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

“You are incorrect. the WTC collapses had to be controlled demolitions for the three core reasons- 1) molten metal witnesses and video evidence 2) free fall collapse acceleration (NOT pancaking) 3) vertical collapse of WTC7, overwhelmingly damaged on the south side, and hardly damaged on the north side at all.Moving the goal post. I responding to you (or perhaps the other poster in this thread) who said that progressive collapse of a steal structure was never documented prior to 9/11.”No. you aren’t. He said:- “Never before has a steel structure collapsed due to fire, until this point. Fire simply isnt hot enough.” He is right, as long as we are talking about common hydrocarbon fires which, at best can weaken structural steel in localized parts of a structure to around 50% or 70% of its original strength at best. A small, overloaded and untested steel structure could produce a GRADUAL, PLASTIC collapse, even without a fire. Construction regulations are designed specifically to prevent this.The WTC steel was 1) extremely large, 2) conductive,3) tested to comply with various temperature and load bearing regulations (see Jones and Ryan’s video presentations and papers)4) and in the case of WTC7 included additional redundancy in overdesign to ensure that the emergency command bunker it contained could withstand natural disasters including earthquakes.Further we have no reason to think that the design was inadequate in any way.“I showed that as false and how you responded was irrelevant to the categorical fact that they have occurred in the past.”If you claim these collapses to be this rare hitherto unknown example of steel structures losing enough of their strength to suffer total collapse then you should present evidence that they were the kind of collapses you claimed them to be.It is possible, under the contrived conditions I cite above for steel to lose its strength due to fire or even, given extremely flawed design methods, collapse GRADUALLY and PLASTICALLY under its own weight.I think that the “unprecedented” argument, while true, is far harder to demonstrate and therefore far less convincing that my other three arguments. However, if you feel it important enough to justify a serious refutation, you’ll need to present forensic, eyewitness, or video evidence to support your hitherto unsupported assertions about the examples you cite.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I made a response to your other post and will skip the parts I covered there. Therein I covered the "lava" like flow, the collapse of WTC7, freefall, and vertical progressive collapse.http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htmThat covers fire damage and provides, near the bottom, diagrams, models, and corresponding primary evidence of the extent of damage done to WTC7. The rest of your post is a cynical red herring, ie. brushing off evidence because of its source. You also make some claims about the NIST report (which you clearly have not read) which are untrue. I liked the entire NIST report in my other post. It's a tough task to brush off the NIST report, which was completed with admirable rigor, objectivity, and scientific scrutiny. A tough task, but nevertheless typical of the cynical 9/11 truther. The whole movement is fueled off of a cynicism towards the Bush Administration, and a few lowly armchair intellectuals who's subsequent propaganda films have perpetuated the myths, lies, and downright stupidity that the typical truther displays. It wholly relies on a general gullibility and impotence towards look at conflicting evidence.I freely admit, though, the videos and blogs (which I have read and seen all of; I've been covering the topic since 2003) are very persuasive at face value, and I was convinced temporarily. This, of course, had more to do with video composition and soundtrack, as well as my distaste for the Bush administration, than anything remotely empirical or scientific. I've since reformed, and proudly, for I can join the club of true critics. Like Chomsky, who rightly rejects the myths, while going on to chastise the present and past administrations for their true terrorist atrocities overseas.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

To specify, I'm Canadian and this isn't my government. I dislike the US' current government, and I think it has used 9/11 as an excuse to start a phony war. This said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I see none that shows 9/11 was an inside job. It sounds like another conspiracy theory to me, like the fake moon landing or the bigfoot.Moreover, the one reason I see to stage such an attack would be to earn the support needed to strike back at someone, like those mentioning Northwoods say. But if that's what really happened, why frame Afghanistan? I would think they would've directly framed Iraq...
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Its hard to cite the specific motivation but watch this video, it contains some hard evidence. BTW, here is a related debate.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

All right, since Youtube videos are apparently good enough to provide evidence for this debate, here's one for you.(By the way, I don't trust my government at all. I personally think the prick who made this debate only sees things in black and white, as every idiot does.)
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

