• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let's discuss these 9/11 facts:

If it is true that the twin towers being blown up and the same with the pentagon,

Except it is NOT true ... none of those buildings were "blown up" !!!

then why haven't we caught osama bin laden yet?

Perhaps because Americans do not have free reign to cover the hilly, mountanous, remote nation of Afghanistan.

and why was the hole in the pentagon so damn small?

It wasn't ... it was perfectly in keeping with the diameter of an aircraft !!!

and jet fuel doesn't burn at high enough temperatures to melt steel?

Nobody but truthers make that claim !!!

and why was there virtually no poppy trade in Afghanistan before we got there and now they supply 80 percent of the wold's heroin

You must be very young to be so ignorant of history ...

Politics of Heroin

A detailed history of the Afghan Drug Trade -

... and another thing how is all this heroin reaching US shores?
Surely the government wouldn't let Afghan terrorists bring heroin into the US? would they? Why are we still in Afghanistan?

Yep, very young !!!
 
FACT: 911 really happened. Deal with it.
 
If it is true that the twin towers being blown up and the same with the pentagon, then why haven't we caught osama bin laden yet?

He was probably killed for outliving his usefulness years ago... but before 9-11 he was a US asset. Kinda like Saddam Hussein for a time was a US asset.

and why was the hole in the pentagon so damn small?

Logic would state that a 40ft tall plane (including tail section) does not fit in a 20 ft hole... and if the wings didn't even break a window then they should mostly be outside somewhere... and thats about 90ft of wingspan + engines that didn't go through into that hole.

and jet fuel doesn't burn at high enough temperatures to melt steel?

The debunkers will claim that there was no molten steel.

and why was there virtually no poppy trade in Afghanistan before we got there and now they supply 80 percent of the wold's heroin and another thing how is all this heroin reaching US shores? Surely the government wouldn't let Afghan terrorists bring heroin into the US? would they? Why are we still in Afghanistan?

You got it... what was it 50 billion per year?? Anyway, that money goes to all sorts of black budget projects.

The more direct answer was written by those that became, a year after the fact, those that filled most of the soon-to-be elected president Bush, in "rebuilding americas defenses".
 
He was probably killed for outliving his usefulness years ago... but before 9-11 he was a US asset. Kinda like Saddam Hussein for a time was a US asset.

Supposition and opinion ... yours ... counts for nothing in the real world !!!

Logic would state that a 40ft tall plane (including tail section) does not fit in a 20 ft hole... and if the wings didn't even break a window then they should mostly be outside somewhere... and thats about 90ft of wingspan + engines that didn't go through into that hole.

Real world logic states that an hollow object hitting a different solid object at high velocity is NOT going to stay intact ... therefore there would be no 40ft section left

Real world logic states that UNLESS the aircraft is flying BACKWARDS the 40ft claim has ZERO merit.

The debunkers will claim that there was no molten steel.

The debunkers are right ... there is no solid evidence of molten steel !!!

You got it... what was it 50 billion per year?? Anyway, that money goes to all sorts of black budget projects.

The more direct answer was written by those that became, a year after the fact, those that filled most of the soon-to-be elected president Bush, in "rebuilding americas defenses".

Yet again just your ignorant opinion and supposition ... which also has ZERO real world merit.
 
I have no idea why you come off saying this bs instead of discussing the facts. Is it some type of defense mechanism to protect a mind from something that may hurt its feelings?

There are countless well educated, very experienced people who are experts in their field saying things about 9/11. Here is one out of many, many of them.

Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering – Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Testified more than 50 times before Congress on technology and science issues. National Governors Association. Consultant to industrial and chemical companies, DOE laboratories, state governments, and public interest organizations.

Quote: "Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings. More difficult than discovering the truth, however, is convincing most of the public to accept the bitter truth."

"When it comes to 9/11, we face the strong belief that only al-Qaeda caused 9/11. But analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of the three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the twin towers."

"The immediate reaction is like a cosmic big bang. It would have taken considerable effort by a number of people with expertise and access to the buildings to rig them so that they could be intentionally collapsed when the two jets hit the towers. Tough questions flood in: Who could have engineered all this? Could foreign agents accomplish such complex actions - and if they did, why not take credit for it? If Americans did it, why would they intentionally inflict inevitable mass death and devastation? Worse, they seemingly knew about the plan to fly the jets into the towers."

