The Instigator
KILLUMINATI
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
jkovar
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

9/11 must have been assisted by the US government

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 3 votes the winner is...
jkovar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,482 times Debate No: 22785
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

KILLUMINATI

Pro

I will be arguing that 9/11 must have been assisted by the US government......


(A)Unanswered questions:

(1)Who was really in charge on the morning of 9/11 - Bush or Cheney?

(2)Why did NORAD mislead investigators on why its planes didn't intercept 9/11 hijackers?

(3)What really happened aboard Flight 93?

(4)How could the alleged 19 hijackers have been identified in less than 72 hours?

(5)Why were none of the 19 hijackers names on the passenger lists released the same day by the airlines?

(6)Why did Giuliani send the WTC rubble to China and India so quickly?

(7)Why was the Bin Laden Task Force broken up nine months before 9/11?

(B)WTC collapse:

(1)Heat from burning jet fuel was reportedly the sole cause of the WTC collapses which is impossible

(2)There is evidence of a controlled demolition

(3)WTC explosions heard

(4)The Twin Towers exploded into dust and shattered steel shows evidence of a explosive demolition

(C)Pentagon:

(1)Pentagon whic is the heart of the military of the world's greatest super power was hit after warning without being protected by any defensive action.

(2)Terrorist Hani Hanjour was not capable of flying the plane into the pentagon at 500mph just above the ground

(3)Why would an Islamic terrorist perform a difficult maneuver to strike the portion of the building that would cause the fewest fatalities?

Conclusion:
These are some of the things I will use to show that 9/11 must have been assisted by the US government
jkovar

Con

I shall be arguing that there is no truth whatsoever in this meritless conspiracy theory.

I will address my opponents points one at a time:

"Unanswered Questions"

1. Dick Cheney was in charge on 9/11 since the President could not be reached due to the fact that the communications were down. There is nothing sinister about this. No one wants a leader that doesn't take action during a crisis for fear of being impeached. This is called American leadership at it's finest regardless of whether or not people agree on the Bush Administration's actions in the subsequent months.

2. My opponent will have to clarify what he means when he say that NORAD mislead investigators. It's fighter jets were physically not in the vicinity of the hijacked planes. Communications were down, orders could not be properly transmitted.

3. Once again my opponent will have to explain himself. On flight 93, the passengers bravely tried to take back the plane which caused the plane to crash into a rural field instead of the White House. There are black box recordings that support this series of events.

4. The hijackers were identified quickly in a number of ways. http://www.911myths.com...
goes into great deal about this area. Most apparent (or so I should think) is the fact that people were able to call the police from the plane via the pay phones and describe the hijackers to the police.

5. From my understanding of the 9/11 case, the initial "flight manifest" that was reported was actually a list of the victims. This point is frequently mis-cited by conspiracy theorists.

6. I cannot find anything about Mayor Giuliani sending WTC rubble to China and India from a reputable source or anything that cites one so he will have to provide a link of some sort before I can address this point.

7. Once again, I cannot find anything reliable on the task force being dismantled before 9/11. My opponent will need to provide a report from AP or something.

B.WTC Collapse.

1. It is obvious that my opponent lacks an adequate understanding of basic physics; one that is required to debate this aspect of the case. Jet fuel burns at various temperatures (up to 1800 degrees F) that depend mostly on the amount of oxygen that is available. Now it is true that those temperatures are insufficient to melt steal which melts at roughly 2750 degrees F but that does not mean that it is incapable of compromising a building's structural integrity. Let me use a the example of a blacksmith hammering a piece of iron to illustrate my point. The iron is not in a liquid form but it is still red hot. That temperature is required to weaken the iron just enough so that it can be hammered into the desired shape. The force of the hammer striking the iron can be represented by the weight of the building. So think of the WTC as a straw that when pressed from both sides remains firm but once that initial buckling occurs there is nothing left to prevent that force from collapsing the rest of the structure

2. There is no evidence of any controlled explosion from a reputable source that I am aware of. If there is, copy a link to this debate.

3. Not sure about an explosion heard. The sound of a steel instantly being forcibly crushed may resemble that of an explosion though.

4. The same thing could be said about the debris. The resulting energy released when a building of that size comes crashing down could easily resemble the effects of an explosion. Uninformed people are jumping to conclusions when they suggest that only an explosion can cause such an effect.