"All right, since Youtube videos are apparently good enough to provide evidence for this debate, here's one for you."I prefer to judge evidence by its validity, not by where it came from. I'll even listen to you."(...I personally think the prick who made this debate only sees things in black and white, as every idiot does.)"In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. --WIKIAs for your evidence...Much of it attempts to discredit theories that claim the planes were not real passenger airliners, or were modified in some way. I agreed with most of what they said--I never put a lot of stock in what eyewitnesses saw, because eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. There are some inconsistencies with the planes that this video omitted, but I don't think I had any major objections. In my opinion, whether or not they were real planes is a minor question, compared to the rapid onset of global collapse seen in WTC 1, 2, and 7.The official collapse theory has already been addressed elsewhere on this page, and multiple sources have been provided. Check it out. NIST's claims of 40-inch bowing were not arrived at by the scientific method. Underwriters Labs got the steel to bow 4 inches (by exposing it to higher temperatures than were present, for longer time periods), and NIST multiplied by ten. The computer "simulation" in the video is completely fraudulent, as is the attempt to measure the bowing of steel from video stills and/or distant photographs.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

All I see is an explosion due to the burning fuel.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Do you see something that I don't?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Follow the link I provided to a timeline that shows how afghanistan played into all this.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

If the government were involved, speculating on its motivations is fruitless. We don't have the classified 9/11 Psy Op document (if there is such a thing)... and look how crazy that Northwoods document sounds. I'm looking at it, and it's still hard to believe! The questions of this debate are merely:1. are there elements in the Bush administration crazy enough, stupid enough, and lacking in conscience and decency enough, to terrorize and murder it's own citizens in the pursuit of a political agenda, and2. is there credible evidence that the government covered up their own involvement?That being said, I can't resist pointing out the following:We didn't frame Afghanistan, we pinned it on "the terrorists," specifically, Al-Quaeda. For a corrupt and sinister government, this is actually a better scapegoat because it gives us the right (so says Bush) to attack any country (including say, Iran) as long as we label them terrorists first. In addition, the CIA could have found no better accomplice than Al-Quaeda, since the CIA created and trained them to begin with, and they are fanatical muslims to boot.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

This is just too easy.If the government were involved, speculating on its motivations is fruitless.What? That's exactly how a lot of crimes are solved. Who stands the most to gain? Who has gained?Example:Did you know that Larry Silverstein...collected something like 14 Billion in insurance claims?This may be valid or may be a coincidence but, if true, is a good place to start. Then take some time and build your case but to speculate does nothing but let guys like me have an easy time pointing out all you're doing is speculating without evidence.1. are there elements in the Bush administration crazy enough, stupid enough, and lacking in conscience and decency enough, to terrorize and murder it's own citizens in the pursuit of a political agenda, andYes. Mystery solved.is there credible evidence that the government covered up their own involvement?No. Another mystery solved.and look how crazy that Northwoods document sounds. I'm looking at it, and it's still hard to believe!What is so hard to believe? You don't solve many problems do you? Some times it helps the creative process to contemplate the ridiculous. Sometimes it hurts to contemplate the ridiculous because you can get sidetracked. The point is that it's a process.Now if you told me the ship was at the bottom of the Bay...well that would be hard to believe.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

"is there credible evidence that the government covered up their own involvement?No. Another mystery solved."Liar. Name me the locations where the steel from the WTC buildings can be publicly viewed, then.Also explain how the author of the national security strategy for the Bush administration ended up, after Kissinger, as the executive director of the 9/11 commission.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I favour occams razor - "When multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities" i.e. "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."The people who believe it's a conspiracy have created an enormous 'tower' of evidence, with each wild hypothesis based on yet another wild hypothesis. It's an enormously convoluted mess. For example I find it extremely unlikely, nigh on impossible, that such a plan could be executed with the utmost secrecy, with everyone agreeing after the fact, and I repeat, AFTER the fact, to keep quiet. So everyone is given as minimal role as possible, yet don't you think that people would realise the part they had played once they saw TV that day? Everyone involved in this 'demolition' and many other planning aspects would suddenly realise what they helped plan for.I could go on, this is just one example of how such a large and convoluted plan would never remain secret, were it even to get off the ground in the first place.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Key phrase being "equal in other respects." According to our President, the terrorists attack us because "they hate our freedom." Accepting this argument is much simpler than getting off your ass and learning the history that the U.S. has in that region. I guess that's why a lot of Americans (probably the same ones that are satisfied with the 9/11 commission report) actually believe that nonsense.There should have been a proper investigation. Occam's Razor doesn't mean that complicated situations don't exist.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Right. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I agree that saying 'the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom' is wrong. America was attacked because it has never been a popular country in the middle east. The fact is, there was a motivation there, so while saying 'they hate our freedom' is wrong, it doesn't change anything.Of course complicated situations do exist. Occam's razor is a guide on how to examine two situations which both have varying explanations. I don't understand what you mean by 'Key phrase being "equal in other respects."' Why should there be another investigation? Your unanswered questions mainly relate to happenings which are unprecedented, ie. molten steel inside the building. You seem to be forgetting that the entire act was unprecedented. 'No building has ever collapsed in this way' people say, yet the fact is no building has ever been crashed into by a fully laden jet airliner of such a size. Videos are used to compare the collapse of the towers to the collapse of a controlled demolition. 'Look!' People say 'they're the same! and they shouldn't be the same! they should be entirely different collapses! there ought to be no similarities at all!' But hold on for a second. Since no building has ever been crashed into by a jet airliner before, exactly how should we know what the collapse should have looked like? We have nothing to compare this to. Just because the collapse has some elements of a structural collapse caused by controlled explosives does not mean that the collapse was caused by controlled explosives.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Ok, that was a bit of a straw man.What I mean by equal in other respects is, able to explain the available data equally well.9/11 commission report fails to explain all the data. 9/11 truth movement via controlled demolition theory, and with the support of many scientists, engineers, and concerned citizens, is able to provide plausible explanations for all the data. If a new, independent investigation were launched and funded properly, I believe it would not reach the same conclusions as the 9/11 commission did. To be blunt, 9/11 commission report defies the laws of Physics - including gravity and conservation of momentum.The 9/11 disaster was unprecedented - all the more reason to put our faith in objective inquiry and the scientific method.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Just because all the data hasn't been explained doesn't mean it was done an inside job. Yes there should be another inquiry if thats what it takes to explain all the data. This debate is about whether or not it was an inside job, not about the merits of another inquiry.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Its worse than that: data and evidence was DESTROYED by government, the commission was SET UP TO FAIL. Let me know when you find the location of the steel from WTC1 2 and 7.Further: steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER collapsed like this except in controlled demolitions. To get the free fall vertical speeds, ENGINEERED SYNCHRONICITY is required.Simple physics proves that the structure was taken out in advance of the falling mass hitting it. Gravitational theory and Newtons laws prove the resistance to be absent.Pretending the government didnt do it is mere denial.Here's more details : ae911truth.org
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

WTC7 had ALL of the characteristics of a controlled demolition. Here they are itemised in an powerpoint format presented by an architect: ae911truth
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I don't trust my government, but come on, think of what it would take to do it and how many people would have to be involved. And if you have a lot of people involved, then you will eventually have someone "tell" all. No one can keep a secret now -a-days, forget it, it just couldn't be pulled off. Some of you are watching way too much TV and stupid plot movies... No one could pull this off.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

"No one could pull this off." Don't you mean, no one other than the conspiracy the government tells us pulled it off??
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Good points, but I disagree.1. Complexity: "think of what it would take to do it and how many people would have to be involved." It's a military and CIA proposition. Did you know Jeb Bush owned the company that handled WTC security in the weeks preceding the attacks? Did you know that Larry Silverstein, who bought the lease to the WTC towers in the months before the attack (despite the fact that the WTC towers were a losing proposition and in need of a costly asbestos cleanup program, in the billions of dollars) explicitly insured the towers against acts of terrorism, and has since collected something like 14 Billion in insurance claims? (As a matter of fact, they wanted to blow up the towers legally--cheaper that way--but NYC wouldn't let them release all that asbestos into downtown Manhattan). Did you know that while the hijacked planes were in the air, speeding to their targets, the vast majority of U.S. military air power was in the middle of a massive training simulation involving--you'll never guess--hijacked planes targeting the World Trade Center towers.2. Secrecy. "And if you have a lot of people involved, then you will eventually have someone "tell" all. No one can keep a secret..."Because of the sheer number of people involved at some level in the alleged conspiracy, most of the people played only minor roles. Somebody recruited the hijackers (for example). Somebody else bought the plane tickets. Somebody else got the explosives, still others actually placed the explosives; somebody else got the order pack up all the steel columns and put them on a boat to China to be recycled with no forensic investigation. When lots of people have very small roles, yes, you can have suspicions, but it's not so easy to come forward and break the story, even if you wanted to. As you may have noticed, there is a lot of resistance to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. Even those who participated might have little to no proof of what happened that day. I refer you to Hitler's "Big Lie" monologue I posted elsewhere. In addition, those who know more about what happened that day might fear reprisal from American citizens: a lot of Americans died in those towers; firemen, policemen...As for the alleged Big Dogs, like Cheney and other senior people....They have gotten rich off the aftermath of 9/11 (war profiteering). Listen to the lies they peddled to us on Iraq. Senior administration people are well-trained liars--you think they'd have an attack of concscience or something?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

