[quote=name:Kaias]I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.[/quote] I agree. And the refusal to supply any sources, or even try to find a source, makes it sound invented.

Quote from Kaias

I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.

I agree. And the refusal to supply any sources, or even try to find a source, makes it sound invented.

[quote=name:Kaias]I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.[/quote] Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

Quote from Kaias

I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

[quote=name:A_of-s_t][quote=name:Kaias]I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.[/quote] Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong![/quote]I hope you meant that as an addition to what I was saying, because I'm guilty of no such fallacy.

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote from Kaias

I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

I hope you meant that as an addition to what I was saying, because I'm guilty of no such fallacy.

[quote=Darkling]Theres about a hunded public accounts that FELT explosions in the lower levels of the buildings.[/quote] I have another refute to this statement. Imagine the size of the plane. Planes travel at hundreds and hundreds of miles an hour. Such a mass at such a speed must have imparted a great impact on the building. Now think, you claim "people Felt explosion[u][i]S[/i][/u]". Ok so when the first plane hit, because the tower didn't fall down, the energy supplemented by the plane to the building must have gone somewhere. Energy from the inertia of the plane traveled down building 1, and sent a shock wave from the base. This explanation allows for your argument to be true for feeling explosions, but it doesn't mean that there were explosions in the basement of tower 7.

Quote from Darkling

Theres about a hunded public accounts that FELT explosions in the lower levels of the buildings.

I have another refute to this statement. Imagine the size of the plane. Planes travel at hundreds and hundreds of miles an hour. Such a mass at such a speed must have imparted a great impact on the building. Now think, you claim "people Felt explosionS". Ok so when the first plane hit, because the tower didn't fall down, the energy supplemented by the plane to the building must have gone somewhere. Energy from the inertia of the plane traveled down building 1, and sent a shock wave from the base. This explanation allows for your argument to be true for feeling explosions, but it doesn't mean that there were explosions in the basement of tower 7.

[quote=name:Kaias][quote=name:A_of-s_t][quote=name:Kaias]I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.[/quote] Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong![/quote]I hope you meant that as an addition to what I was saying, because I'm guilty of no such fallacy.[/quote] Yes you are. Hence why I quoted you. And just to anticipate a possible response, I'll post another fallacy: Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.

Quote from Kaias

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote from Kaias

I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

I hope you meant that as an addition to what I was saying, because I'm guilty of no such fallacy.

Yes you are. Hence why I quoted you.

And just to anticipate a possible response, I'll post another fallacy:
Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.

[quote=name:A_of-s_t][quote=name:Kaias][quote=name:A_of-s_t][quote=name:Kaias]I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.[/quote] Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong![/quote]I hope you meant that as an addition to what I was saying, because I'm guilty of no such fallacy.[/quote] Yes you are. Hence why I quoted you. And just to anticipate a possible response, I'll post another fallacy: Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.[/quote] Because you said basically anyone could say the opposite of Darkling and get away with it because it was so "easy", it fell into the fallacy.

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote from Kaias

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote from Kaias

I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

I hope you meant that as an addition to what I was saying, because I'm guilty of no such fallacy.

Yes you are. Hence why I quoted you.

And just to anticipate a possible response, I'll post another fallacy:
Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.

Because you said basically anyone could say the opposite of Darkling and get away with it because it was so "easy", it fell into the fallacy.

[quote=name:A_of-s_t][quote=name:Kaias][quote=name:A_of-s_t][quote=name:Kaias]I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.[/quote] Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong![/quote]I hope you meant that as an addition to what I was saying, because I'm guilty of no such fallacy.[/quote] Yes you are. Hence why I quoted you. And just to anticipate a possible response, I'll post another fallacy: Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.[/quote] No, I wasn't saying that it was true, I was saying that he could make up any 'fact' like that just as well as I can and it doesn't make it true. I wasn't actually saying what I said would have any evidence in it. And I wasn't actually saying that everyone saying it was false would make it true that it was false.