"Groups of Architects and Engineers want a new, honest and comprehensive study that considers all the evidence for controlled demolition. As a former engineering professor with growing skepticism about the official WTC story I share their concerns. First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions. But let us not allow a possible painful truth block the primary task of determining once and for all what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and building no. 7."

"If those that believe the official 9/11 story - especially elected officials - trust their views, then let them support a serious effort to test the validity of the controlled demolition hypothesis. If they fear and reject doing so, then let us see that as suspicious and unacceptable."

"Horrific possible answers can cause us to shun a question. But clearing our minds of the fear of painful truths is essential to clearing our nation of destructive lies. Otherwise, we stay stuck in a delusional democracy."

The "bold" is where this guy lost me. Let me understand, lets rig the WTC for controlled demolition, now wait for another group to fly planes into the buildings, so we can set off the explosives and cover our tracks. What a bunch of crock.

Where was the big announcement and new evidence promised by AE911truth.org almost a year ago. Was it that they have a new DVD you can buy for $20/30.

Your source may have testified before Congress many times yet he comes up with such bizzare statements.
 
Logic would state that a 40ft tall plane (including tail section) does not fit in a 20 ft hole... and if the wings didn't even break a window then they should mostly be outside somewhere... and thats about 90ft of wingspan + engines that didn't go through into that hole.
OMG... again with the hole thing?

Only truthers think that the plane that the Pentagon should have left a plane shaped hole...:rofl:
daffy-hole.jpg


Wake up, McFly.... this is real life, not a cartoon! The wings, tail and landing gear (as I repeatedly mentioned in other threads) would be sheered off... the body of the 757 would produce the hole, and the hole is PERFECTLY in keeping with the diameter of the body.

You can rehash the same tired nonsense all you like. I'll just keep slapping you with reality.
 
OMG... again with the hole thing?

Only truthers think that the plane that the Pentagon should have left a plane shaped hole...:rofl:
daffy-hole.jpg


Wake up, McFly.... this is real life, not a cartoon! The wings, tail and landing gear (as I repeatedly mentioned in other threads) would be sheered off... the body of the 757 would produce the hole, and the hole is PERFECTLY in keeping with the diameter of the body.

You can rehash the same tired nonsense all you like. I'll just keep slapping you with reality.

I'm not saying a 'cartoon hole'... look at the hole in the side of the world trade centers, it wasn't a 'cartoon hole', but the hole in the building was big enough to fit a plane, you know, bigger then the plane that hit it.

I'm not saying it had to be a 'perfect hole', but you can't really fit a 100 ft wingspan in a 20ft wide hole... just like you can't really fit a 35ft tail section into a 20ft tall hole.

Here's the thing : If it didn't break THROUGH the wall, then it BOUNCED OFF the wall... so, where's the evidence of the wings and tail sections? We've all seen the 2-3 pieces left of the engine, but no wings??
 
I'm not saying a 'cartoon hole'... look at the hole in the side of the world trade centers, it wasn't a 'cartoon hole', but the hole in the building was big enough to fit a plane, you know, bigger then the plane that hit it.

I'm not saying it had to be a 'perfect hole', but you can't really fit a 100 ft wingspan in a 20ft wide hole... just like you can't really fit a 35ft tail section into a 20ft tall hole.

Here's the thing : If it didn't break THROUGH the wall, then it BOUNCED OFF the wall... so, where's the evidence of the wings and tail sections? We've all seen the 2-3 pieces left of the engine, but no wings??

Concrete block Vs Metal and Glass.... "OMG THE WTC HOLES WERE BIGGER!!! IT'S ALL A LIE!!!"
 
I'm not saying a 'cartoon hole'...

Despite your denial it is what you "expect".

look at the hole in the side of the world trade centers, it wasn't a 'cartoon hole', but the hole in the building was big enough to fit a plane, you know, bigger then the plane that hit it.

