The Instigator
Double_R
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 7 votes the winner is...
Double_R
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,790 times Debate No: 16761
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (7)

 

Double_R

Pro

I know most of the conspiracy theorists who believe this stuff are busy on youtube but if I would love to see if I could find someone to give an intelligent debate on this.

Rules:

By inside job I am referring to the belief that it was actually forces in our government that planned, perpetrated, and covered up these attacks (with or without outside help), as opposed to the accepted version that we were attacked solely by outside forces.

Being that the term "inside job" is very general, and that there are unlimited possibilities to what this could mean, it is impossible for anyone to prove that it was not an inside job. Therefore it will be my opponents responsibility to make their case and my responsibility to refute it.

The debate will be won by my opponent if he/she can make a reasonable case that 9/11 was an inside job. The debate will be won by myself if I can prove my opponents case to be unreasonable.

Please do not find a creative reason to challenge me if you do not believe 9/11 was an inside job.

My Case:

As I mentioned, it is impossible for me to prove that it was not an inside job so I will have to allow my opponent to make a case before I can respond.

Tatarize

Con

9/11 was an inside job. It was done by the US government.

I know this because I work for the US government. And specifically planned the 9/11 attacks.

We outsourced some of the leg work to our contacts in Afghanistan that we had created back when they dealt with Russia. So, they also count as inside, because they were working with us in the 9/11 planning and execution committee.

We then made everything classified, and hid all the evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
Double_R

Pro

I would normally thank my opponent for accepting my challenge but in this case I do not. If Con was a part of planning the 9/11 attacks then he would be better off talking to the Associated Press then discussing it here on debates.org. Needless to say his comments are obviously false statements and thus fall short of the intelligent discussion I was curious to see if I could find on this subject.

In the future I would ask Con to take this website seriously and respect all other users regardless of whatever personal feelings he may have about the subject. If Con wishes to contribute an intelligent case on the matter I will still welcome it although round 1 has already been wasted. Of course part of what I wanted to see was if I could actually change someone’s mind on the subject, so if Con does in fact agree with the subject line then I ask that he not bother.

In light of this and further thought, I think that asking for an intelligent conversation on this subject may be asking too much. I will change my subject line to adapt to the talking points of the 9/11 truth movement as they have evolved throughout the past decade in a new post.

Tatarize

Con

That didn't sound like a counter argument. That sounded like an ad hom. Don't take my argument seriously because you say that I'm not serious. And why am I not serious? Because your position is true? So since you say you're right, my personal experiences are to be ignored and I'm to be pilloried as a liar.
Debate Round No. 2
Double_R

Pro

"So since you say you're right, my personal experiences are to be ignored and I'm to be pilloried as a liar?"

10 years and not one person has ever came out and talked about how the government pulled off this massive conspiracy. All of a sudden, in 2011, a 3 year debates.org member who was a 20 year old government operative involved in the planning of this massive operation, sees a question online and has an epiphany to get into a 5 round debate explaining the whole thing. Yea... ok.

"We then made everything classified, and hid all the evidence."

Really, so our government leaders planned and executed the murder of 3,000 of their own people... the biggest crime of the century that would be sure to get them the death penalty... and kept all the documents proving their guilt by making them classified? And where exactly did they "hide the evidence"? In the closet?

But I'll tell you what, since you have all the inside info why don't you go ahead and spill all the beans. Why don't you explain to us the thing that no conspiracy theorist has ever been able to piece together... How was this massive plot actually pulled off? What is the real story here? I am obviously at a disadvantage in this one. "Source?... I was there." No way I can refute that can I? But I'll try anyway.

I look forward to gaining access to top secret info that I am surely gana be killed for finding out.
Tatarize

Con

It originally was a minor government plan for some more anti-terrorism money, it was largely believed that the Afghan arm wouldn't succeed. That they would show themselves to be a threat and thereby require additional funds to be sent to the anti-terrorism units that Bush was largely defunding at the time. But, in the end the plan went perfectly and actually happened (oddly unlike was planned). So we classified the program and hid the actual evidence (rather than filing it). I think Jeff might have even burnt it.