The Pentagon

1. The planes where not shot down before they reached the Pentagon because no one saw this coming at all. You must remember that before 9/11 that belief was that mainland America was protected by the two oceans on either side of it.

2. The plane did not fly directly into the Pentagon. The plane hit the ground and then bounced into the side of the building. The initial strike with the ground took away most of the planes energy as well. That is one of the reasons why it was not as bad as it could have been.

3. The reason that there were so few fatalities was because The area was under construction. This is a well known fact now that can be found anywhere online. If it were open then you can be sure that there would be many more fatalities.

People who believe in such nonsense as that the US planned the worst attack in its history on itself, fly in the face of all of the facts. There is a reason why no well respected scientist or forensic expert would vouch for such a story. There is no solid evidence. Any information that my opponent may present will probably be from a website called something like 9-11thetruth.com. The President isn't capable of covering up a story as juicy as this one. For God's sake, he couldn't cover up the fact that soldier's were humiliating POWs at Abu Ghraib. Leaks of information always reveal such abuses of power. You can be sure of one thing though, if the President or any other part of the government was involved we would know about.
Debate Round No. 1
KILLUMINATI

Pro

To my opponent thank you for accepting this debate........

When your not given answers to your questions about 911 by the people who SHOULD be able to do so,it is PERFECTLY normal to ask questions. If our goverment has answers to questions about 911 why have they not yet given the answers to squash the debate ? When you are told 2+2=5 do you not question that ?

Einstein said: "The important thing is not to stop questioning."

My unanswered questions:

(1)Cheney in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC indicated that the President made the decision that day to scramble fighter jets.[1]

Tim Russert: "What's the most important decision you think he (President Bush) made during the course of the day?"

VP Cheney: "Well, the, I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft ... We decided to do it."

So clearly the communications were not down on the morning of 911 as my opponent stated.

(2)Staff members and commissioners of the 911 panel concluded that the pentagons initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks were part of a deliberate effort to mislead the 911 commission .[2] Why would they do that ?

(3)An article detailing Flight 93's last minutes was available at dailynews.yahoo.com on 911. It did not fit the official story of the last moments of Flight 93 and rapidly disappeared from news websites but it can still be found on web archives.[3] Odd.

(4)and(5) 7 of the hijackers said to be on the planes are still alive[4]. The original flight manifests used in the Moussaoui trial can be seen here[5].

(6) Mayor Giuliani sent WTC rubble to China and India to avoid testing for explosives.

(7) The US goverment had tracked Bin Laden since about 1998 after truck bomb explosions at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Bin Laden was added to FBI's "10 most wanted fugitives" list. Then 9 months prior to 911 the task force was dissolved[7] How convenient.

WTC collapse:

(1)My opponent seems to enjoy to attack me rather than just answer my questions very disrespectful I must say. With that being said he is mistaken jet fuel was not burning in the building. Office debris was. Office debris that is fire coded for a 110 story skyscraper which reads non-flammable. Jet fuel burns about 1000-5000lbs per hour depending on airframes, powerplant, weight etc. And thats in a controlled environment with jet fuel being fed into the engine. Jet fuel is refined kerosene. Airliners use Jet A kerosene and the military uses JP 4 kerosene. Regardless neither grade burns hot if it did it would alter the inside of a jet engine and cause failure.

Imagine you light it ALL on fire all at once... its gone. So my opponents argument of jet fuel burn temps is moot.

In a controlled burn where oxygen and fuel are regulated in an optimal mix jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800F which is still not anywhere near the temperature required to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building would plummet to the ground. Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful fuel was used set to burn or explode BELOW the building not at its top. Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant)typically used in military operations would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500F in 2 seconds and steel begins to melt at 2750F.[8]

Professor Steven Jones a physicist at Brigham Young University came forward in Nov 2004 with a published paper on the possibility of thermite having been used at the WTC on 9/11. He has now found not only solidified drops of molten metal in dust samples from the WTC but evidence of sulfuric granulation(a "eutectic reaction")on the structural steel, which suggests that thermate an enhanced form of thermite, was involved in the destruction of the towers.

