azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

"It doesn't prove it."Yes it does. You clearly don't know what constitutes proof."There could be perfectly reasonable, scientific explanations why the buildings fell - I just don't think there's enough evidence either way to prove the causes beyond a doubt."Thats either because you are ignorant of the evidence or ignorant of the physics. There could be no such scientific explanations without throwing out all of Newtonian physics.1) Near free fall speed collapses can only occur where the resistance from the steel structure is removed by explosives. The janitor witnessed explosions long before the collapse while in the BASEMENT BEFORE the planes hit. google William Rodriguez. Also see the Macqueen interview at 911 blogger.2) WTC7 could only have fallen vertically if both sides of the structure was taken out simultaneously by explosives. Other explosions were witnessed in the building hours before the collapse. see the Jennings interview at 911 blogger.3) Streams and pools of molten iron and iron rich microspheres could only be caused by steel cutting incendiaries. See the Dr. Steven E. Jones presentationshttp://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2  and the Richard Gage presentation at ae911truth.org."I think considering the events without adequate evidence will bear no fruit."We have far more evidence than we will ever need. The government withholding AND destroying evidence is merely another component of the case against them, but alone, it doesnt constitute proof, like the above arguments do.To think we have insufficient evidence, you have been watching media channels helping to cover it up and give precisely that impression.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

"Near free fall speed"Yes, it wasn't free fall."can only occur where the resistance from the steel structure is removed by explosives."That's a 'creationism' style argument from ignorance. "I can't think of any way therefore it's xyz.""google William Rodriguez"Yes, because his account is completely reliable and accurate."WTC7 could only have fallen vertically if both sides of the structure was taken out simultaneously by explosives."There's absolutely no other explanation (until one is found)."Streams and pools of molten iron and iron rich microspheres could only be caused by steel cutting incendiaries."Or maybe the pressure of half a million tonnes or stuff crashing down."To think we have insufficient evidence"There is insufficient evidence. Who do you think perpetrated this crime?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

"Near free fall speed"Yes, it wasn't free fall.Of course it wasn't PRECISELY free fall speed. Close enough to require explosives, though."can only occur where the resistance from the steel structure is removed by explosives."-argument from ignorance- "I can't think of any way therefore it's xyz."No. To eliminate the resistance from those structures in that amount if time, huge amounts of steel had to be ripped apart from it ties with the rest of the structure and displaced at incredibly fast speeds. Theres nothing humans know of that will do that apart from explosives. Name one.The world over, explosives are used to produce just this kind of demolition. It takes significant engineering skill to acheive- see the Jowenko interview.---""google William Rodriguez" because his account is completely reliable and accurate."One persons account is never completely reliable and accurate. There are hundreds, including some who confirm Rodriguez story from the basement, and some of the 118 firefighters I linked you to, some of which explained in detail specific characteristics of CD they witnessed that day, and Jennings, inside WTC7, also(911blogger).---""WTC7 could only have fallen vertically if both sides of the structure was taken out simultaneously by explosives."There's absolutely no other explanation (until one is found)."Your mind set is one where you have been indoctrinated into beleiving hat everything is merely opinion, and there are no cold hard facts. All of conventional science dictates that steel structures will topple to the side weakened if one side loses resistance even slightly before the other.If you want to dump Newtonian physics or talk about space rays from mars, you are welcome to, but Newtonian physics is taken so seriously for very good reason- laboratory experimentation proves it to be an accurate model and it is independently verifiable as such.----"Streams and pools of molten iron and iron rich microspheres could only be caused by steel cutting incendiaries."Or maybe the pressure of half a million tonnes or stuff crashing down.Falling debris doesn't producing temperatures capable of melting structural steel. The heating of elements of steel pushing against each other when they collide are hardly even noticeable unless you specifically design a situation to maximise them."To think we have insufficient evidence"There is insufficient evidence. Who do you think perpetrated this crime?The government. The only people with the media to cover it up so that people like you havent realised it was them yet, and the only people with access throughout WTC7, with many governmental security agencies. Bush's cousin was head of security at the WTC.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Conspiracy theories like this are always concocted to discredit political opponents. I don't lend any credence to this sort of thing. I'm not even sure why I took the time to post anything.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Read the declassified Northwoods documents I linked to - They are actual plans to wage psychological warfare on the American people. They are a black & white refutation of your statement. Maybe I should have cited the Gulf of Tonkin lie that got us into Vietnam. Doesn't quite have the parallelism of Northwoods, but still relevant.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Let me point out that there is a huge difference between orchestrating an apparent attack on destroyers already deployed to a foreign land and demolishing a building that in many respects symbolized Americas economic dominance, actually killing American citizens and attacking our own military command; finally attempting to attack our own government? None of this makes any sense from any perspective and I for one don't see any of the so called "evidence" that supposedly "proves" that 9/11 was a fake as being particularly convincing.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

