Difference between revisions of "9-11/anomalies/debate"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Woozle moved page 9-11/anomalies/criticism to 9-11/anomalies/debate: consolidating anomaly criticism and anomaly rebuttals into a structured debate plus sources for further arguments) |
(reformatted objections as a structured debate) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==About== | ==About== | ||
| − | This page is for | + | This page is for [[structured debate]] on the issue of [[9/11 anomalies]]. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | The majority of objections take the form of [[straw man]] attacks on imagined positions not generally endorsed by those who question the official story; the imagined positions most popularly targeted for criticism are documented [[../denial|here]]. | + | The majority of objections in the [[mainstream media]] take the form of [[straw man]] attacks on imagined positions not generally endorsed by those who question the official story; the imagined positions most popularly targeted for criticism are documented [[../denial|here]]. |
| − | == | + | ==Debate== |
| − | |||
| − | + | {{arg/main|There are substantial [[../|anomalies]] surrounding the events of [[9/11]] which have not been (and need to be) properly investigated.}} | |
| − | + | :{{arg/pro|There are substantial [[../|anomalies]] surrounding the events of [[9/11]].}} | |
| − | + | :{{arg/con|'''In a major disaster, it's perfectly normal for evidence to be destroyed or ignored; non-explanations and ignoring of significant evidence are standard operating procedure.''' ([http://lesswrong.com/lw/1to/what_is_bayesianism/1ost])}} | |
| − | + | ::{{arg/pro|Um, yeah... and that makes it okay? How is this not an argument in ''favor'' of a proper investigation?}} | |
| − | + | ::{{arg/pro|If someone conceals or removes evidence from a crime scene, that is itself a crime. Shouldn't that be investigated?}} | |
| − | + | :{{arg/con|'''If there were a conspiracy, government inaction given foreknowledge of the attacks seems orders of magnitude more likely than any sort of controlled demolition, even for WTC7.''' ([http://lesswrong.com/lw/1to/what_is_bayesianism/1osm])}} | |
| − | + | ::{{arg/pro|This is a [[naked assertion]].}} | |
| − | + | ::{{arg/pro|There are a number of extremely unlikely elements in the official story as well, including:}} | |
| − | + | :::{{arg/pro|Groups of foreign hijackers took control of 4 different planes using only box-cutters and piloted 3 of them into targets in two of the most heavily-guarded airspaces in the world, without even an attempt at interception.}} | |
| − | + | :::{{arg/pro|No heads rolled as a consequence of this gross security failure.}} | |
| − | + | :::{{arg/pro|One plane executed an extremely difficult hairpin turn in order to fly into the ''most'' heavily-protected side of the Pentagon?}} | |
| − | + | :::{{arg/pro|No less than three steel-framed buildings completely collapsed from fire and limited mechanical damage, for the first time in history, all on the same day.}} | |
| − | + | :::{{arg/pro|Those three buildings did not just fall to the ground towards the side most heavily damaged but instead seemed to explode straight downward and outward into microscopic dust particles, leaving almost nothing (aside from the steel girders) larger than a finger, long after the impacts and when the fires were clearly dying down.}} | |
| + | :::{{arg/pro|Authorities claimed that this was totally what you would expect to happen, even though the buildings were designed to handle such an impact.}} | ||
| + | :::{{arg/pro|The airplane impacts resulted in pools of molten steel in the wreckage (and seen pouring out of WTC2 before collapse), when jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.}} | ||
Revision as of 21:13, 19 March 2013
About
This page is for structured debate on the issue of 9/11 anomalies.
The majority of objections in the mainstream media take the form of straw man attacks on imagined positions not generally endorsed by those who question the official story; the imagined positions most popularly targeted for criticism are documented here.
Debate
There are substantial anomalies surrounding the events of 9/11 which have not been (and need to be) properly investigated.
There are substantial anomalies surrounding the events of 9/11.
In a major disaster, it's perfectly normal for evidence to be destroyed or ignored; non-explanations and ignoring of significant evidence are standard operating procedure. ([1])
- Um, yeah... and that makes it okay? How is this not an argument in favor of a proper investigation?
- If someone conceals or removes evidence from a crime scene, that is itself a crime. Shouldn't that be investigated?
- If there were a conspiracy, government inaction given foreknowledge of the attacks seems orders of magnitude more likely than any sort of controlled demolition, even for WTC7. ([2])
- This is a naked assertion.
- There are a number of extremely unlikely elements in the official story as well, including:
- Groups of foreign hijackers took control of 4 different planes using only box-cutters and piloted 3 of them into targets in two of the most heavily-guarded airspaces in the world, without even an attempt at interception.
- No heads rolled as a consequence of this gross security failure.
- One plane executed an extremely difficult hairpin turn in order to fly into the most heavily-protected side of the Pentagon?
- No less than three steel-framed buildings completely collapsed from fire and limited mechanical damage, for the first time in history, all on the same day.
- Those three buildings did not just fall to the ground towards the side most heavily damaged but instead seemed to explode straight downward and outward into microscopic dust particles, leaving almost nothing (aside from the steel girders) larger than a finger, long after the impacts and when the fires were clearly dying down.
- Authorities claimed that this was totally what you would expect to happen, even though the buildings were designed to handle such an impact.
- The airplane impacts resulted in pools of molten steel in the wreckage (and seen pouring out of WTC2 before collapse), when jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.