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote from Kaias

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote from Kaias

I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

I hope you meant that as an addition to what I was saying, because I'm guilty of no such fallacy.

Yes you are. Hence why I quoted you.

And just to anticipate a possible response, I'll post another fallacy:
Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.

No, I wasn't saying that it was true, I was saying that he could make up any 'fact' like that just as well as I can and it doesn't make it true. I wasn't actually saying what I said would have any evidence in it.

And I wasn't actually saying that everyone saying it was false would make it true that it was false.

[quote=name:Kaias][quote=name:A_of-s_t][quote=name:Kaias][quote=name:A_of-s_t][quote=name:Kaias]I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.[/quote] Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong![/quote]I hope you meant that as an addition to what I was saying, because I'm guilty of no such fallacy.[/quote] Yes you are. Hence why I quoted you. And just to anticipate a possible response, I'll post another fallacy: Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.[/quote] No, I wasn't saying that it was true, I was saying that he could make up any 'fact' like that just like he can and it doesn't make it true. I wasn't actually saying that everyone saying it was false would make it true that it was false.[/quote] I suppose when you read it with that in mind, it is easy to tell how you meant it, but with the first post alone, it could be taken either way.

Quote from Kaias

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote from Kaias

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote from Kaias

I can just as easily say that everyone that witnessed 9/11 agrees that there was no explosion to be heard or felt as you can that hundred of people do say there was. There's no basis behind your words.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

I hope you meant that as an addition to what I was saying, because I'm guilty of no such fallacy.

Yes you are. Hence why I quoted you.

And just to anticipate a possible response, I'll post another fallacy:
Tu quoque ("you too"). This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.

No, I wasn't saying that it was true, I was saying that he could make up any 'fact' like that just like he can and it doesn't make it true.

I wasn't actually saying that everyone saying it was false would make it true that it was false.

I suppose when you read it with that in mind, it is easy to tell how you meant it, but with the first post alone, it could be taken either way.

Its still falling into the fallacy. It would have been better to hit the fallacy with hard facts then to pose an antithesis to the argument.

Its still falling into the fallacy. It would have been better to hit the fallacy with hard facts then to pose an antithesis to the argument.

[quote=name:A_of-s_t]Its still falling into the fallacy.[/quote] No it doesn't. It would if I had said or had said it as if my random example conjecture (written specifically to mock his own) would make what he was saying was false or that it had any truth to it at all. There was no such implication and no meaning behind it at all.

Quote from A_of-s_t

Its still falling into the fallacy.

No it doesn't. It would if I had said or had said it as if my random example conjecture (written specifically to mock his own) would make what he was saying was false or that it had any truth to it at all. There was no such implication and no meaning behind it at all.

[quote=name:Jello-Jigglers][quote=name:Fierce]Honestly, people died. Why does it matter? :ermm:[/quote] Are you kidding? It makes a HUGE difference whether they were killed by terrorists, or by our own gov't, or by our own civilians... That's why it's so important to understand that this was an act of terrorism. People from other countries attacked us, that's why we're at war. That's why I can't understand people when they say they don't wanna be at war. Well, WHO THE HECK DOES?? We had to go and take their troops out, to send a message that we are immovable. You cannot walk on the US.[/quote] Well I have to disagree, just because it makes a difference of who did the killing doesn't mean it was terrorists alone. I haven't done too much research yet at all, but in revelation where the anti-christ is appears, and a society described as the NWO appears, the 9/11 attacks make perfect sense. Those in the NWO create a conflict; like say a terrorist attack, or the Great Depression (to get everyone ssid), and then they hide themselves behind the solution to the conflict. I'm in highschool and I'm in IB, which is International Baccalaureate, and it's main 'focus' is internationalism. Well, what do you think a proposed solution to 9/11 attacks will be? Sit and watch? Kill them all? No i don't think either of those will be the 'solution'. According to the bible, the NWO is going to happen, so there's not exactly a reason to fight it, its going to happen, but I just want everyone here to have an open mind and know that something may be going on, besides the usual terrorism. Here are some links to some sites regarding weapons confiscated from Afghanistan. You really think.. Russia, or China is giving these people these types of things? They don't just appear out of nowhere. I have a suspicion that this has been a complete setup by the NWO. [url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020323/ai_n12606420] [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48613,00.html] [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html] Quote from last link: [quote]About 35 to 50 “old, decayed” chemical and biological shells have been found in Iraq so far, all of which are said to have been produced in the 1980s. [i]FOX News' Ian McCaleb, Bret Baier, Catherine Donaldson-Evans and The Associated Press contributed to this report.[/i][/quote]

