The Instigator
inrainbows
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
DucoNihilum
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

9/11, Who really attacked us and why?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,326 times Debate No: 1912
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (15)

 

inrainbows

Pro

You wanted to debate, the debate i was having has ended because KindYosef forfeited his second round.

-I'm not going to post an argument in this first round, I'll just state my position, which is 9/11 was organized by the U.S. government. So lets rock and roll brother man, and yes...Ron Paul hope for America
DucoNihilum

Con

Thank you for this debate.

My opponent has failed to provide an opening argument, so I will be forced to reply to another one of his arguments on this site on the same subject, but first I will say my views on the subject.

There is absolutely no evidence that the government had anything to do with the 9/11 disasters, besides perhaps incompetence.

I will reply, paragraph by paragraph to this thread.

http://www.debate.org...

You claim that we were 'told' that we were attacked for our 'freedom and prosperity', while I do not believe that is true that is more of a political war mongering point rather than an official explanation. I propose, with UBL's (Ussama Bin Laden) own rhetoric that we were attacked for our foreign policy of intervention and support of Israel.

Your step back into history has been used time and time again by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The argument here is fallacious, what Hitler did has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on right now. Events being fabricated in the past is NOT, in any way shape or form evidence of events being fabricated NOW.

The collapse of Building 7 was not sudden, it had been on fire for hours before its collapse, and had suffered serious structural damage- including key support pillers falling, and a main gas line breaking, feeding the fire. Reporters making mistakes is to be expected in a serious incident like this one, if you're suggesting that the US government notified all media of this- including British media, yet somehow none of them have talked yet is foolish.

As anybody who has taken a class in logic must know, just because something has never happened before does not mean it is impossible. Before the first plane flew, no planes have flown. Does that mean flight is impossible?

While it may show slight similar ties to a controlled demolition, every building crashing would likely show similarities to a controlled demolition. When you look at the bigger picture, those similarities dissapear. Debris fell everywhere, on the road, into other buildings, and into other buildings far outside of the WTC area. A controlled demolition would NEVER allow any such thing to happen.

The Bush administration did not need 9/11 to enter into the middle east. regardless of the intentions, staging a terror attack would be too radical, even for bush, when he could have just attacked at will- by, for example, making up.... oh.... a nuclear / biological threat?

I am looking forward to your other arguments on the subject.
Debate Round No. 1
inrainbows

Pro

My claim of what we were told on the reason they attacked us was correct. Like the selling of the Iraq war, the leaders of our government used the media to convey their message. By simply stating the same message over and over on all the mainstream news channels, they attacked the American people with their propaganda. "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining."-George W. Bush on September 11th 2001. "Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber - a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other"-George W. Bush on September 20th 2001.

Indeed my step back into history doesn't have a straight connection to the September 11 attacks, but it does point out that governments in the past (including the U.S) use false-flag operations for a pretext to engage in war. It shows that governments and leaders aren't afraid to lie to their people for their own personal desires. What Hitler did over sixty years ago like you said in no way fabricate what can happen these days, but it shows that leaders will and have used this covert mission to accomplish a goal.
Now, world trade center 7. By May 2002, all the steel from the building that was left had been recycled, now if this was one of the first three buildings to ever fall from fire (all on 9/11) why would they get rid of the steel so quickly? Instead of allowing the investigating team to look at as much steel from the collapse, they instead melted most of it and shipped it to India and China, giving the team some of the smaller scraps and a few larger pieces. The official body that investigated the mysterious collapse was FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) who stated the building fell from fires but also admitted to being clueless on how fires caused the collapse. World Trade Center 7 has 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order for the building to have fallen as it did, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.