Test it yourself: Get some kerosene (even though it burns slower than jet fuel) put it in a coffee can and throw it on a fire. Stand back though. Cause this is what happened when those planes hit. Then you may want to throw some unburned kerosene on a tree or some steel, try a coke can. And light it. It doesnt even melt the coke can it burns so quickly.

Example: On February 13, 1975 the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire which "burned at temperatures in excess of 1300F for over three hours and spread over 65% of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."

Source: New York Times, Saturday 15th February 1975

(2)and(3) The websites below show evidence of controlled explosion/demolition
http://firefightersfor911truth.org...

http://firefightersfor911truth.org...

(4)Unexploded Energetic Materials Found in WTC Dust in nov of 2007, Steven E. Jones, having earlier shown the presence of aluminothermic residues in WTC dust samples in the form of solidified iron rich droplets, announced his discovery of particles of unreacted thermitic materials, in the form of bi-layered chips with gray and red layers. See site below.

http://firefightersfor911truth.org...

The Pentagon:

(1)My opponent stated:"The planes were not shot down before they reached the Pentagon because no one saw this coming at all" Really?

The Pentagon and White House are the best protected public buildings in the US. They are equipped with a battery of surface to air missiles and the airspace above it is the subject of a permanent overfly ban.

Flight 77 made its way to Washington unchallenged for over half an hour the plane was picked up by Washington ATC for the first time at 9:33. By this time it was flying well in excess of 400 mph and on a trajectory that put it directly on course for the White House. Before getting there however the plane suddenly executed a left hand descending turn, turning almost a complete circle and dropping 7000 ft in two and a half minutes. This complex manoeuvre levelled out perfectly in line for a direct hit on the Pentagon and it flew the last few hundred yards just a few feet above the ground, clipping trees and lamp poles before ploughing into the Pentagon at an estimated speed of 480 mph.

(2)My opponent stated: "The plane did not fly directly into the Pentagon. The plane hit the ground and then bounced into the side of the building." If that were true why is there not a scratch on the Pentagon lawn after the crash of a large airliner came in on a flat trajectory? See images below:
http://911review.com...

(3)My opponent stated:"The reason that there were so few fatalities was because The area was under construction. This is a well known fact now that can be found anywhere online."

Flight 77 struck the portion of the building that had already been renovated. The fact that they happened to hit an area that had been built so sturdily was a wonderful gift. The rest of the Pentagon would not have fared as well. Wow another coincidence.

My opponent has not proven a single thing except for the fact that the official 911 explanations are false. That leads to the question why would our government not just show evidence to back its story? It is because they do not wish to incriminate themselves. 19 terrorist could not have pulled off this attack alone in no way shape or form.


***Side not to my opponent can you please source your information.....























[1] http://911research.wtc7.net...
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[3] http://whatreallyhappened.com...
[4] http://911truth.tripod.com...
[5] http://911research.wtc7.net...
[7] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[8] http://www.911weknow.com...
jkovar

Con

Okay, so I'd first like to respond by saying that Einstein's quote had nothing to do with 9/11 and was taken out of it's original context. ;)

Seeing as my opponent mostly didn't support his non-mainstream argument about 9/11 with reputable sources, despite my previous post asking him to do so, this post will be shorter than my last. I said "mostly didn't support" because, looking over the official accounts, I now acknowledge that President Bush was in contact with Vice-President Cheney and that my previous claim was inaccurate. Now having said just that, I noticed some inaccuracies in my opponents counter-argument:

1. The 9/11 Commission did not conclude that that the Pentagon deliberately tried to mislead them. In fact they ended up having to make a compromise and pass the case along to the Inspector Generals at the DOD and DOT. This can be found under my opponents own source
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

2. A link on the same website that my opponent cited as evidence for the hijackers being alive, leads to a page on the same website that talks about how there are many different explanations for why the information of the hijackers match those of people still alive, explaining that one person had his passport stolen for example. http://911research.wtc7.net...

3. As for my opponents argument about the jet fuel and the WTC, his facts come from a website that also tries to argue that President Obama was born in Kenya. The type of people that create these websites do not have the best track record with facts. This is neither a credible nor reputable source. A paper from "The Chronicles of Higher Education" which is a prominent academic news source attempts to debunk Dr. Jones's claim as well as those of other controlled demolition proponents.
http://eagar.mit.edu...