Quote from Jello-Jigglers

Quote from Fierce

Honestly, people died. Why does it matter?

Are you kidding? It makes a HUGE difference whether they were killed by terrorists, or by our own gov't, or by our own civilians... That's why it's so important to understand that this was an act of terrorism. People from other countries attacked us, that's why we're at war. That's why I can't understand people when they say they don't wanna be at war. Well, WHO THE HECK DOES?? We had to go and take their troops out, to send a message that we are immovable. You cannot walk on the US.

Well I have to disagree, just because it makes a difference of who did the killing doesn't mean it was terrorists alone. I haven't done too much research yet at all, but in revelation where the anti-christ is appears, and a society described as the NWO appears, the 9/11 attacks make perfect sense. Those in the NWO create a conflict; like say a terrorist attack, or the Great Depression (to get everyone ssid), and then they hide themselves behind the solution to the conflict. I'm in highschool and I'm in IB, which is International Baccalaureate, and it's main 'focus' is internationalism. Well, what do you think a proposed solution to 9/11 attacks will be? Sit and watch? Kill them all? No i don't think either of those will be the 'solution'.

According to the bible, the NWO is going to happen, so there's not exactly a reason to fight it, its going to happen, but I just want everyone here to have an open mind and know that something may be going on, besides the usual terrorism.

Here are some links to some sites regarding weapons confiscated from Afghanistan. You really think.. Russia, or China is giving these people these types of things? They don't just appear out of nowhere. I have a suspicion that this has been a complete setup by the NWO.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020323/ai_n12606420
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48613,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html

Quote from last link:

Quote

About 35 to 50 “old, decayed” chemical and biological shells have been found in Iraq so far, all of which are said to have been produced in the 1980s.

FOX News' Ian McCaleb, Bret Baier, Catherine Donaldson-Evans and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

It was clear to ME what Kaias was saying and it's not a freaking fallacy. Maybe not a great argument, but not a fallacy. A topic inevitably gets weighed down and off-topic (at the least) with constant fallacy accusations and I don't think people should go so far out of their way to make them. Edit: Well I just read the whole topic and I can see how such a discussion as we had here on this last page seemed like nothing. I feel like I just deleted more than 20 posts. With very minimal fines. Be thankful. And learn to debate. Keep your posts on-topic, relevant, structured, and lastly, don't get involved in stupid spam wars for several pages without anyone actually saying anything. This doesn't need to be a tl;dr because people don't know how to conduct themselves in SD.

It was clear to ME what Kaias was saying and it's not a freaking fallacy. Maybe not a great argument, but not a fallacy. A topic inevitably gets weighed down and off-topic (at the least) with constant fallacy accusations and I don't think people should go so far out of their way to make them.

Edit: Well I just read the whole topic and I can see how such a discussion as we had here on this last page seemed like nothing. I feel like I just deleted more than 20 posts. With very minimal fines. Be thankful. And learn to debate. Keep your posts on-topic, relevant, structured, and lastly, don't get involved in stupid spam wars for several pages without anyone actually saying anything. This doesn't need to be a tl;dr because people don't know how to conduct themselves in SD.

I don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. [i]but[/i]... I do find it odd that Bush completely ignored the UN and sent our troops into Iraq alone. (With maybe a few British, but just a few)

I don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy.
but... I do find it odd that Bush completely ignored the UN and sent our troops into Iraq alone. (With maybe a few British, but just a few)

Whoever still believes the 9/11 WTC or pentagon attacks were controlled demolitions, government planned attacks, or unrealistic/unscientific. please let me know. I'll happily prove to you why what happened has happened.

