|
|
Post by aiden0151 on Jul 31, 2010 15:57:40 GMT
Debate if you think 9/11 was a inside job or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jul 31, 2010 18:09:01 GMT
Debates belong in the Debate Board.
Moved
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Jul 31, 2010 18:58:28 GMT
I'm not even going to join this debate.
There are so many flaws in all those conspiracy theories that it would take a year to list them all.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaixionito on Aug 2, 2010 0:26:01 GMT
Yea. I don't see how it would be a conspiracy, with all the harm done to the government.
People always want someone to blame.
|
|
|
|
Post by noodlesoup on Aug 2, 2010 6:08:21 GMT
Conspiracy? I think not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2010 10:21:59 GMT
People think 9/11 was an inside job?
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 2, 2010 22:59:45 GMT
Some people think the government did it. Others think that the Jews did it. Most people think terrorists did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Aug 5, 2010 5:20:07 GMT
Yeah, some people think Bush did it so he'd have an excuse to go to Iraq and finish what his dad started. Personally, I think it's a load of rubbish.
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Aug 14, 2010 14:44:07 GMT
Give me one reason why the government would do 9/11. Can't think of one? I thought so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxorion on Aug 31, 2010 6:26:26 GMT
I can...It has formed a legitimate reason to have the people concern for their own safety...They will become faster...Stronger...With...The will...To survive...
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 31, 2010 7:10:00 GMT
Erm, what?
|
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Nov 21, 2010 6:40:55 GMT
I love how people say Bush did it so he could go to Iraq. The major flaw with that is almost all of the reason's Bush 'supposedly' wanted to go to Iraq for are flawed anyway. Why would he do such an elaborate scheme just to botch it with bogus false reasoning.
|
|
|
|
Post by tortureking on Jan 7, 2011 3:02:57 GMT
It very well may have been an 'inside job', but that still begs the question: Why? Why cripple your own Economy as well as that of every one of your allies?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rock on Jan 7, 2011 14:49:41 GMT
This is ridiculous. Why would the government kill thousands of people just to get thousands more killed? It makes absolutely no sense for the government to have done this.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Jan 7, 2011 15:15:51 GMT
..Unless the government wants to kill thousands of people so they can summon Cthulu and take over the world!
Seriously, why would the US government have any desire what so ever to massacre its own people and destroy several of its most important buildings for commerce and military?
|
|
|
|
Post by clockwork on Jan 7, 2011 22:00:07 GMT
Some kid at my school told me
It was a bush conspiracy to get money and control the population
W
T
F
"Population"?
Destroy a ton of money to kill 2000 people? Wasteful...
Get money from tearing down the twin towers?
W
T
F
|
|
|
|
Post by GoldAlchemist on Jan 8, 2011 16:22:42 GMT
I can...It has formed a legitimate reason to have the people concern for their own safety...They will become faster...Stronger...With...The will...To survive... I think what Dracorio was saying was that causing some devastating event like that might have been seen as some way to get the people to join together and become stronger against terrorism. But, while that might have been what they were aiming for (which I cannot see anyone doing at all), we've seen the true outcome of terrorist attacks. (like how ridiculously protective airport security has become?) And don't get me wrong, I realize and appreciate the measures taken to counter these attacks, but if the idea was to make us stronger through pain, someone definitely missed their mark. |
|
|
|
Post by speedyclock on Jan 8, 2011 21:37:03 GMT
There was no gain from destroying the twin towers. Population Control, Of course not. 2000 People for so much money wasted, and so much killing and crap to deal with? No, no way,
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Jan 10, 2011 21:10:48 GMT
Yeah. I am pretty dang sure it wasn't the government, becuase look at all the complicated conspiracies theories that have to be made to defend the claim: I mean come on, Occam's razor, anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by sparkpowder on Jan 24, 2011 22:31:24 GMT
Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Authority, or Logical Fallacy: Proof by Verbosity?
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Jan 25, 2011 1:01:22 GMT
Waitwhat? Appeal to Authority? Certainly not. Occam's razor is not an authority. Really, Proof by Verbosity? I was not trying to intimidate you.
I don't see what those supposed fallacies of my argument have to do with a single thing of my argument.
|
|
[M:977802]
