The Instigator
utahjoker
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Feizel8
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

9/11 Conspiracy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
utahjoker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,266 times Debate No: 33720
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

utahjoker

Pro

I am not debating whether or not the planes hit the Two Towers because they did, but I am arguing that there is more to the story than what the 9/11 Commission
tells the public.
Round 1- acceptance
Round 2- arguments/rebuttals
Round 3- arguments/rebuttals
Round 4- closing
Feizel8

Con

I accept!
Debate Round No. 1
utahjoker

Pro

September 11, 2001 the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. But questions have been asked and the truth has been hidden. In this round I want to show that the government lies and the questionable circumstances of the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Government lies all the time to its people even when war is on the line. Look at Vietnam America lied to go to war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident it living proof, President Johnson told the American people and Congress that the American Naval ship, USS Maddox, was attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo ships without any warning, but it was all a lie USS Maddox never was attacked and this lie was what sent America to war with North Vietnam(1). Gulf of Tonkin incident is proof that America is willing to lie to go to war, but some would say that America might lie to go to war, but never attack its on people, but they are wrong. The United States never has liked Cuba, even today the United States doesn't recognize Cuba as a country, but tensions where at it highest during John Kennedy's Presidency and the United States wanted to crush Cuba, but knew that Congress and the people would never support America starting a war. Soon a plan was made called Operation Northwoods the plan was to fake a Cuban airstrike on an American jetliner, blow up an American ship in Cuban waters, and if needed bomb parts of the East coast and blame it all on Cuba and it was all formed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (2). Luckily Kennedy told them no and it didn't happen, but what if Bush said yes. Finally the lie that ties it up all together, Bush was told in a memo that al Qaeda was planning to hijack American planes and he did nothing and then told the America people he had no idea that 9/11 was going to happen he lied(3).

Time for the questionable circumstances of the fall of the Twin Towers. When the planes hit the Towers all the Jet fuel burned up in the explosion of the crash and according to the 9/11 commission the reason the Towers fell wasn't because of the impact of the planes, but the fire that was caused by it. The problem with this is that the Towers fell at free fall which means it was going as fast as gravity would allow it to (4). If fire took it down it would fall at a much slower pace and might not fall at all. But a discovery by a BYU Physics Professor explains a lot he found Thermite in Twin Tower steel residue which Thermite plus Sulfer is used for demolition (5). Look at his video evidence that shows fire is not hot enough to burn steel while Thermite is () and Thermite can be easy used as paint so it could have been there for weeks without anyone knowing. Look at these steel beams of the Towers they are cut cleaning or sliced at an angle which it done when it comes to demolition (http://www.google.com...). The last man out of the Towers claims that he felt an explosion underneath him then the planes hit above him. He even testified in the 9/11 commission, but was never put in and many others felt it as well (6).

Evidence shows there is more to the story than what he have been told.

Sources
(1) http://www.wilkesbeacon.com...
(2) http://www.ratical.org...
(3) http://abcnews.go.com...
(4) http://www.serendipity.li...
(5) http://www.mdgreens.org...
(6) http://coto2.wordpress.com...
Feizel8

Con

Before I begin,I'd like to say Rest In Peace to everyone who lost their lives on that day and those who's souls are being tortured by unsettling theories surrounding that day.

Firstly,I know for a fact that the government lies to the public for their own reasons.

My response will be brief with evidence from external sources.
1) http://www.popularmechanics.com...
2) http://www.guardiannews.com...
http://www.skeptic.com...
3)The buildings and demolition-style theories debunked at http://www.popularmechanics.com...
4) The Pentagon debunked at http://www.popularmechanics.com...
5) Flight 93 debunked at http://www.popularmechanics.com...

Anything else???
Debate Round No. 2
utahjoker

Pro

I would first like to say sources are to verify your argument not be your argument. But seeing that the past is the past I will have to move on and hope the voters understand. For this round I will take 4 of my opponents points and ask a question that debunks the debunks and hope that in the next round my opponent will address the debate instead of just using just sources.