The reason other people in the government don't talk is because it wasn't a massive conspiracy. Only the five of us were involved. But, I contend that because we worked for the government and got approval for a vague propaganda scare campaign, that it certainly does count as an inside job. There's an old saying, three can keep a secret if two are dead. The more massive the conspiracy, the less chance it has of succeeding.

But then, I've said too much already.
Debate Round No. 3
Double_R

Pro

"Wow!...Really?... you don’t say… uh huh"(1)

Sorry, that is what I was saying to myself as I was reading your statement. Anyway here is the problem. You are either A) telling the truth, or B) lying, for the purpose I am assuming of getting a debate victory under your belt under some technicality

Problem with A): If you really were somehow involved in this then why are you here talking to me about it? Especially considering that this would not be a difficult place for anyone who wants to keep this thing a secret to find you. There are many places out there that would really care about what you have to say. Places that would document your experiences and keep track of you so that no one would want to come after you for fear of drawing attention to the matter. Debates.org is not one of them.

Problem with B): First of all I did not issue this challenge to get into some meaningless back and fourth on some technicality you think you found so that you could improve your win ratio. Second and more importantly, your case still does not even succeed in doing so.

The debate will be won by my opponent if he/she can make a reasonable case that 9/11 was an inside job.”

Some guy coming out and saying “hey I was involved” in a debates.org debate is not exactly a reasonable case. Unless or course you care to make one…

But, I contend that because we worked for the government and got approval for a vague propaganda scare campaign, that it certainly does count as an inside job.”

A “vague propaganda scare campaign” in itself is not exactly a reasonable case. You have provided no specifics. This demonstrates the same tactic that pretty much all 9/11 truthers use; If you do not provide specifics your argument can never be proven wrong, therefore you win by default. That would be like me and my friends challenging the New York Yankees to a game of baseball but not allowing them to bat. By not allowing them to bat they can not score, and therefore they can not win. So obviously my team would never loose but that does not mean we are better.

Of course none of this matters because if you cared to read the rules…

“By inside job I am referring to the belief that it was actually forces in our government that planned, perpetrated, and covered up these attacks”

Your case does not fit into the term “inside job” as it was clearly laid out before accepting this challenge. If you need further explanation…

“But, in the end the plan went perfectly and actually happened (oddly unlike was planned).”

I didn’t think I needed to point out that when I said “planned… these attacks” I needed to say that the plan was to succeed. I thought this would be common sense. Guess not.

it was largely believed that the Afghan arm wouldn't succeed.”

If it was an afghan arm then the US did not perpetrate the attacks.

Care to try another story?

(1) Chris Rock
Tatarize

Con

>>"A) telling the truth, or B) lying, for the purpose I am assuming of getting a debate victory under your belt under some technicality"

Or C) Telling the truth for some debate victory.

Given A, you say I have no motive. Given B, you say that I have a motive for lying. You fail to consider that the motive for B, applies to A as well. Besides, there's hardly any down side because a lot of people wouldn't believe me. Though, I have said too much already.

>>If it was an afghan arm then the US did not perpetrate the attacks.

I specifically noted in my first argument that we used the Afghans for leg work. And frankly they already generally wanted to attack the US, so we only needed to give them a bit to grease the wheels and make sure that things went off without a hitch and some of the early warnings (like people learning to fly planes but not land them) fell on deaf ears until it got further along.

It was a bit more like bending the path of a comet to hit the Earth than inventing a comet out of nothing. If you wish to conclude that that doesn't count as an inside job, then I'll have to leave it up to the voters. But, agents of the government helped the 9/11 attacks along and planned out some of the more critical aspects.

If the best argument you can muster is that you think that it doesn't technically fit the definition of an inside job, then you're really grasping at straws. I mean why raise this debate if you wanted to try to win on a technicality?
Debate Round No. 4
Double_R

Pro

“Or C) Telling the truth for some debate victory.”


I think I made it clear why it is in my opinion senseless to believe you. The purpose to my comments in point “A)” was to show that it is pointless for me to try to have a debate with someone who can just type anything he wants and then say “I was there” as his source. If you did not realize it, the title to this website is debates.org. So if you want to have a real debate then this is the place for you. If you want to tell people about your 9/11 story, go to the associated press. But since you came this far…


“Though, I have said too much already.”