You have a really good point here and I'm in noway inclined to defend Bush (or Johnson) but I still think that you haven't made the full case on how 9/11 would directly resulted in the Iraq War. It seems like 9/11 was a better case for invading Afghanistan. If the true goal was to invade Iraq, don't you think the government would have tried to pin the attacks directly on Saddam Hussein?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

1. blame the terrorists2. fight the terrorists in afghanistan3. then fight the terrorists in iraq4. possibly fight the terrorists in iran...?5. ...yeah. pretty much anywhere there are terrorists we can start a war (says bush) except maybe saudi arabia and pakistan, because they play ball.A war on terror has no end and no borders.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I agree, agree, agree!!
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

OMG retard. Utterly vacuous argument.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

asserting that conspiracy theories are ALWAYS made up to discredit political opponents ALSO means the conspiracy theory alleging 19 arabs did it was made up to discredit them. Its a totally retarded statement that forces the conclusion of the debate to rely on a throy involving just one man as the perpetrator of the crime. Does it have to get any more clear that this argument and the person who posted it is a simpleton?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

123ddddddddddddd
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

This was a test post. How do I get rid of it ?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

was there a reason to invade Iraq? A reason to invade Afghanistan? A reason to go into Vietnam? I mean, real, valid, sensible reasons. No. Is there a reason to think that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Gov? Yes, since in all other decisions regarding national security and belligerent action the US government has acted irrationally, hence if attacking your own people seems irrational to more than 50% of the public, then it has more than 50% chance for it to have been a decision taken by the gov.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

If it wasn't done by us, we had something to do with it. (More than just our "freedom".)
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

We can start from a few uncontroversial facts: - It was a conspiracy - 3 steel framed buildings with all floors remaining collapsed - America has many enemies - The global competition for oil is ballooning - The perceived anti-Western population of Muslims are concentrated in oil-rich regions of the Middle East - The entire world's economy is based on oil for fuel and manufacturing - Subterfuge, sacrifice and coercion are the historic staple strategies for successful empire building - No photographs of flight 77 have been released by the government despite the Pentagon and surrounding buildings bristling with CCTV - The collapse of WTC7 is not mentioned in the 9/11 commission's report - Iraq/Saddam Hussein had nothing whatever to do with 9/11 - Civil liberties of Americans have been significantly curtailedWe must always ask cui bono? with any event within the sphere of human influence. It's simply in our nature to secure the watering hole, protect our family etc.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

The proof is just insurmountable. I really didn't want to believe it, but emotion gives way to logic, and I can't honestly see it as anything but an inside job.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

False hope is NEVER desireable. Fear of betrayal at the hands of your freinds should ALWAYS drive to you want to determine their trustworthiness conclusively, and override any and every other emtoion involved. In this case those who dont bother will accept the government story. Some cowards are so scared of government that theyll revert back to the government story out of fear of ridicule or punishment.You should only EVER WANT to beleive the truth. No matter how bad the truth is, its the only real starting point for improvements. Anything less is futile
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