Whoever still believes the 9/11 WTC or pentagon attacks were controlled demolitions, government planned attacks, or unrealistic/unscientific. please let me know. I'll happily prove to you why what happened has happened.

I said it about 3 times. If I said my source was Zeitgeist, I would be laughed at. (And by the way, thanks for the minimal fees. I really don't want to go back in the hole.)

I said it about 3 times. If I said my source was Zeitgeist, I would be laughed at.

(And by the way, thanks for the minimal fees. I really don't want to go back in the hole.)

the youtube videos concerning the 9/11 conspiracy ( i have watched all 19 of them ) have interviews, and clips from more quotable references than u-tube. people on sight, people being interviewed by reporters and independent investigations groups, have said that they heard explosions. All of the windows of the first floor (ground floor, more rather) were shattered, the glass was on the outside of the building. A bomb had gone off on that bottom floor, a plane 89 floors up couldn't have done that to 3' inch windows... there's a clip of the inside of the ground floor after the plane hit. there were bombs in the 911 incident, whether or not they were government related or part of the terrorist's plot is for the audience to guess, as of now you cannot say with an absolute tone that the bombs belonged to one side or the other.

the youtube videos concerning the 9/11 conspiracy ( i have watched all 19 of them ) have interviews, and clips from more quotable references than u-tube. people on sight, people being interviewed by reporters and independent investigations groups, have said that they heard explosions. All of the windows of the first floor (ground floor, more rather) were shattered, the glass was on the outside of the building. A bomb had gone off on that bottom floor, a plane 89 floors up couldn't have done that to 3' inch windows... there's a clip of the inside of the ground floor after the plane hit. there were bombs in the 911 incident, whether or not they were government related or part of the terrorist's plot is for the audience to guess, as of now you cannot say with an absolute tone that the bombs belonged to one side or the other.

You know where those explosions came from? Like I said in my first post, a building is literally crawling with pipelines, utilities, electrics, plumming, and many many things gas and diesel related. One probably doesn't know this because they're hidden behind the dry-walls of the buildings. If the walls and columns start buckling, so will all these hidden and flammable mechanical devices and systems. And once you start throwing in fire, it's going to cause some problems. Just because many people say they've heard explosions doesn't translate into there being bombs. When you describe something, people will use figures of speeches like similes, metaphors, etc. And the ground floor's columns hold the most weight and undergo the greatest axial/shear stresses. Like i said in my first post, a building wasn't designed to withstand giant airplane crashes. So once you throw in that airplane, it's bound to mess up pretty much the entire building's stress, strain, and force measurements, thus making the design unsafe. In the realm of structural engineering, even the slightest tweak to a beam or girder on the 100th floor can drastically affect the mechanics of a beam or girder on the ground floor; every component of a structure or system is dependent of each other. The physical damage from the falling debris/airplane or the fire that burned for hours alone wouldn't necessarily cause the buildings to collapse, but once you combine these two elements, it can easily cause the ground floor's members to fail. Once the columns and walls cave in, so will the windows but since they are much more brittle than steel or reinforced concrete, they will shatter. The more of these videos I watch, the more retarded I find them. It's like a bunch of kinder gardeners trying to do calculus. These people are claiming this and that while lacking even the simplest of engineering mechanics knowledge. Like that one video, number 8. Sure they've probably gotten the fact that steel can't be melted by the orange flames that we see, but they start derailing once they start claiming that fire alone can't make the building collapse, therefore it has to be a bomb. Many of these people have gotten the facts right, but they're not using them in the right way or they are applying them in totally wrong cases. I suggest that everyone start [url=http://web.mit.edu/emech/dontindex-build/]here[/url]. Once people are well educated in these topics, they will realize that there's more to a collapse of a building than simply fire.