The building supposedly caught on fire from small bits of debris from the first towers implosion. Small fires then broke out, somehow the fireproofing system fails, and the fire goes on to burn all day from an unknown fuel. There was a 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel in fire-resistant containers just above the ground level. Used to supply the back up generator, but the BPAT and the 9/11 commission never say if it caught on fire, or if it had anything to do with the structural failure. Another thing the BPAT and 9/11 commission failed to tell us is how the building could of fallen in its own footprint rather unlike what is expected from the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

These attacks were orchestrated to receive the support of the American people. He could have said they had some sort of biological/nuclear weapons, but that wouldn't bring the same support as the attacks of 9/11 brought. After the September 11th attacks, the people of America were extremely angry at "Al-Quada" and just in general the Middle East. This is another reason for bringing up the history, in the cases I brought up the people fully supported going to war after their country or military ships were "attacked". After an attack like September 11th the American people are grieving for lost loved ones, but as emotions of sadness arise, so do emotions of revenge and hatred.
DucoNihilum

Con

As I tried to make clear for you before, while some politicians (Including GwB) may have used buzz words like 'they hate us for our freedom' the official reason was absolutely not 'they hate us for our freedom'- and to prove that I read though my copy of The 9/11 Commission Report- entitled the "Final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the united states", showing that is very clearly the official government version. In this report, on chapter 5, it speaks of the motives of the mastermind of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In that, it states his motives as "not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." UBL has some similar rhetoric, but much of it can be confused into what GwB was saying. Here are a few quotes from UBL. He directed his followers to "Kill Americans anywhere" Tenth Public Hearing, Testimony of Louis Freeh. 9/11 Commission (April 13, 2004). Some of his claimed intentions for the 9/11 attack (In his video released taking full responsibility for the attack) were to "restore freedom to our nation," to "punish the aggressor in kind," and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "bleed America to the point of bankruptcy."

While I disagree with GwB on his misunderstanding of the 9/11 attacks, this is not evidence of any orchestration.

While your showing that false flag operations have occurred in the past, that has absolutely no relevance to this incident at hand. Just because they can does not mean they will- furthermore the situations had little in common. You're bring up totally irrelevant material. Trying to use any of this as proof or even evidence for 9/11 being orchestrated by the US government is simply fallacious, using, among others, the appeal to probability.

Investigation teams did investigate the steel- however, not every piece of steel needed to be investigates. What you call small bits of debris weren't 'small bits'- they were actually rather large hunks of the trade center falling onto it. I question your engineering knowledge, saying that ALL columns would have to be cut 'within a split second', mixing a few major columns destruction and a fire fueled by thousands of gallons of fuel could easily cause the structural weakness required to collapse a building. As when the 9/11 commission was written building 7 wasn't investigated as thoroughly. At this time, the most probable theory is the one I've been pushing in this debate. Buildings like WTC 7 tend to fall on their own foundation, use logic. Gravity pushes them downward, not sideways. If a building were to fall elsewhere it would be because of some other force, such as wind, or in the case of the leaning tower of pisa, poor foundation.

While biological weapons may not bring the same support for 9/11 you claim a terrorist attack would, they would still generate enough support for him to actually go to war. He, in fact, required no support to go to war- he is the president, and, while unconstitutionally so, he can declare war whenever he wants. If he were to really gather support for Iraq you would think he would have the attackers coming from Iraq, when they actually traced to saudi members of the Al-Quadea group. If so, he also failed massively- as, like Vietnam, the Iraq war is incredibly unpopular- except among the most conservative of audiences.

You have yet to show any serious evidence that the government orchestrated this attack, you have yet to show any papers- nor any testimony that it was in fact controlled by the government. Someone benefiting slightly from the 9/11 attacks is NOT evidence that they were orchestrated by the government, they are evidence that some politicians want to exploit a national tragedy for their own uses.
Debate Round No. 2
inrainbows

Pro

Not every piece of steel needed to be investigated yes, but why the rush to get rid of it so quickly? You would think that the government would like to know as much about it as possible because it was one of the three buildings to ever fall from a fire.