Erm, perhaps the DIFFERENT constuction and materials had just a tad to do with it !!!

I'm not saying it had to be a 'perfect hole', but you can't really fit a 100 ft wingspan in a 20ft wide hole... just like you can't really fit a 35ft tail section into a 20ft tall hole.

Why do you keep saying that, why do you "expect" the wings to remain intact ???

Here's the thing : If it didn't break THROUGH the wall, then it BOUNCED OFF the wall... so, where's the evidence of the wings and tail sections? We've all seen the 2-3 pieces left of the engine, but no wings??

You do know that the wings are NOT solid ... that they are thin aluminium mostly, which contain the fuel and some wiring for various things such as the aerilons, etc.

They are NOT compable in strength to the fuselage which is reinforced longitudionally by the KEEL BEAM ... and the keel beam is the strongest part of an aircraft.

As such it would have helped the fuselage act like a SPEAR.

And that the wings, by being full of fuel, would shatter into millions of tiny bits when the fuel exploded ... aluminium is easily ripped and shattered.

None of this is rocket science B'man ... why don't you see it ???
 
I'm not saying a 'cartoon hole'... look at the hole in the side of the world trade centers, it wasn't a 'cartoon hole', but the hole in the building was big enough to fit a plane, you know, bigger then the plane that hit it.
You're trying to compare apples to oranges, as usual. The skin of the twin towers was not constructed in the same manner, nor with the same materials as the wall of the Pentagon. The towers skin was thinner, less rigid, and no where near as strong. You act like such an expert in all things 9/11, you should know this.

I'm not saying it had to be a 'perfect hole', but you can't really fit a 100 ft wingspan in a 20ft wide hole... just like you can't really fit a 35ft tail section into a 20ft tall hole.
Again, we have ALL explained this to you, many times. The wings, tail, landing gear, etc... would have been sheered off and pulverized by contact with the wall at the speed the 757 was going. The only thing that would have made a hole, was the body of the 757. And, as we have ALL shown you multiple times, the hole in the Pentagon wall is correct for the diameter of the 757's body.

Here's the thing : If it didn't break THROUGH the wall, then it BOUNCED OFF the wall... so, where's the evidence of the wings and tail sections? We've all seen the 2-3 pieces left of the engine, but no wings??
You are the only one claiming anything 'bounced' off anything else. See my answer above, which explains this easily. Too easily for you to understand, it appears. The wings were pulverized by the impact. There's also the facts that the wings contain the fuel tanks, and those would have made a nice big boom (sorry to be so technical on that one... I hope it wasn't over your head).

Another epic fail, brought to us by the people at DebatePolitics.com
 
I'm not saying a 'cartoon hole'... look at the hole in the side of the world trade centers, it wasn't a 'cartoon hole', but the hole in the building was big enough to fit a plane, you know, bigger then the plane that hit it.
It is not reasonable to expect that the hole left in an office building would be the same shape as the hole left in a military facility which was built with steel-reinforced walls to withstand a bomb blast.
 
Despite your denial it is what you "expect".

All I would expect in terms of the hole is that the plane would actually fit.


Erm, perhaps the DIFFERENT constuction and materials had just a tad to do with it !!!

Ya, it's still brick and steel... But the premise is pretty simple... That the plane sections either punctured trough or bounced off.
Why do you keep saying that, why do you "expect" the wings to remain intact ???



You do know that the wings are NOT solid ... that they are thin aluminium mostly, which contain the fuel and some wiring for various things such as the aerilons, etc.

They are NOT compable in strength to the fuselage which is reinforced longitudionally by the KEEL BEAM ... and the keel beam is the strongest part of an aircraft.

As such it would have helped the fuselage act like a SPEAR.

And that the wings, by being full of fuel, would shatter into millions of tiny bits when the fuel exploded ... aluminium is easily ripped and shattered.

None of this is rocket science B'man ... why don't you see it ???

I didn't say intact...
 
Ya, it's still brick and steel... But the premise is pretty simple... That the plane sections either punctured trough or bounced off.

Your premise is simple minded... not simple. You're the ONLY person on this board claiming the wings and tail section either went through the hole in the Pentagon or 'bounced off'.