You know where those explosions came from? Like I said in my first post, a building is literally crawling with pipelines, utilities, electrics, plumming, and many many things gas and diesel related. One probably doesn't know this because they're hidden behind the dry-walls of the buildings. If the walls and columns start buckling, so will all these hidden and flammable mechanical devices and systems. And once you start throwing in fire, it's going to cause some problems. Just because many people say they've heard explosions doesn't translate into there being bombs. When you describe something, people will use figures of speeches like similes, metaphors, etc.

And the ground floor's columns hold the most weight and undergo the greatest axial/shear stresses. Like i said in my first post, a building wasn't designed to withstand giant airplane crashes. So once you throw in that airplane, it's bound to mess up pretty much the entire building's stress, strain, and force measurements, thus making the design unsafe. In the realm of structural engineering, even the slightest tweak to a beam or girder on the 100th floor can drastically affect the mechanics of a beam or girder on the ground floor; every component of a structure or system is dependent of each other. The physical damage from the falling debris/airplane or the fire that burned for hours alone wouldn't necessarily cause the buildings to collapse, but once you combine these two elements, it can easily cause the ground floor's members to fail. Once the columns and walls cave in, so will the windows but since they are much more brittle than steel or reinforced concrete, they will shatter.


The more of these videos I watch, the more retarded I find them. It's like a bunch of kinder gardeners trying to do calculus. These people are claiming this and that while lacking even the simplest of engineering mechanics knowledge. Like that one video, number 8. Sure they've probably gotten the fact that steel can't be melted by the orange flames that we see, but they start derailing once they start claiming that fire alone can't make the building collapse, therefore it has to be a bomb. Many of these people have gotten the facts right, but they're not using them in the right way or they are applying them in totally wrong cases. I suggest that everyone start here. Once people are well educated in these topics, they will realize that there's more to a collapse of a building than simply fire.