How it was (most probably) done:1. Don't build the buildings properly in the first place (X-beams left out due to rushing).2. Get some R/C planes.3. While before, fill the buildings with thermite & igniters so when ignited in time they cause the structure to fall in on itself to minimize outside damage.4. Drop the air-defenses for the time needed to do the job (eg: turn off SAMs and divert interceptors somewhere else).5. Have a training exercise running at the same time, to confuse the lower echelons of the Air force.5. Do the job.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

I'd just like someone to show me where to buy one of those planes with impervious steel & concrete-slicing wings, and a nose which can puncture an entire building and come out the other side in tact, and which disintegrates completely post-impact.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Office of Public AffairsCGI DepartmentCentral Intelligence AgencyWashington, D.C. 20505
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Here's some support for the conspiracy theory.http://tinyurl.com/9kmqahttp://tinyurl.com/pyug2
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

The 9/11 commission omits the presence of molten steel from their official report. It took weeks for rescue workers to water-cool the glowing steel beneath the wreckage at ground zero. It was clearly and prominently visible in a thermal image taken by a USGS satellite on September 16--five days later.In the video, one of the workers states that it has been almost 6 weeks after the attacks, and workers are still trying to cool down the steel.The 9/11 commission and supporters of the official story don't try to make the claim that office fires produce molten steel. They just ignore it.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

How does the lack of molten steel in the commission report indicate that the government planned 9/11? This wasn't an ordinary "office fire" as you state in your argument. It's well documented that jets ran in to the Twin Towers with full tanks of jet fuel. From the NIST website, "Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

How can two towers, hit by two different planes, at two different impact altitudes and with different speed, with different fuel loads can create exactly the same type of damage to identical towers?If you wish to refute the identical towers claim, then how can the two towers differ in such a way, that their physical differences compensate the differences stated above, and still cause the same type of damage?Vertical collapse after a horizontal impact sounds almost cartoonish doesn't it?Either the buildings were specifically designed to fall in such a way or it was arranged for it to fall like that.Regarding the whole, molten steel, weakened steel effect theory, since when are steel columns all uniform? Steel uniformity is so hard to achieve, that the steel structures of transcontinental cruise liners and cargo ships have to be manufactured to very specific properties in order to withstand the rigors of seafaring. Steel used in building construction during the 60s could hardly be ascertained as uniform, especially if it came from different foundries.So, again, how can so many differences in all the variables required for proper demolition be accounted for without the planned demolition theory?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

You're talking about 2 planes, flying at hundreds of miles an hour, filled with jet fuel, with enormous amounts of mass, colliding with fixed steel structures. Imagine 200 tons of steel and jet fuel crashing into structures. If you take a Hummer and a Volkswagen and have one travel at 50mph and the other at 100mph and crash them into stop sign the outcome is the same, the sign is done for.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Done for for sure, but bent, not collapsed in its base.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

The lack of molten steel in the report indicates one thing: The working hypothesis is insufficient. 9/11 was a historic and tragic event. It has radically altered the political discourse and shaped America's foreign and domestic policy for the last 6-7 years. Don't you think our government should be interested in a full and complete investigation? We spent more on the Challenger disaster($3million vs $50million). Considering the investigation doesn't appear to be complete, it seems reasonable to invest another $47million or so, what do you say?I agree with NIST's first proposition. I even agree with some of the claims in their 2nd proposition, but it goes too far.See the link below for a plausible look at the actual energy unleashed by the burning jet-fuel. Even if you believe NIST's claim that a massively compromised support structure on a handful of floors could cause a global collapse, how could it have created the molten steel furnaces that burned for weeks beneath the rubble at Ground Zero?That's why molten steel is important. It proves that the 9/11 commission's hypothesis is not sufficient to explain all the data. If you can explain the molten steel with the 9/11 commission's facts, I'm ready to hear the alternative viewpoint. So far, the best your side can come up with is, Oh, molten steel is irrelevant.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