Really? Here is everything of any significance you have said in this “debate”:


“We outsourced some of the leg work to our contacts inAfghanistanthat we had created back when they dealt withRussia.”

“We then made everything classified, and hid all the evidence.”

“It originally was a minor government plan for some more anti-terrorism money, it was largely believed that the Afghan arm wouldn't succeed.”

“Only the five of us were involved.”

“…so we only needed to give them a bit to grease the wheels and make sure that things went off without a hitch and some of the early warnings fell on deaf ears until it got further along.”


5 Sentences through 4 rounds. Not one specific claim. Not one mention of how or why you got involved in this, what role you supposedly played in this, or how you managed to cover this up. You have not bothered to make a case. You are still stuck claiming you are telling the truth instead of giving anyone a reason to believe you.


“…then I'll have to leave it up to the voters. But, agents of the government helped the 9/11 attacks along and planned out some of the more critical aspects.”


Yes I guess we will have to leave it up to the voters. When the voters consider that through 4 rounds you have laid out 5 sentences that have any relevance to what you claim, none of them specific in any way, then I think they will see that the decision is clear.


“If the best argument you can muster is that you think that it doesn't technically fit the definition of an inside job, then you're really grasping at straws.”


If all you give me to work with are straws, then that is all I can grasp at.


Conclusion:



Voters… Do I seriously need to write one?
Tatarize

Con

I've said too much already.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
Cons round 2 was incredible. Pro was pretty damn weak considering the ease of his case.
Posted by medic0506 6 years ago
medic0506
I checked with my contacts inside the CIA, NSA, DHS, FBI, and the military. They say there is no knowledge, or record of anyone by the name Tatarize, aka Con, ever working for the US government, in any capacity. They did report that his name appears on a list of those suspected of being homegrown terrorists, and have records of his many communications with known al quaeda members.

They aren't sure how, or if, this ties in but while under surveillance, he was recorded at numerous highway rest stops, throughout the country, having loud and lengthy meetings, inside the restroom, with known members of the gay mafia.
Posted by Maikuru 6 years ago
Maikuru
The current lack of appreciation for Con's genius and hilarity saddens me.
Posted by thigner 6 years ago
thigner
I wanna say about this debate.. that How could one person could prove this 9/11 terror was inner side or outside...

The only truth about the terror is that Bush government get benefit : bush got elected one more. the reason i say that terror made him two times president is proved if you could check the supporting rate of government change between before and after.

And other truth is the rulers of america (military company and oil company) get big benefit too
Posted by Maikuru 6 years ago
Maikuru
This is now my favorite debate on this site.
Posted by Rob1_Billion 6 years ago
Rob1_Billion
No, he is banking on Pro's inability to properly call him out on his sources and establish the BoP.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
"Wow, Con, for an old member you're inept."

...I'm pretty sure Con is trollin'
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Wow, Con, for an old member you're inept.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Strong arguments/evidence/logic from Con.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
wow, CON. way to use the evidence! (coughs) "evidence"
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by medic0506 6 years ago
medic0506
Double_RTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I checked with my contacts inside the CIA, NSA, DHS, FBI, and the military. They say there is no knowledge, or record of anyone by the name Tatarize, aka Con, ever working for the US government, in any capacity. They did report that his name appears on a list of those suspected of being homegrown terrorists, and have records of his many communications with known al quaeda members.
Vote Placed by Raisor 6 years ago
Raisor
Double_RTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Trolllll
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Double_RTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Looking at the rules for victory, Pro did little more than appeal to incredulity to attack Con's case and make personal attacks due to the debate direction. Con did make a weak presentation but as an international terrorist he obviously can be pressed for time on occasion. 3:2 Con.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Double_RTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. He offers no substantiating evidence for his claims.
Vote Placed by SkepticsAskHere 6 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Double_RTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con obviously didn't take this debate seriously and didn't really refute any of Pro's arguments
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Double_RTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made no effort whatsoever to refute his opponent. It was as if he was trying to make a joke
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Double_RTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes no argument and only uses an appeal to himself.