It's standard procedure for NORAD to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes of course, or if radio communication is lost. In the year 2000, jet fighters were scrambled 129 times. Between September 2000 and June 2001 jet fighters were scrambled 67 times. NORAD has several duties: They monitor air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. They also have the authority to authorize units from The Air National Guard, The Air Force, or any other armed service to scramble jet fighters to pursuit jet liners in trouble. On the morning of September 11th, NORAD had the procedures to protect America from such an attack, but for some reason they failed. Their explanation to why they couldn't stop them can be broken into categories. The first being failure to report. For some odd reason the FAA(who sends the information from air traffic to NORAD)delayed their message to NORAD. For flight 11 it was an 18 minute delay and for flight 77 a 39 minute delay. Now normally you would think that errors happen, but in both cases the flights were off-course, had lost communication, and had stopped emitting its IFF signal. We were given no plausible explanation on why they failed to scramble jets in time. When flight 11 had turned directly south towards New York, its obvious that the Trade Centers and the White House would be likely targets, yet instead of scrambling jets from bases near them, we scrambled jets from bases that were farther away. By 8:30 am, flight 11 was flying towards New York, but no jets were scrambled from nearby Atlantic City, or La Guardia, or from Langley, or from Virginia. Numerous other bases were not ordered to scramble fighters as well. For Washington, no jets were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to protect the capital, at least not until the pentagon was hit. Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert and is only ten miles from the pentagon, but of course, they couldn't do anything. The jets that were scrambled from farther bases still should of had enough time to reach the jetliners, but why didn't they? Because they were only flying at a small fraction of their top speed. The percentage that the F-15's going towards the WTC's was roughly 25.8% of their top speed. For the F-16's going towards the Pentagon it was roughly 27.4% of their top speed. Why wouldn't the jet fighters be flying at top speed to take down the jetliners? Not to mention that on the morning of September 11th the man in control of NORAD was no other then Dick Cheney(the only time he was ever in charge).

Another odd fact is George W. Bush was in a Florida classroom when the planes hit. After the second plane hit the tower, he was told by his adviser who was with him. Now we are being attacked, so you would think the president would leave immediately, instead he continues to talk to the children. Also three months later he lied to the American people by telling them he was outside the classroom when the plane hit and that he saw the first plane hit the building on television. But thats not possible because the first plane hitting was aired on television until September 12th.

A quick note on World Trade Center 7. In September of 2002 on the PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds' Larry Silverstein admits that he and FDNY decided to "pull" WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word "pull" is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives. Keep in mind that in the year 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

How is it that a book made of paper which burns from fire somehow at first survives the initial impact of the plane and then falls from the sky avoiding the burning twin towers and falls onto the ground. Where upon an exhausted rescue worker happens to find it looking through the ruins near the collapse, and the passport that did "survive" just happened to be one of the suspected terrorist who hijacked the plane, not a regular passenger.

What of the suspected terrorist who are still ALIVE? Who were stated by the FBI as dead, but have appeared in newspapers and televisions around the world, protesting their innocents.

I know you hate it when I bring up past events but one more. Have you ever heard of operation Northwoods? Well it was a a plan drawn up in 1962 by the U.S Department of Defense. To stage acts of terrorism on U.S. Soil and against U.S. interests, and then put the blame on Cuba. So they could generate U.S. public support for invading Cuba and taking out Fidel Castro. Their plan was to have several false flag operations, including hijacked airplanes, blowing up their own ships parked in Guantanamo Bay(blaming it on Cuba), and many other acts of terrorism not only on U.S. soil, but also in Cuba and against the innocent people.

Also two months before September 11th Osama Bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent. This information was released by the French Intelligence who are keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA. Now don't forget that Bin Laden still was wanted for prior acts of terrorism against the U.S.
DucoNihilum

Con

There was no need to keep every piece of steel in storage forever. The causes were thoroughly investigated, to do that not all pieces of steel were necessary.

Your idea that it is standard procedure for NORAD to scramble jets whenever a jetliner goes "Off course" is highly misleading. It is not uncommon for planes to go slightly off course, nor is it uncommon for the transponder to stop responding for short periods of time. Only when this has happened for a long period of time do the alarm bells start to ring. These alarm bells are not typically indications of a hijacking, but more likely a crash. It is normal procedure for the FAA to try to contact the plane, the manufacture, etc. They failed to give proper notification, but that is not a sign of a conspiracy.

NORAD does not typically deal with terrorist hijackings within the US. In fact, most of their resources are dedicated to planes coming from outside of the US, into the US, such as drug planes coming in from Mexico.

You fallaciously claim that "When flight 11 had turned directly south towards New York, its obvious that the Trade Centers and the White House would be likely targets"- that is known as the historians fallacy. Before 9/11, no attack like this had ever occurred in the US, at least not to this magnitude. While looking back at this today it might seem 'obvious' to us, however from somebody in that time period it would not be 'obvious' at all. It wasn't even 'obvious' that the plane was hijacked until much later on, the intentions of the hijackers (to crash the planes into the building) were absolutely unthinkable. Even assuming (falsely) that they knew their intentions, there are dozens upon dozens of high profile targets in that area.

The speed of the jets were ignorable as 9 minutes was the most notice that was ever given of the planes, not enough time to scramble and attack a commercial aircraft. There was plenty of confusion that day, real life scenarios are different than practice runs. This may be a sign of incompetence, but it is absolutely not a sign of a conspiracy theory.

Your 'odd fact' about GwB is a non sequitor. Bush could have simply been, I don't know, mistaken? Perhaps he remembered things differently, after all, I'm sure he watched it later that same day on TV. The fact that he stayed in the Florida classroom was simple, regardless of his logic, perhaps he didn't want to scare the schoolchildren, perhaps he wanted to keep the nation in a sense of calm rather than panic. The president sprinting out of a room full of kids might make the public worried. Perhaps he was contemplating what to do- it doesn't matter, there's no plausible reason for him to stay because he was in charge of the attack.

"Pull" is NOT industry jargon for taking a building down. When he said pull, he was speaking very literally. They pulled down buildings, demolished them, as they were unrecoverable (That happens, same thing happened with the Oklahoma City Bombing, just with explosives).

Here is the full quote from the video.

^^^^Worker #1: Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six.

Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.

Worker #1: We've got the cables attached in four different locations... <"going up"? hard to hear>... Now they're pulling [gestures to vehicles] pulling the building to the north. It's not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables"^^^^^^

In fact, that very documentary you list says "The use of explosives to demolish World Trade Centers 4, 5 and 6 was rejected for fear workers would risk their lives entering buildings to set the charges."

As for his 'profit', he bought the lease for the WTC for about 3.2B, the most he will get out of insurance (realistically) is approx 4.6B. terms of these insurance policies have him invest this in rebuilding the WTC complex- at a lost of 6.3B, or a loss of ~2B.
http://query.nytimes.com...

Many papers survived- the passport was in a leather sleeve and in very bad shape, but it did survive. It means nothing. The fact that the hijackers passport survived but the passengers didn't is happenstance.

http://911myths.com...

As you can see, paper is all over the place.

I don't just hate it when you bring up past events because of personal issues, I dislike it because bringing up past events like this are irrelevant and logically fallacious.

Operation Northwoods was drawn up, not used, by an anti-communist who wanted to go after Cuba AFTER the bay of pigs fiasco. Needless to say, Operation Northwoods was never seriously considered- it has about as much credibility as if you or I were to draw up a plan to do some 'false flag' operations and send them into the pentagon for approval.

Ossama Bin Laden never flew in here for treatment, the hospital denies it, and there is no evidence of it.

You have so far brought up quite a few random, seemingly non sequitor comments about the 9/11 attack- but you have yet to explain how exactly the government had anything to do with this. What exactly did the government do? Were remote controls used, or regular planes? How EXACTLY did the government pull this off? I hope you explain this in your closing, as I have not seen very much from you that clearly points the government out as the attacker- which you are required to do by your own opening. Where is your evidence of this organization? I have yet to see anything close.
Debate Round No. 3
inrainbows

Pro

Operation Northwoods was proposed by several high class senior U.S. Department of Defense Leaders, including the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer. It was wanted by a number of high officers and CIA agents, but president Kennedy rejected the proposal and removed Lyman Louis Lemnitzer from his duties as Joint Chiefs of Staff, although shortly after he was just repositioned as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

What of the Pentagon? How come the video tapes of a near by hotel and gas station were confiscated within minutes? How come they won't release them? Instead they released five frames which show no plane. Take a few minutes to watch this, http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...

Secretary of transportation Norman Mineta testifying to the 9/11 commission.
"No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane [was] coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant."
MR. HAMILTON: "The flight you're referring to is the"
MR. MINETA: "The flight that came into the Pentagon."
I should mention that mysteriously his testimony was not used in the final "report".

8:46 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston smashed into the north tower of the WTC. The tower collapses at 10:28 a.m.

9:03 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston smashed into the south tower. It completely collapses at 9:59am.

9:38 a.m.: AA Flight 77 from Dulles hits the Pentagon.

10:10 a.m.: United Flight 93 from Newark crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation about 10 miles from the Pentagon. On September 11th there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. They failed to do their job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city. The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures enabling fighter jets to automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. They do not need instructions from the White House to carry out these procedures, yet they were not followed.

American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 became unresponsive to ground control and radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point an emergency was undeniably clear. Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m., a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with Flight 11.

Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are difficult to imagine considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC. The plane striking the pentagon is particularly spectacular. After it was known that the plane had a problem, it was nevertheless able to change course and fly towards Washington, for about 45 minutes, fly past the White House, and crash into the Pentagon, without any attempt at interception. All the while two squadrons of fighter aircraft were stationed just 10 miles from the eventual target. Unless one is prepared to allege collusion, such a scenario is not possible by any stretch of the imagination.

So were fighting a war on terror, but then why are we in Iraq? A war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq, yet most of the tax money going towards the war goes to Iraq. Saudi Arabia's government cooperates with US oil and arms industries; Iraq did not. Iraq is forced to now, of course. At least fifteen of the far-flung network of terrorist pilots received their money from the same source. There is specific evidence that Osama bin Laden continues to receive extensive support, not only from members of his own family, but also from members of the Saudi establishment. A New Statesman report stated that "Bin Laden and his gang are just the tentacles; the head lies safely in Saudi Arabia, protected by U.S. forces." The hijackers responsible for 9/11 were not illiterate, bearded fanatics from Afghanistan. They were all educated, highly skilled, middle-class professionals. Of the 19 men involved, 13 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.

Another interesting connection to the Bin Laden family is how the FBI was told to stop its investigation on Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11. The FBI has repeatedly complained that it has been muzzled and restricted in its attempts to investigate matters connected to Bin Laden and Al Qeada. One law enforcement official was quoted as saying, "The investigative staff has to be made to understand that we're not trying to solve a crime now." FBI Agents are said to be in the process of filing a law suit agents the Agency for the right to go public.

How could they have had no warning of an operation, which must have been very difficult to keep under wraps, but then be able to name the culprit in less than a day? And if they had some forewarning of the attack, even if it was not specific, then it raises even more questions about government agencies' complicity. Within four hours of the attacks the media was fed information regarding the guilt of Osmama Bin Laden as the master mind of the attacks.

Why hasn't anybody captured Bin Laden yet? There has been several opportunities to capture Bin Laden before and after 9/11, yet no attempt has been made. Two US allies, Saudi Arabia, and The United Arab Emirates, have colluded in deliberately allowing Bin Laden to stay free. Bin Laden was meeting with the CIA as late as July 2001. An examination of U.S. attempts to capture Osama bin Laden show they have in fact consistently blocked attempts to investigate and capture him. Eleven bin Laden family members were flown safely out of the same Boston airport where the highjacking took place a few days earlier. Why were they not detained for questioning?

Is it that hard to believe that the Bush administration could organize an event along with other high officials? Hitler was able to play the anti-communist card to win over skeptical German industrialists. Certainly the Bush family are not newcomers to melding political and business interests, they got their start as key Hitler supporters. Prescott Bush, father of George Bush Sr., was Hitler's banker and propaganda manager in New York, until FDR confiscated his holdings. George Bush Sr. used Manuel Noriega as a scapegoat, killing thousands of innocent Panamanians in the process of re-establishing U.S. control over Panama. It is also widely known that the current Bush Administration knowingly misled the people about the war in Iraq.

Why were certain key figures called and told not to fly that day? A significant number of selected people were warned about flying or reporting for work at the WTC. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown received a phone call eight hours before the hijacking warning him not to travel by air. Salman Rushdie is under a 24-hour protection of UK Scotland yard; he was also prevented from flying that day. Ariel Sharon canceled his address to Israeli support groups in New York City just the day before his scheduled September 11th address. Those are just a few named officials.
DucoNihilum

Con

Key words to your opening were "President Kennedy rejected the proposal and removed [him] from his duties as Joint chiefs of Staff [afterward].It's quite clear that proposals like this were not welcome from Kennedy- especially after his failed Bay of Pigs fiasco. Government officials propose things all the time- some of them are radical and immediately rejected (as was operation northwoods), others are put into consideration. Operation NW was one of those radical proposals that are never really taken seriously by anybody who is not cherry picking for "the government is out to get us" documents. Even if Operation Northwoods WERE taken into serious consideration it would NOT be evidence that 9/11 was government controlled. While it may be evidence that proposals of the sort /can/ happen- that does not even come close to the idea that not only will even more radical proposals be implemented, but they would be implemented flawlessly.