4. Regarding my opponents claim that the renovation of the pentagon was already completed, a quick look at a page from the Pentagon's main website will show the audience that it was still under construction and that my opponent was again incorrect.
http://pentagon.osd.mil...

I am not being rude when I call out my opponent's lack of knowledge on certain topics. This is a debate, and that being the case, it is expected that one makes accurate points and acknowledges their own mistakes if those points are shown to be inaccurate or misleading. My opponent has done neither of those things, and frankly, deserves to be called out on it.

My opponent asked me to put more citations in my argument and so I have. I asked him before to put reputable sources in his citations and he has failed to do so, with the exception of the Washington Post and Guardian UK (both of which have a large consumer audience that expect factual news), although both sources failed to confirm the statements that were supposedly citing them.

**To my opponent: If you believe that I have missed anything or failed to adequately address any of your points, please let me know so I can address them if they are valid. Also, please, PLEASE use reputable sources (meaning those that are from mainstream newspapers or scholarly papers, rather than ones from websites devoted to conspiracy theories) Thank you.**
Debate Round No. 2
KILLUMINATI

Pro

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
---Arthur Schopenhauer

My opponent stated:"Seeing as my opponent mostly didn't support his non-mainstream argument about 9/11 with reputable sources, despite my previous post asking him to do so, this post will be shorter than my last."(or is it that he cant refute any of my evidence shown)

Now he admits that his claim was "inaccurate" he stated:"I now acknowledge that President Bush was in contact with Vice-President Cheney and that my previous claim was inaccurate."

If his claim was "inaccurate" by his own admission. Why does he expect you to believe that any of his sources are credible and mine are not?

(1)My opponent stated:"The 9/11 Commission did not conclude that that the Pentagon deliberately tried to mislead them."

The Commission reported a year later that audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft—American Airlines Flight 11—long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center[1]

The Commission was forced to use subpoenas to obtain the cooperation of the FAA and NORAD to release evidence such as audiotapes. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes—along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence—led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on September 11. "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," said John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on September 11, in an August 2006 interview.[1]

(2) My opponent left this part out(a mistake im sure): The use of assumed identities is consistent with the official account, but is perhaps more consistent with the view that the Arab men on the flight were patsies, particularly when seen in conjunction with the men's poor piloting skills, Koran-proscribed behavior, and apparent efforts to leave a paper trail.[2]

(3)My opponent stated:"As for my opponents argument about the jet fuel and the WTC, his facts come from a website that also tries to argue that President Obama was born in Kenya. The type of people that create these websites do not have the best track record with facts." "news source attempts to debunk Dr. Jones's claim as well as those of other controlled demolition proponents." Clear example of red herring.

(4)My opponent stated:"quick look at a page from the Pentagon's main website will show the audience that it was still under construction and that my opponent was again incorrect" Really? Main website. False the website he has shown as a source is nothing more than a website to schedule a tour. American Airlines Flight 77 struck a portion of the building that had already been renovated.[4][4a] This was in an article written 9/16/01

My opponent stated "I call out my opponent's lack of knowledge on certain topics...if those points are shown to be inaccurate or misleading." He has not shown any of my arguments to be inaccurate or misleading. That being said I have refuted and shown evidence that each and every argument he has made is false or inaccurate.

He keeps asking to put reputable sources in his citations. Why would he do this if he is trying win this debate? Could it be that he cant refute any of my arguments?

Why do it?Why would the US government assist the 911 attacks?

-- Enabling the passage of the Patriot Act I and II
-- Unconstitutionally spying on Americans in the name of terrorism
-- Established the Department of Homeland Security
-- The Invasion of the Middle East
-- A new foreign and domestic policy
-- Used to pass the Military Commissions Act which officially ended Habeus Corpus

Every argument my opponent has put forth I have shown to be false or inaccurate. Not a single claim he has made is true or factual.

Ten years ago I never would have thought that our government would have assisted in the attacks in any way at all but when you look at all the evidence it is very hard not to see that 19 hijackers and a man in a cave pulled it off. I will let evidence speak for itself.






[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://911research.wtc7.net...
[3]http://www.csun.edu...
[4]http://articles.latimes.com...
[4a]http://en.wikipedia.org...
jkovar

Con

I must admit that it is wearing, trying to argue with someone who does not acknowledge my argument besides saying that it is wrong and adding some snide comment. I get the impression that I am arguing with a troll :(

My opponent is making no sense in his argument. I understand that to the audience, this is turning into a "he said, he said" type of argument but please bear with me for a moment.