The sheer ridiculousness of that statement boggles the mind.
 
But the premise is pretty simple... That the plane sections either punctured trough or bounced off.

A physics class or two would help you so much...

 
A physics class or two would help you so much...



Heres a better version with audio...

McFly... note the comment at the 25 second mark... especially the part about the wings.


Force = mass * speed ^2 how fast was that going above 500mph??

But, though it doesn't show it clearly, I bet the hole in the side actually fit the object that hit it... think about it.

The wings there were cutting through stone, when in the pentagon they didn't even cut through a window. Blast window, sure, but didn't break or crack them...
 
Force = mass * speed ^2 how fast was that going above 500mph??

But, though it doesn't show it clearly, I bet the hole in the side actually fit the object that hit it... think about it.

The wings there were cutting through stone, when in the pentagon they didn't even cut through a window. Blast window, sure, but didn't break or crack them...

proof you did not view the link I posted with the dialog, which CLEARLY states only the tips of the wings survived... the rest was pulverized into dust. Also, the block survived intact, and the plane did not penetrate and leave a hole.

You might want to actually view links prior to commenting on them. You only make yourself look more foolish when you do it your way.
 
Last edited:
But, though it doesn't show it clearly, I bet the hole in the side actually fit the object that hit it... think about it.

You never watch anything that might change your mind on something, do you? Let's just go with the good ol' gut and speculate about what happened instead. :roll:

The plane was traveling 500mph.
The concrete did NOT have a hole in it.
The wings certainly did NOT cut through stone.
 
Last edited:
You never watch anything that might change your mind on something, do you? Let's just go with the good ol' gut and speculate about what happened instead. :roll:

The plane was traveling 500mph.
The concrete did NOT have a hole in it.
The wings certainly did NOT cut through stone.

In best McFly voice: lalalalalala I am not listening lalalalalalala
 
proof you did not view the link I posted with the dialog, which CLEARLY states only the tips of the wings survived... the rest was pulverized into dust. Also, the block survived intact, and the plane did not penetrate and leave a hole.

You might want to actually view links prior to commenting on them. You only make yourself look more foolish when you do it your way.

You wanna know WHY only the tips of the wings survived?? Well, there was a block of concrete over the rest...

and I DID actually watch that video... fail.

You never watch anything that might change your mind on something, do you? Let's just go with the good ol' gut and speculate about what happened instead. :roll:

The plane was traveling 500mph.
The concrete did NOT have a hole in it.
The wings certainly did NOT cut through stone.

Ok... you're right... that video PROVES that it was not a plane that crashed into the building.

That plane traveling at 500 mph DID NOT break through that single block of concrete when the plane itself had broken through at least 6 reinforced brick concrete and steel walls.

Thanks for making a point for me.

In best McFly voice: lalalalalala I am not listening lalalalalalala

Hey, if you "debunkers" could use sound logic in an argument maybe you would actually be able to convince someone of something.
 
Whovian said:
proof you did not view the link I posted with the dialog, which CLEARLY states only the tips of the wings survived... the rest was pulverized into dust. Also, the block survived intact, and the plane did not penetrate and leave a hole.

You might want to actually view links prior to commenting on them. You only make yourself look more foolish when you do it your way.
You wanna know WHY only the tips of the wings survived?? Well, there was a block of concrete over the rest...

and I DID actually watch that video... fail.

505 said:
You never watch anything that might change your mind on something, do you? Let's just go with the good ol' gut and speculate about what happened instead.

The plane was traveling 500mph.
The concrete did NOT have a hole in it.
The wings certainly did NOT cut through stone.

Ok... you're right... that video PROVES that it was not a plane that crashed into the building.

That plane traveling at 500 mph DID NOT break through that single block of concrete when the plane itself had broken through at least 6 reinforced brick concrete and steel walls.

Thanks for making a point for me.

Whovian said:
In best McFly voice: lalalalalala I am not listening lalalalalalala

Hey, if you "debunkers" could use sound logic in an argument maybe you would actually be able to convince someone of something.

demotivational-posters-quadruple-facepalm.jpg


And all doubt about McFly is erased in one post. :rofl:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom