.
He's a major conspiracy theorist who thinks aliens had something to do with Kennedy's assassination and believed in the Illuminati and such. While this doesn't necessarily mean his information was bad or biased, it doesn't really lend him any credentials, either.

Also just some other interesting facts, the WTCs were both meant to be able to take a hit from airplanes larger than those that hit them.
That's not actually true. Terrorists have typically used smaller aircraft to commit terrorist attacks, and the WTC was designed to withstand those sorts of attacks. Further, something being designed to do a thing doesn't guarantee it will do that thing.

The WTCs were also made up of steel that wouldn’t budge from the heat produced from burning jet fuel used by these airplanes. There were traces of chemical elements that are used in bombs found on the sight of where the buildings collapsed.
The thing is, the jet fuel isn't the only thing that was burning. The jet fuel produced a hot enough environment for the iron of the girders themselves to combust, producing much hotter temperatures than jet fuel alone would produce. The explosive materials are iron-oxide, which is created by iron burning, and aluminum mixed together... both of which are expected from the towers' collapse. The fact that it had become mixed and each in small parts is to be expected from the collapse.

This is just my beginning, I can go into more detail on this topic. I acknowledge that this isn't perfect nor complete, but that is why I am here to debate.
Okay.
 

Sockrates

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
242
Location
Right Behind You
#43
argue for or against a 40 hour work week vs shorter or longer work week
My argument is that the amount of hours are irrelevant, what is completed within the week is what matters. You have a task, complete it by the end of the week. If it takes 30 hours or 60 hours, I don't care, I only want results.
 

Sockrates

Active Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
242
Location
Right Behind You
#44
While this certainly outlines the capability and willingness for some people with political power to do such a thing, the fact if the matter was that it wasn't actually passed. It was proposed and turned down.

Here, I can simply say you're under-estimating Bin Laden. I mean, there's a significant difference between contact with people trying to kill you and contact with people trying to talk to you peacefully. He was well aware that journalists don't carry firearms, as most people are, and they could be searched by his men before an interview. The CIA and any other military whose job it was to capture or kill him, well, that's a wholly different situation.

He's a major conspiracy theorist who thinks aliens had something to do with Kennedy's assassination and believed in the Illuminati and such. While this doesn't necessarily mean his information was bad or biased, it doesn't really lend him any credentials, either.

That's not actually true. Terrorists have typically used smaller aircraft to commit terrorist attacks, and the WTC was designed to withstand those sorts of attacks. Further, something being designed to do a thing doesn't guarantee it will do that thing.

The thing is, the jet fuel isn't the only thing that was burning. The jet fuel produced a hot enough environment for the iron of the girders themselves to combust, producing much hotter temperatures than jet fuel alone would produce. The explosive materials are iron-oxide, which is created by iron burning, and aluminum mixed together... both of which are expected from the towers' collapse. The fact that it had become mixed and each in small parts is to be expected from the collapse.

Okay.
Sure it was not passed, but with every high ranking official in the Pentagon backing this proposal says something about those who are in charge of the "greatest" military ever created.

That's not the point. The fact that these news agencies were able to get an interview with the most important person in regards to the CIA makes no sense. If these interviews took place, the CIA had to know where OBL was, yet they did nothing about it. Do you seriously think a reporter from CNN, who makes next to nothing, could find and contact OBL while the CIA couldn't find and take out this same person. Please explain this since I am in utter disbelief that the CIA could be so dumb, being the most intelligent agency in the world at the time and to this day.

He was also a high ranking military official, before becoming a "conspiracy" theorist. This still doesn't explain how he was able to predict what was going to happen months in advance. Being a conspiracy theorist, someone who makes claims with little to no proof, versus someone who has worked with the most important people in the world, in regards to private, government intelligence is quite a big difference.

In regards to your small plane vs big plane argument, refer and read this: http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-sec...d-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

No way, the jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning? No shit. It was by far the hottest, nothing else that was on fire could burn at greater temperatures than the jet fuel, so what is your point? Refer to this article and scroll to The Fire section: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Another thing that doesn't add up is how unprotected the airways were by the air force, who were conducting practice drills at the same time of the hijackings.

None of what the mass media feeds those watch it adds up to those who care to think about what actually happened and to those who are professionals in regard to chemistry and engineering.

The attacks on the pentagon was the strangest aspect of 9/11 though, especially since there was no evidence of a plane or bodies after the explosion, which makes no sense, yet again. Every video I have ever watched simply shows an explosion, no plane in the video. In fact I found this one after a swift Google search: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUNngyhZQrk
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,600
Location
Crap
#45
Sure it was not passed, but with every high ranking official in the Pentagon backing this proposal says something about those who are in charge of the "greatest" military ever created.
You might also remember that it was over 40 years ago. Everyone who had their position at the time has retired or quit or somehow moved on. While new blood doesn't guarantee innocence, you can't blame the current people who are in positions for the mistakes or outright horrible tendencies of the positions previous holders. Again, it's possible something like this would be considered again, but there's no evidence something of the sort has been.

That's not the point. The fact that these news agencies were able to get an interview with the most important person in regards to the CIA makes no sense. If these interviews took place, the CIA had to know where OBL was, yet they did nothing about it. Do you seriously think a reporter from CNN, who makes next to nothing, could find and contact OBL while the CIA couldn't find and take out this same person. Please explain this since I am in utter disbelief that the CIA could be so dumb, being the most intelligent agency in the world at the time and to this day.
That's exactly the point. Osama was not stupid. He knew to avoid people who were trying to kill him, and he knew reporters weren't. It's not like the reporters either got the drop on him or worked for the CIA.

He was also a high ranking military official, before becoming a "conspiracy" theorist.
Nope, he was an E-6. Sure, he had security clearance and had some high-profile jobs, but he certainly wasn't a "high-ranking official".

This still doesn't explain how he was able to predict what was going to happen months in advance. Being a conspiracy theorist, someone who makes claims with little to no proof, versus someone who has worked with the most important people in the world, in regards to private, government intelligence is quite a big difference.
He predicted a really large attack, yes, but he also said it wouldn't be OSL, he said it'd be the New World Order, the ultimate goal being a world-wide socialist state. This is similar to stuff he had said plenty of times before, this was just close to when we actually did get attacked.

In regards to your small plane vs big plane argument, refer and read this: http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-sec...d-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
Well, this isn't the terrorist attacks which had been considered, this is a 707 going as slow as possible because it's lost in fog and saving fuel, searching for an airport to land at. A 747, or even that same 707 at almost 500 would have significantly more power, and they were also full of fuel.

No way, the jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning? No shit. It was by far the hottest, nothing else that was on fire could burn at greater temperatures than the jet fuel, so what is your point? Refer to this article and scroll to The Fire section: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
It wasn't the hottest, that was my entire point. Iron oxidizing can get over 2000 degrees F. this means that stating the hottest jet-fuel burns at is pretty irrelevant, since it was the iron oxidizing which caused most of the heat!

Another thing that doesn't add up is how unprotected the airways were by the air force, who were conducting practice drills at the same time of the hijackings.
Now, I was never part of the air-force, but I was in the Army. If there's one thing I can tell you, it's that being in the middle of training, you're not ready for the actual event. You're just training. In fact, training means you don't even have your personnel or vehicular assets where they need to be to get ready to handle the actual situation. Having an exercise in no way indicates that they should have reacted any faster, and in fact indicates that their reaction time would be delayed. Further, there's no good reason to presume they'd have the time to scramble the required fighters in time anyway. That's not their mission. Their mission gives them 24 hours to get anywhere in the world. That's impressive, but it doesn't mean they can get their stuff ready and off the ground in a matter of minutes. the paperwork and dissemination of information to it's necessary components would take half an hour, and I'm being gravely generous, as I'm ignoring the one-thirds rule (one third of your time should be spent planning the mission).

To put it frankly, arguing the Air Force should have been able to somehow prevent this shows a patent ignorance of how it operates. It's not like someone can just say go and some jets take off. There are steps, precautions, start-up procedures, etc.

None of what the mass media feeds those watch it adds up to those who care to think about what actually happened and to those who are professionals in regard to chemistry and engineering.
Uh... no. That's just plane untrue.

The attacks on the pentagon was the strangest aspect of 9/11 though, especially since there was no evidence of a plane or bodies after the explosion, which makes no sense, yet again. Every video I have ever watched simply shows an explosion, no plane in the video. In fact I found this one after a swift Google search: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUNngyhZQrk
[/quote]

So let me get this right; Are you claiming the government hijacked a passenger flight, flew it somewhere secluded to kill everyone onboard, then replaced the passenger flight with a missile or something that looked like a passenger liner, and flew it into the pentagon? People certainly witnessed an air-liner. I'm confused, what does this have to do with anything?

Also, as a word of advice, I would certainly suggest avoiding any site with "911truth" or some variation, because their information is just plain bad. If you want to make a serious argument, look for something better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6t4dMtc00

The witnesses saw a plane. The people who saw it first person... they saw a plane.
 

redbaron

consummate salt-extraction specialist
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,566
Location
38S 145E
#46
Steel structures don't collapse at free-fall speed due to fire.

WTC collapse is the modern incarnation of the Reichstag.
 

SpaceYeti

Prolific Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
5,600
Location
Crap
#47
Top Bottom