As I said earlier, part of debating is giving some ground when you realize that you have made an inaccurate claim. Obviously I made a mistake by I admitting that I, like everyone else, am occasionally fallible since it seemed to have stoked the flames of my opponent's outright denial of my argument but that inaccuracy, in no way discredits the rest of my claims, especially those that are cited from reputable sources. The fact of the matter is that my opponent has not used one single reputable source to back up his argument correctly.

My opponent suggests that I cannot refute his claims. I hope that it is pretty obvious to the audience that I have. Anyone can create a website and post a load of bogus information. For all I know, my opponent may own these websites from which he is citing from, although I personally have reservations about that.

For the sake of debate though, I will address my opponents points even though I have already done so once before:

1. My opponents still claims that the 9/11 Commission concluded that the Pentagon tried to deliberately mislead them. HIS OWN SOURCE FROM HIS LAST POST SAYS OTHERWISE!!! All you need to do is look at my last argument.

2. The purpose of the quote about the terrorist IDs was to show that there were other explanations besides the one that my opponent gave. I specifically said "there are many different explanations for why the information of the hijackers match those of people still alive, explaining that one person had his passport stolen for example." **Please note the use of the phrase "for example" at the end** The coincidence that other factors existed such as the ones that my opponent pointed out are circumstantial evidence. That means that the evidence is compatible with his story, not proof that it actually happened the way my opponent suggests.

3. My opponent takes two quotes from last argument and says that they are examples of red herring. While he might think that this is just a distraction from the rest of his argument it is, in fact, an outright refutation of the controlled explosion theory, if only he took the time to read it rather than make a random comment.

4. And as for the Pentagon website, IT IS ACTUALLY THE PENTAGON'S MAIN WEBSITE!!! Does my opponent honestly think that some random tour group can get into, what is currently, one of the most secure and secretive government buildings in the world. Only the Pentagon officials give tours inside of it. On top of that, it has a military domain name (.mil) that is only available to the military and not a private tour group. In case my opponent still doesn't believe me, I challenge him to find the official Pentagon website himself. He will inevitably come up to the same page unless of course he chooses to link to the DOD's main website.

Any reasonable person can see that my opponent has not made a solid case. He has spent more time taking long quotes and adding one sentence to the end instead of doing any actual analysis. I am asking my opponent to put reputable sources because any conspiracy nut can post something on Wikipedia and site their own website. A big name news or academic source actually has a reputation on the line so naturally there is more incentive to provide facts.

My opponent keeps on saying that I am not refuting his arguments but I am indeed, painstakingly looking through his "sources" (which I'm sure he's not even doing based on the fact that some don't even support his argument) and sifting through all of the nonsense to find that there is no solid foundation to which these arguments rest upon. I hope my opponent's next post will have an actual argument in it, rather than another condemnation of my "inaccuracies".
Debate Round No. 3
KILLUMINATI

Pro

I have acknowledged my opponents arguments and refuted all of them. If I do not agree with them makes me a "troll" so be it.

My opponent has repeatedly committed the "red herring" fallacy of focusing on trivial issues that are irrelevant to this debate. As well as the "argument from personal incredulity" fallacy.

(1) Here is the link to the article from the Washintonpost read it for yourself you will see that my opponents claim that my source says that the Pentagon did not try mislead the 911 commision is false.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

(2) My opponent stated: "A link on the same website that my opponent cited as evidence for the hijackers being alive, leads to a page on the same website that talks about how there are many different explanations for why the information of the hijackers match those of people still alive, explaining that one person had his passport stolen for example." http://911research.wtc7.net......

Now he has shown by his own admission that the 911 commisions report was not accurate once again he stated "other explanations besides the one that my opponent gave..." "there are many different explanations for why the information of the hijackers match those of people still alive, explaining that one person had his passport stolen for example" Now his whole argument/case is based on what the official 911 commisions report says. If the 911 commisions report is not accurate in this case what else is not true? How much of the report is not accurate? What can we believe in the report it does seem to have much credibility.

