Was 911 An Inside Job Part 2

Starts at 0.48 seconds: Debate: Was 911 an inside job? at University of kent, Canterbury UK on april 1st 2014. Edward Shambrook who considers it wasn't an inside job explains his position. Pt 3 will be uploaded shortly.

[howardjohnston]

Who on earth is this young lad? How was he invited? Who does he represent? He is clearly a shill. He knows nothing and spouts complete nonsense and uses 'pixie' arguments to make his points. It is typical of these supercilious idiots that they resort to insulting the opposition. He then uses footage from ignorant media show types to support his case. When it comes to assessing Architects & Engineers what qualifications does he have? Is he an architect? Is he an engineer? Who the hell is he? There is absolutely nothing of any value in his arguments. He should be ashamed of himself.  

[jamesledger]

This is lies straight away - people DID witness noise in the towers. People DID see new maintenance staff coming and going. Also, the towers were half empty due to a lack of tenants after the economy dive.

[rrrrdavid]

Hope this guy can explain how a 767 was supposedly going 450 miles an hour at sea level....Because that plane cannot do that speed on sea level with out breaking in to pieces....

[MrLibertyFighter]

Solid presentation of propaganda. I truly feel sorry for this guy, fighting against the obvious...I will give him credit, he has an ability to spew nonsense with an air of arrogance, where you almost feel like he cares about the truth.

[colinhastings]

Glad to see that the UK is finally taking a deeper interest in 9/11. Viewing this debate so far, I would say that that both sides' presentation was fairly sketchy. Lots more information is available to suggest the 9/11 was an inside job. How about the refusal of the CIA to show what kind of aircraft (or otherwise) struck the Pentagon? How about the odd coincidence that the day before the Pentagon was hit, it was announced that two TRILLION dollars could not be accounted in US defence budgets - and the area of the Pentagon (as well as WT7, strangely enough) that contained incriminating evidence was conveniently destroyed by the plane/missile. You also missed other beneficiaries of 9/11 - America's highly militarised economy, which needed more excuses to to war, and Israel, in its so-called fight against its neighbours. Surely it's not beyond imagination to suggest that Mossad was involved (along with rogue business elements close to the US govt) in the planning and execution of 9/11. There's evidence that secretive works were going on in the early hours on both towers prior to the attack. I speculate here - Mossad agents could have carried out this work without fear of later whistle-blowing. The security at the WTC was handled by an Israel company, by the way. I don't think for a moment that Bush and some, not all, of his administration knew in advance or were complicit in the attack.. And finally, you give far too much credit to the media for concealing the truth about 9/11. They are mostly as brainwashed as the people they serve.

[Shinerlimaf]

and then there is the fact that Sulam-al-Suqami's passport was found in the street in really nice condition considering it had just come out of a destroyed aircraft that hadn't survived a fireball and then through the demolition of the buildings. Incredible really. oh and then there's the fact that although the FBI published the names and nationalities of the alleged hijackers, some of them are actually still alive and well and living in their home countries. The list goes on Ed....

[politicstahl]

One of the most interesting (to me) things about this event is the fact that it was created by Mr. Edward Shambrook, who apparently arranged to have three official opponents debating himself alone.
Just as a matter of general information, the fact that a person begins speaking, and for how long, and how often, are all factors bearing upon fairness and how the subject(s) under discussion are seen and evaluated by an audience, just as much as the choice of words and construction of sentences (if any).

[infiniteembrace]

Sorry, that was a sham (pun intended). I thought you usually have to take gcse level science to get into university, or has the University of Kent reduced its standards? 

That the building was basically in free fall is clear, and that this cannot be due to office fires is clear. What the 'expert' related to him was something different, the argument being that 'the complex multifaceted operation required to execute such demolitions are unlikely' hence 'it was not a controlled demolition'.

Let us say that it is indeed unlikely, or improbable - which it clearly isn't, let us entertain it for a second - but then the contention that the building 'not being in free-fall' is clearly false, it is impossible given the video evidence. The certainty over this matter therefore trumps any level of 'improbability' with regards to controlled demolition. Meaning that, although one may find it improbable, it must be the case as - unless everyone is missing a third alternative - there are no other options remaining.

[Shinerlimaf]

and what about the mobile phone calls from 30, 000 feet Ed? are you sure mate?

[kimzafra]

The first two presenters was good but the last one, I cannot understand what he is saying at all