I don't believe that the collapse of the 9/11 towers warrant as much investigation as the challenger disaster. There was a very evident cause of failure and there are few within the engineering community who doubt it.Prof. Thomas Eager of the material sciences depart of MIT reaches the same conclusion as the NIST, even going so far as to specifically dismiss the claims of the 9/11 truth movement:"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Someone posted a URL elsewhere in this debate: http://www.ae911truth.org/I suggest you take a look. 381 architects and engineers have risked their professional reputation to ask for a new investigation. What do they have to gain? Nothing - but they have a lot to lose: professional credibility, maybe a promotion, possibly their job.... It's happened.Yes, you can find experts who will support the 9/11 commission findings. That shouldn't be surprising, given the amount of institutional pressure to conform to the official story.Finally, this "reverse scientific method" accusation is absurd.9/11 truth movement has explored the most likely hypothesis - controlled demolition - and been able to support this theory by taking all the evidence into account.It is the 9/11 commission that is guilty of a "reverse scientific method," by throwing out the hypothesis that was unacceptable (controlled demolition), and omitting data that did not fit their progressive collapse model (but is consistent with controlled demolition).
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

The 9/11 commission omits the presence of molten steel from their official report.The 9/11 commission omitted it because...??? What is this deep dark secret they don't want the American public to know?Which, according to you is easily figured out anyway."We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay...OMG. Couple of CIA guys brainstorming for solutions to a problem and people go nuts. If that's the worst of what they contemplated...I'm not impressed. I'm sure conspiracies happen all the time but they are so rare as to be insignifigant. My wife and I can't even agree on a restaurant.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

The thing about the CIA brainstorming:If they came up with that idea, means that it some cases it's a valid idea, and it means that in some cases it has been the accepted procedure.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

So it wasn't an inside job. The towers collapsed due to the intense heat generated by the burning fuel and office fires.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Burning jet fuel doesn't generate intense heat. Its flame point isn't even close to that required to melt steel, and melted steel IS required for the free fall collapse of the THREE towers:- anything less means that plastically deforming steel retains some resistance to the collapse, making free fall impossible.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Since many of you are familiar with the NIST report and freely refer to it, consider this editorial written by Kevin Ryan. Mr. Ryan worked at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) -- the company that tested (and disproved) the pancake theory. The progressive collapse theory, which NIST fabricated later, was based on a distortion of data provided by UL.Although he had recently been promoted, when Kevin Ryan asked too many uncomfortable questions, he was fired.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Government Inside Job

WTC 7 has always been the big problem for me. WTCs 4, 5, and 6 all sustained heavy damage due to falling debris from WTC 1 and 2, however those structures are still standing. WTC7 showed minimal damage with a couple of small fires and fell into its own footprint.The other thing that bothers me, is why was the debris from the towers so quickly carted off and recycled? If a plane crashes, they will hold on to the debris for quite some time in order to piece out what caused the crash, but not so for the towers.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

This is probably the most wanted to know question in the world. Until "PROOF" comes about its speculation...and in the USA speculation has no grounds but i think we all know someone had a hand in it... even with out proof im saying yah.NEXT!
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

proof is already present.:ae911truth.org
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

here is some "proof" that counters many of the non-free fall conspiracy theories.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

That source you linked to says that the columns fell faster than the surrounding floors: consistent with controlled demolition. In attempting to refute the collapse speed, he actually reinforces the controlled demolition theory. Regardless, no one says it fell at exactly free-fall speed. It fell at "near" free-fall speed. Like, give or take a second...that's pretty close.This guy also "proves" that the giant pyroclastic flow didn't happen, because pyroclastic flows are a "minimum of 100 degrees C." Pyroclastic flows, also known as gravity currents, are explained by fluid dynamics. It has nothing to do with temperature, rather with the difference in density between the flow and the surrounding air.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Explosives make objects accelerate FASTER than free-fall acceleration."In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground."
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Those conspiracy theories are absurd, every one of them can be proven incorrect and invalid.