(3) Once again my opponent stated: "As for my opponents argument about the jet fuel and the WTC, his facts come from a website that also tries to argue that President Obama was born in Kenya. The type of people that create these websites do not have the best track record with facts. This is neither a credible nor reputable source. A paper from "The Chronicles of Higher Education" which is a prominent academic news source attempts to debunk Dr. Jones's claim as well as those of other controlled demolition proponents."

Does my opponent want you think that in his opinion sources are not credible so they must be false? There is no attempt to refute my argument as you can see.

(4) This is the Pentagon main website http://www.defense.gov... which leads to the website where it clearly shows Pentagon tours http://pentagon.osd.mil...

My opponent stated: "Any "reasonable" person person can see that my opponent has not made a solid case" Really?
He stated:"I am asking my opponent to put reputable sources because any conspiracy nut can post something on Wikipedia and site their own website. A big name news or academic source actually has a reputation on the line so naturally there is more incentive to provide facts." It does not make a argument true or false no matter where it comes from. He clearly cant refute any of arguments so he has repeatedly committed "argumentum ad nauseum" fallacy as well by claiming my sources are not credible.

I also need to point out that a "conspiracy theory" is no longer a theory once evidence is shown that shows it is true it then becomes a conspiracy period.

Once again if my opponent can refute my arguments which he claims he can, do so it is just that simple.
jkovar

Con

I must be a psychic because what I said my opponent would say is exactly what he ended up saying.

1. The Washington Post article says that SOME of the members on the 9/11 Committee thought that the Pentagon had lied to them. This is the same as saying that SOME members of our society believe in conspiracy theories. It also said that there was disagreement and no overall conclusion could be reached so the case was passed on, if my opponent only chose to read passed the first paragraph.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

2. I'm not even sure what exactly my opponent is trying to say in his second point so I ask that he tries to put together a coherent point next time seeing as the 9/11 Commission did not conclude that there was some great conspiracy going on as my opponent suggests.

3. My opponent asks the audience, "Does my opponent want you (to) think that in his opinion sources are not credible so they must be false? There is no attempt to refute my argument as you can see." I'm pretty much going to say yes to most of that. The site that my opponent cited from does not give any information as to who made it, nor does it cite any of it's information and so anyone could have written it and made up random numbers. Right there, I will say that it should not necessarily be viewed as automatically false but instead with a great deal of skepticism. Regardless of what I want the audience to believe, I also added a link a the paper that is from a well respected, peer edited, academic journal that addresses the issue.
http://eagar.mit.edu...

4. In my last post, I said "In case my opponent still doesn't believe me, I challenge him to find the official Pentagon website himself. He will inevitably come up to the same page unless of course he chooses to link to the DOD's main website." As I predicted, MY OPPONENT POSTED A LINK TO THE DOD's MAIN WEBSITE "This is the Pentagon main website http://www.defense.gov...... which leads to the website where it clearly shows Pentagon tours http://pentagon.osd.mil...; The Pentagon is not the Department of Defense, rather it is a building operated by the Department of Defense. The only reason why an otherwise, mostly secretive government building, needs a public website is for tours and other public information.

My opponent states that I am committing a logical fallacy when I point out that his sources are not reputable. However, he links to websites that make a lot of claims that have no solid foundation and which cite evidence that doesn't actually agree with their points. Of course I going to say that these sites are unreliable. If you make a claim that is not backed up in any way, it cannot be considered fact. And just to throw the cherry on top, lets assume that everything my opponent said is a fact (WHICH I AM IN NO WAY CONCEDING THAT IT IS!), all it would is that there are inconsistencies in the government's story (a government which is a cumbersome bureaucracy) and not that it assisted the in the attacks.

My opponent is not presenting a coherent argument and I implore the audience to take note of it!
Debate Round No. 4
KILLUMINATI

Pro

There will be no winner in this debate simply because no matter what 2,973 innocent Americans lost their lives.......

On the day of the attack, details about the alleged perpetrators emerged with a rapidity that is remarkable given the assertions by high ranking administration officials that no one had ever considered that an attacker could fly planes into buildings. Within hours the identities of several of the alleged hijackers were known, and Osama bin Laden was being presented as the prime suspect. Within three days the FBI published the identities of all the alleged hijackers. It was being presented as an open-and-shut case.

Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using "elastic dynamic analysis." "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent.