1) Watch the video of Norman Mineta who was in the White House with Dick Cheney and see if their might have been a stand down order. https://www.youtube.com...
2) According to Thierry Meyssan a French author he believed that the size of the hole was not big enough impact site if a plane hit the Pentagon. The size of the hole was 18 feet across, but it would have to be at lest 96 feet for a Jetliner damage to have occurred ( http://911research.wtc7.net...)
3) It claims that the steel was not melted, but from my pictures and evidence it shows that it was.
4)Where the "planes hit" was the same place that the Pentagon keeps it financial records watch this video that shows that the Pentagon could not keep track of 2.3 trillion dollars which happened on September 10, 2001.
Feizel8

Con

I'm sorry for misusing my sources,I am actually new here.
1) Once again,the reason why the hole in the Pentagon is smaller then first thought is because the wings of the airplane broke off during impact,which in return left the actual airplane to crash through and cause the whole we saw.An airplane (Boeing) is big in width because of it's wings,without the wings it will look missile-like.That's why when an airplane is viewed from a certain angle,and it being tilted gives it the appearance of a missile,which would explain why many reportedly saw a missile.
2) The metal that held the twin towers was damaged by fire,it didn't melt,it simply gave way.The fuel from the airplanes and the flammable material in the buildings where good enough to make the metal lose half it's strength,and if the base (metal) is unable to withstand the pressure resting on top of it,it will give way,which is the case with the twin towers.
3)Here is a picture of the First floor after damage,no molten metal there! http://drjudywood.com...
If you still aren't convinced then read here http://www.debunking911.com... Just as it was pointed out,it doesn't make sense to use thermite,which is quite when eating through the metal then go ahead to use explosives which would notify the public of what had been done.It just doesn't add up.
4)Placing explosives in such a safely guarded area which over 20 000 employees present and not even a single person finding them is... Well stupid.
http://www.skeptic.com...
Debate Round No. 3
utahjoker

Pro

In conclusion 9/11 was and still is a tragic day. The questions I have are the same as many other Americans feel. I have shown that the 9/11 commission report has problems and has not shown all of the evidence. So I have wondered what are they hiding. My opponent has tried to agree my case, but has misused sources and hasn`t answered all of my questions.

I would like to thank my opponent

Vote. Pro
Feizel8

Con

Nice chip shot right there.I merely agreed with you and as far as I'm concerned I've answered all your questions and disproved all your evidence.If not,keep asking and let me keep dubunking to the best of my ability.
This has been a great debate and I learned a lot from Pro,thank you Pro.
Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Turkisherlock 4 years ago
Turkisherlock
Do you still say conspiracy?
Didn't u wacth September clause?
It was just a game.
Posted by Zealous1 4 years ago
Zealous1
The other problem is that the way this is worded, "there is more to it than 9/11 commission told the public" it's impossible to win as con. You only have to show one thing that could possibly be left out of the report, whether or not it was a conspiracy. You don't even have to do that: the report is obviously not all-inclusive so there are details that are definitely not in the report.
Posted by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
This debate is way too broad, and your stance of what you are arguing is extremely vague. Therefore, I cannot accept the challenge. You should revise the debate.
Posted by Zealous1 4 years ago
Zealous1
Sounds great, we get to read a 439 page document and defend each portion? No thanks bro.

And how do you expect to prove either side?
Posted by robotunicorn 4 years ago
robotunicorn
I think a lot of tragedies in the US have conspiracies within them.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
I suggest you narrow your opponent's duties to something more manageable if you want a worthy opponent and a legitimate debate.
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
"Con is to argue that the 9/11 Commission... is all true "

Yes, because whether or not an entire book of information contains errors of any kind is so relevant to the discussion of 9/11 conspiracies.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 4 years ago
TheSaint
utahjokerFeizel8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering NIGHTMARE who essentially voted with how he felt not how the debate went.
Vote Placed by NIGHTMARE 4 years ago
NIGHTMARE
utahjokerFeizel8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The 9/11 terror attacks were not a conspiracy. It is unkind to even say that they were because of the countless innocent people who died, it is the highest form of disrespect to say we had part in covering up what happened that day.
Vote Placed by Legitdebater 4 years ago
Legitdebater
utahjokerFeizel8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con since Pro continuously pointed out his misuse of sources. It was okay to do that once, but doing it multiple times is unacceptable and Con is a new debater. Arguments to Pro since although his arguments could have been stronger, he supported his contentions better than Con. Sources also go to Pro since he used them correctly, instead of using the sources as the argument.
Vote Placed by SaintMichael741 4 years ago
SaintMichael741
utahjokerFeizel8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was much better at arguing his points; although I wish he would try to make the quality of the beginning match the end in terms of writing. I didn't like how Pro pointed out in the end again about not citing his sources correctly. He said he was new to this cite, don't rip him apart twice. Con, use less articles and more arguing. I want to hear your voice!