If a crime has been committed it is standard procedure to gather evidence of that crime to be used in court, or in this case, other investigatory procedures. Cameras capturing the plane would be seized by federal investigators for the same reason video evidence of a murder would be seized. It is also standard procedure not to release such tapes- after all, they are part of a criminal investigation. The government did however provide a 1FPS video (which we were lucky to get) of the plane hitting the pentagon. While it may not be very clear that a plane is hitting, that is expected due to the incredibility low quality and low FPS of the video. What you imply here is even more damming- you imply that there was in fact no plane- which would be the only excuse for bringing up the 'missing' videos of such. If there were no plane, what happened to the hijacked plane? What happened to the passengers? Do you suggest that the phone calls were faked- that their families are being payed off? What about all of the debris, airplane debris covering the inside of the building and the grass?

Your mentioning the testimony of Norman Mineta for 'proof' of a government conspiracy is incorrect. What orders does he speak of? It can be interpreted in many different ways, to some who are just out looking for excuses to blame the government on, this may be orders to attack the pentagon..... however, if this conversation even took place, these 'orders' can be any one of multiple things. Orders to evacuate the white house, orders to shoot down planes, orders to stay where they were- orders to do anything, really. The 'orders' are not specified, and can mean anything.

Andrews Air Force base did NOT have an fighters available for immediate combat. In fact, they themselves never claimed that "combat ready" meant "Available right away",""The mission of the 112th Fighter Squadron is to provide combat ready aircrew capable of deploying anywhere in the world within 24 hours of notification"..

Your mentioning of the war on terror and the war in Iraq are non sequitors at best. There was some minor 'warning' of an attack, however there was no reason to believe this threat to be more serious than the many many other threats the white house receives every day. After the 9/11 attack it was somewhat easy to track down the culprit.

Your attack on GwBush and Prescott Bush are non sequitor ad hominem attacks. No key figures were told not to fly that day- some where told around that time not to fly within the same time period (Ashcroft), but he was the only one of the cabinet members who did not fly commercial airliners at the time. Shannon's speech was scheduled for well after 9/11,http://www.jewishsf.com...;
You have brought up several points in this debate, none of them have yet to convince me at all that there is a mass government conspiracy to attack its own people. Many of your statements are evidence of incompetence, or inefficiency- or the lack of a hyper competent government. For example, your comments on the jet delays, some of them were completely false, such as your comments on UBL, and Sharon. Some of them contained misleading information, such as the quotes you have taken out of context, and some of them were downright fallacious (Such as your ad hominem attacks on Bush, your appealing to the past to prove the future (It rained yesterday, thus it is obviously raining today), and your use of the historians fallacy. You falsely assume that the government is hypercompetent, that all of the errors you listed were not unintentional problems with the government, but some grand conspiracy. You assume that the government is able to pull off the biggest sham in the world, the government of a moderately free country. This conspiracy theory would beat the reinstag ten fold in the complexity, and that's assuming we have the controlled media Hitler did. We do not, private businesses control the media, and do not necessarily listen to the government verbatim. You not only failed to prove correlation and causation of the government directly planning the attacks (as required by your opening, you've tried to propose some 'doubt', but no direct evidence) but assume that the government is competent enough, covert enough, and secure enough to keep literally thousands of people quiet that you dragged into this conspiracy theory.n Let's take a small look at all of the people, by your own indirect admission, that would have had to take some part in the attacks and not say a word.

* The team who flew the missile into the pentagon, or planted a bomb.

*The families of the flight that hit the pentagon

* The people who 'faked' calling their 'loved ones'

* The crew that placed debris all over the pentagon

* All of NORAD

* Bush's entire secret service brigade

* Military personnel all over NEADS

* An entire hospital

* the 'young man' who talked to cheney

* Much of the FAA

* The crew that planted the passports at the trade centers

* Much of the BBC.

*The crew that planted explosives into building 7.