[quote=name:CecilSunkure]Well I have to disagree, just because it makes a difference of who did the killing doesn't mean it was terrorists alone.[/quote] Someone killing 1000's of innocent people? Sounds like a terrorist to me. [quote=CecilCunkure]I haven't done too much research yet at all[/quote] Admittingly not doing enough research? So where does this info come from? [quote=CecilSunkure], but in revelation where the anti-christ is appears, and a society described as the NWO appears, the 9/11 attacks make perfect sense. Those in the NWO create a conflict; like say a terrorist attack, or the Great Depression (to get everyone ssid)[/quote] I wasn't aware the Great depression was a terrorist attack from the NWO?? [quote=CecilSunkure], and then they hide themselves behind the solution to the conflict. I'm in highschool and I'm in IB, which is International Baccalaureate, and it's main 'focus' is internationalism. [/quote] Grats. [quote=CecilSunkure]Well, what do you think a proposed solution to 9/11 attacks will be? Sit and watch?[/quote] That's a negative. [quote=CecilSunkure]Kill them all?[/quote] If that's what it takes. America was founded on rights and liberties. The right to worship stops when your religion allows for you to suicide bomb other people, and actually rewards it. It's nonsensical. Because of Americas foundation, it doesn't matter where you are from, here in USA, or off in some dirt pit in the middle east or asia, we're gonna hunt you down and give you justice. Anyone ever said the line to you "you hit me, I'll hit you 10x harder" ? A classic strategy to discourage negative acts toward that individual. And since you asked my opinion, because terrorists took 1000's, we should send the message, and take 10k back. [quote=CecilSunkure]No i don't think either of those will be the 'solution'.[/quote] Well everyone is entitled to their opinion too, but the paradox remains, not "killing them all"(the terrorists), [i]is[/i] sitting and waiting for the next attack, yet "killing them all" could result in innocent casualties. [quote=CecilSunkure]According to the bible, the NWO is going to happen, so there's not exactly a reason to fight it, its going to happen, but I just want everyone here to have an open mind and know that something may be going on, besides the usual terrorism.[/quote] This isn't bible class. Idk where the bible came from because the Islamic, the terrorists, use the Koran. Besides the point, Nostradamus already used up this gig, so if you're trying to predict the future just vague enough to seem prophetic, someone will see through it. [quote=CecilSunkure]Here are some links to some sites regarding weapons confiscated from Afghanistan. You really think.. Russia, or China is giving these people these types of things? They don't just appear out of nowhere. I have a suspicion that this has been a complete setup by the NWO. [url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020323/ai_n12606420] [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48613,00.html] [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html] Quote from last link: [quote]About 35 to 50 “old, decayed” chemical and biological shells have been found in Iraq so far, all of which are said to have been produced in the 1980s. [i]FOX News' Ian McCaleb, Bret Baier, Catherine Donaldson-Evans and The Associated Press contributed to this report.[/i][/quote] As for this last little bit I'm a little confused of the point? So we haven't found anything? That only means we aren't looking in the right places. I do know we have raided plenty of ammo sheds, with literal tons of ammunition supplying the Jihad and other 'terroristic' based groups, which is enough for me to sleep good at night. Overall, regarding your post and my comments, terrorists are people who impart fear into a people by force, violence, and killing for a specific purpose. By the definition of terrorism, 9/11 is classified as a terrorist attack. I don't think we need to "kill them all", unless by them we mean terrorists. These people(if i go as far to call them that) don't have any 'moral' bounds to our culture. They don't think like you and me. They will kill innocent at the drop of a hat and not lose a wink of sleep, just an arm or a leg(ok, bad pun). They will fight all opposition, with conviction that they are truly doing God's will by killing His creations.(and for those that don't believe in God, it will be even easier to find a hint of madness in it) [quote=name:midget_man_66]the youtube videos concerning the 9/11 conspiracy ( i have watched all 19 of them ) have interviews, and clips from more quotable references than u-tube. people on sight, people being interviewed by reporters and independent investigations groups, have said that they heard explosions. All of the windows of the first floor (ground floor, more rather) were shattered, the glass was on the outside of the building. A bomb had gone off on that bottom floor, a plane 89 floors up couldn't have done that to 3' inch windows... there's a clip of the inside of the ground floor after the plane hit. there were bombs in the 911 incident, whether or not they were government related or part of the terrorist's plot is for the audience to guess, as of now you cannot say with an absolute tone that the bombs belonged to one side or the other.[/quote] Are you basing your knowledge on physics or what? No one has really gone and tested crashing a giant, loaded plane into a building, so with the thousands of variables, how accurate are your modules to predict the effect on the ground floor? Like I said earlier, it's pretty easy for me to simulate the effect in my head: a massive object at high end speeds hitting a stationary object will have an equally massive energy transfer that has to go somewhere, that somewhere being down the tower. As for people hearing explosions, what do you imagine a craft careening into the side of a building sounds like? Sound vibrations could have [b]easily[/b] been sent down the main building supports and beams(as solids retain sound better than air), all the way down to the bottom floor. Just my take on it based on common sense. [edit] I like millenniums idea better lol.

Quote from O)CecilSunkure

Well I have to disagree, just because it makes a difference of who did the killing doesn't mean it was terrorists alone.

Someone killing 1000's of innocent people? Sounds like a terrorist to me.

Quote from CecilCunkure

I haven't done too much research yet at all

Admittingly not doing enough research? So where does this info come from?

Quote from CecilSunkure

, but in revelation where the anti-christ is appears, and a society described as the NWO appears, the 9/11 attacks make perfect sense. Those in the NWO create a conflict; like say a terrorist attack, or the Great Depression (to get everyone ssid)

I wasn't aware the Great depression was a terrorist attack from the NWO??

Quote from CecilSunkure

, and then they hide themselves behind the solution to the conflict. I'm in highschool and I'm in IB, which is International Baccalaureate, and it's main 'focus' is internationalism.

Grats.

Quote from CecilSunkure

Well, what do you think a proposed solution to 9/11 attacks will be? Sit and watch?

That's a negative.