There's a layer of grunt work which would be unambiguously implicated in 9/11. Setting and wiring explosives isn't something just anyone can do -- it requires a fair number of people (to do it on that scale) with at least some experience of blowing up buildings and I'd imagine that those people would be acutely aware that they were setting charges in the Twin Towers.The list of people involved would be hundreds long and the government's senior officials haven't the technical knowledge necessary to coordinate them. What's more, any significant deviation from the chain of command would be noticed.Consider the logistics chain from procurement to placement. Think of the number of people needed for each of them to be relatively unaware of the implications of their role. There's noway that many people could have their actions coordinated without serious management. The senior officials wouldn't know who to contact to assign qualified people to fill the necessary roles; they wouldn't even know all the necessary roles that required filling.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I have one idea. It seems very improbable, but possible. Why not manufacture a replacement joint reinforcement that contains just enough explosives and a wireless detonator. Ask the building manager to install it as a new building regulation standard, and you have properly wired a whole building without anyone ever noticing a thing. OK, you can change the actual object with any strategically placed building fixture, and once again you have a possible modus operandi.The US military has hundreds of independently managed units that could certainly coordinate such a procedure, since basically it can be done by such a reduced number of people. Post-op cleaning is much simpler with fewer people to dispose off.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

I'd imagine that the people installing whatever joint replacement would notice if it was rigged to blow - these things tend to be no more than steel. What's more, replacing a structural component of a building is no small task, it would require floors to be shut down and temporary buttresses to be installed so that the replacement could occur without weakening the building. These things are noticed.Admittedly, at some point you can devise a scenario whereby the government is implicated. But that scenario is so far from being likely that it's negligible. The far, far more likely scenario is that it occurred precisely the way we perceived.And it's not that I trust the government, it's that I don't believe the government is competent enough to pull it off.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Floors were shut down- but no structural component was replaced. Merely charges set. Look for Scott Forbes interviews.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

So we need another theory in order to support the original conspiracy theory!?!?!?! I mean, we can come up with all kinds of theories in order to support the original theory which can't stand on its own.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

The ORIGINAL conspiracy theory is the US government official conspiracy theory. They have never proved it. There are no videos of the terrorists getting onto the planes at airports, most of the steel from the WTC that would have exposed how the buildings came down has been destroyed and evidence that they promised to release has never been released. Your notion of what constitutes a conspiracy theory is a perverted US propaganda version of the phrase.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Not only that but wouldn't there be a number of workers crawling all over the place? I mean, how do you explain that to the people who work there? Why doesn't some body say, "Hey, weeks before 9/11 I saw a bunch of workers doing stuff...."
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Scott Forbes said EXACTLY that.Look up the interview where he explains the unprecedented power down in the WTC the weekend before 9/11.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Oh and a second CRUCIAL point. You assume that people generally know what people close to 9/11 were saying at the time. They don't. The media is covering it up, I had to dig around in alternative media for the Scott Forbes interview. I suspect most Americans STILL don't even know there was a third building that collapse completely in on itself at 5:20 on 9/11. Thats not because it was a small event, but because the media has hardly reported on it since the day itself, and on the day itself they reported on it BEFORE the event happened. go watch the BBC, who were being fed form a script.Also, for reference, take a look at 911blogger.com/node/15793.Where have you heard THIS story reported? Just like every other story the government wants buried, very few have the time to dig past their propaganda distractions.