* Guilianni

..... The list goes on and on. When the conspiracy is as extensive as this it become more and more impossible for it to be true without there being major leaks. After all, things are leaked from the White house all time time, things of much less importance (such as the downing street memos). Something as serious as this would surely be leaked by at least some person who had some or any involvement in the attacks- yet no one credible has come forward. Real life is not a movie. The government is not capable of anything, in fact they generally suck at what they do. This is not an episode of prison break, this is real life. The government, inefficient as it is, would be totally incapable of hiding a secret as powerful as this. Hitler was only able to do it though pure fascism, not the mild authoritarian / socialistic control we have in the US today- and after his nation was freed the truth quickly came out. Hitlers plan was much much less complex than 9/11, and truthers come up with new and more elaborate 'theories' as their old ones are debunked as soon as they're proposed. This is not science, science is not trying to find, as hard as you can, the conclusion you want- regardless of logic, or even truth. Science is looking at all of the evidence objectively, and deciding what the most /logical/ option is. Which seems more likely? A few terrorists attacked a weak point in our nation, or the entire government, media, and thousands of other people are involved in the attack? Its a simple Ochams Razor- while the government attack may help fuel your hatred of the government or the current administration, it may stir some passions, as if you are living in a movie- it does not stand up to the cold hard facts, the logic, or the reasoning required for real life.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
I know people with your feelings of government beleive that our media is heavily controlled, hell- I'm not a big fan of government and I don't think we are the shining light of freedom- I'm voting for Ron Paul too...... but to suggest that our media is as censored as Hitler's media is a falsity at beset.
Posted by inrainbows 9 years ago
inrainbows
Actually the government does have the same control of the media if not more as Hitler did. The mainstream news is heavily censored to what they wish us to know and what they wish us not to know.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
Hey inrainbows. I LOVE your avatar and want it as my desktop wallpaper. Can you tell me where I can get it full-sized?
Posted by Acureforthemondays 9 years ago
Acureforthemondays
well griffin, someone who hated america could leave the country, but sadly, America's action effect almost every other nation in the world. Just look at the damage our stock market slump has done to the world. So even if one was to leave, one can never escape.
Posted by mattresses 9 years ago
mattresses
p.s. good debate so far. digging the 4 round format.
Posted by mattresses 9 years ago
mattresses
yes Bill Clinton is definitely my god.

hack.

if we do not go on prior evidence, then we might as well eradicate science from the planet. it just came out that there are 935 documented lies that Bush has told about 9/11 and the Iraq war that can accessed

http://www.publicintegrity.org...

there.

why shouldn't i assume they're lying about this too? there's evidence pointing to the fact that they are. there's evidence pointing to the fact that they're not. i'm saying you have to be open to facts, which is what i am.

oh, and i don't hate this country. i hate the government that has become so corrupt. if it gets worse, i will be leaving thanks. enjoy living in a shithole when the economy crashes.
Posted by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Even the god of the Democratic party Bill Clinton said that 9-11 was not an inside job. You extremists are way out in left field! And you are way off base! If you really hate this country so much than LEAVE!
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
No, we can not, if we would like to remain logical free thinking human beings.
Posted by mattresses 9 years ago
mattresses
past fabrications have EVERYTHING to do with the current situation. when almost every president of the last 60 years has lied to the american public, can we not assume that the current one is?

i feel that 9/11 was a bit convenient for the Bush administration.

looking forward to the rest of this debate.
Posted by NragedX312 9 years ago
NragedX312
i cant debate this inrain well..because i totally agree with you i just thought id put my two bits in so u know someone is at least typing on this debate...
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DavidSSabb94 7 years ago
DavidSSabb94
inrainbowsDucoNihilumTied
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:33 
Vote Placed by education4earth 9 years ago
education4earth
inrainbowsDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by pazmusik 9 years ago
pazmusik
inrainbowsDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Keithinator 9 years ago
Keithinator
inrainbowsDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
inrainbowsDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Acureforthemondays 9 years ago
Acureforthemondays
inrainbowsDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Conservative 9 years ago
Conservative
inrainbowsDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mattresses 9 years ago
mattresses
inrainbowsDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
inrainbowsDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by inrainbows 9 years ago
inrainbows
inrainbowsDucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30