Quote from CecilSunkure

Kill them all?

If that's what it takes. America was founded on rights and liberties. The right to worship stops when your religion allows for you to suicide bomb other people, and actually rewards it. It's nonsensical. Because of Americas foundation, it doesn't matter where you are from, here in USA, or off in some dirt pit in the middle east or asia, we're gonna hunt you down and give you justice. Anyone ever said the line to you "you hit me, I'll hit you 10x harder" ? A classic strategy to discourage negative acts toward that individual. And since you asked my opinion, because terrorists took 1000's, we should send the message, and take 10k back.

Quote from CecilSunkure

No i don't think either of those will be the 'solution'.

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion too, but the paradox remains, not "killing them all"(the terrorists), is sitting and waiting for the next attack, yet "killing them all" could result in innocent casualties.

Quote from CecilSunkure

According to the bible, the NWO is going to happen, so there's not exactly a reason to fight it, its going to happen, but I just want everyone here to have an open mind and know that something may be going on, besides the usual terrorism.

This isn't bible class. Idk where the bible came from because the Islamic, the terrorists, use the Koran. Besides the point, Nostradamus already used up this gig, so if you're trying to predict the future just vague enough to seem prophetic, someone will see through it.

Quote from CecilSunkure

Here are some links to some sites regarding weapons confiscated from Afghanistan. You really think.. Russia, or China is giving these people these types of things? They don't just appear out of nowhere. I have a suspicion that this has been a complete setup by the NWO.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020323/ai_n12606420
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48613,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html

Quote from last link:
[quote]About 35 to 50 “old, decayed” chemical and biological shells have been found in Iraq so far, all of which are said to have been produced in the 1980s.

FOX News' Ian McCaleb, Bret Baier, Catherine Donaldson-Evans and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

As for this last little bit I'm a little confused of the point? So we haven't found anything? That only means we aren't looking in the right places. I do know we have raided plenty of ammo sheds, with literal tons of ammunition supplying the Jihad and other 'terroristic' based groups, which is enough for me to sleep good at night.

Overall, regarding your post and my comments, terrorists are people who impart fear into a people by force, violence, and killing for a specific purpose. By the definition of terrorism, 9/11 is classified as a terrorist attack. I don't think we need to "kill them all", unless by them we mean terrorists. These people(if i go as far to call them that) don't have any 'moral' bounds to our culture. They don't think like you and me. They will kill innocent at the drop of a hat and not lose a wink of sleep, just an arm or a leg(ok, bad pun). They will fight all opposition, with conviction that they are truly doing God's will by killing His creations.(and for those that don't believe in God, it will be even easier to find a hint of madness in it)

Quote from midget_man_66

the youtube videos concerning the 9/11 conspiracy ( i have watched all 19 of them ) have interviews, and clips from more quotable references than u-tube. people on sight, people being interviewed by reporters and independent investigations groups, have said that they heard explosions. All of the windows of the first floor (ground floor, more rather) were shattered, the glass was on the outside of the building. A bomb had gone off on that bottom floor, a plane 89 floors up couldn't have done that to 3' inch windows... there's a clip of the inside of the ground floor after the plane hit. there were bombs in the 911 incident, whether or not they were government related or part of the terrorist's plot is for the audience to guess, as of now you cannot say with an absolute tone that the bombs belonged to one side or the other.

Are you basing your knowledge on physics or what? No one has really gone and tested crashing a giant, loaded plane into a building, so with the thousands of variables, how accurate are your modules to predict the effect on the ground floor? Like I said earlier, it's pretty easy for me to simulate the effect in my head: a massive object at high end speeds hitting a stationary object will have an equally massive energy transfer that has to go somewhere, that somewhere being down the tower. As for people hearing explosions, what do you imagine a craft careening into the side of a building sounds like? Sound vibrations could have easily been sent down the main building supports and beams(as solids retain sound better than air), all the way down to the bottom floor. Just my take on it based on common sense.

[edit] I like millenniums idea better lol.