The mass media were consistent in avoiding asking the most obvious questions. Why did the air defense network fail to respond? Why did Flight 77 target the recently fortified mostly empty portion of the Pentagon? Why was the Ground Zero steel removed and destroyed as fast as possible? The media shirked their public service obligation of acting as watchdogs of the government, and instead became cheerleaders for the administration's war plans for central Asia.

The vast body of print reportage about September 11 attack is notable for an abundance of contradictions. The timelines in the Complete 9/11 Timeline series reveal numerous inconsistencies, such as between reported times of events. These discrepancies, combined with the lack of evidence, discourage investigation of facts of the attack. Meanwhile, the impending attack on Afghanistan, the alleged Islam-terror link, and homeland security got the attention.

FACTS ABOUT 9/11:

(1)Fire has never prior to or after 9/11 caused any steel frame building to collapse. The sudden, vertical, explosive, and total collapse of the Twin Towers at near freefall speed can only be explained by controlled demolition.

(2)The WTC steel which if fully examined could have relvealed the effects of explosives was quickly shipped overseas and melted down. This was an unprecedented violation of federal crime scene laws.

(3)Whenever contact is lost with any airplane fighter jets routinely take to the air to investigate. This commonly occurs about 100 times per year in well under 20 minutes. But on 9/11 nearly two hours passed without any interception.

(4)The Secret Service broke established protocols by allowing President Bush to remain in a well publicized classroom photo op long after it was known that the U.S. was under attack and he might well have been a target.

(5)Unidentified insiders made millions on the stocks of American and United Airlines and those of other corporations that were likewise impacted by the attacks. These "put option" bets were made just prior to 9/11.

(6)There were warnings of the impending attacks from at least eleven other countries. Also prior to 9/11, insiders such as John Ashcroft top military officers and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown were warned not to fly.

(7)In September of 2000 a group of neocon hawks many of whom would become key officials in the Bush administration, wrote that their proposed massive military buildup would proceed slowly "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor."

(8)Some of the alleged 9/11 "suicide hijackers" are still alive and well according to the BBC and the Guardian. At least five of the alleged hijackers may have trained at U.S. military bases as reported in Newsweek and other sources.

(9)The Bush administration resisted the formation of the 9/11 Commission for 441 days. Similar investigations, such as those for Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the space shuttle disasters, all started in about one week.

(10)"The Jersey Girls" four 9/11 widows finally forced the 9/11 Commission into existence and presented many questions, most of which were ignored. Under the leadership of Bush administration insider Philip Zelikow the final report failed to address any of the evidence pointing to official complicity.

There are hundreds of additional facts that contradict the official story of 9/11. It is time for a truly independent investigation that addresses all the questions asked by the citizens.

Conclusion:

I would like to say that I am convinced some elements within our Government, and others were complicit in the attacks of 9/11. As you can see the evidence shown in this debate clearly points in that direction. We have pieces to the puzzle, and we KNOW who refuses to give up the other pieces. However this is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. We need a real investigation domestic or international one and do what can only be described as the right thing. Holding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks whoever they may be, accountable. It is long overdue. Justice has never been more needed. The perverse usage of that day can no longer continue. It is time to let those poor 2,973 souls finally rest in peace.

The facts speak for themselves...............



jkovar

Con

The term "conspiracy theory" is used derogatively because conspiracy theories have a tendency to linger around even when there is no evidence supporting them. Let's be honest, when has a famous conspiracy theory actually turned out to be true? Roswell perhaps? Oh, nothing ever came of that? Well how about the JFK assassination? Oswald is still considered to be the lone gunman, you say? I hope the audience sees where I am going with this...

All of the famous conspiracy theories have one thing in common: the people who publicize them pick through the mountains of evidence and come out with a few inconsistencies, that they repeatedly cite those same inconsistencies as evidence for their absurd claims. The fact of the matter is that in a beaucracy as large and as clumsy as ours, inconsistencies and quirks arise all of the time, from perfectly innocent situations as well. Does anyone remember President Obama's State of the Union Address, when he made the joke about one department regulating freshwater salmon and another one regulating saltwater salmon? That is a prime example of government acting clumsily and being inefficient. The issue is that although the government is sort of one entity, it is made of people who don't always communicate together and so these situations arise. There is nothing sinister about it. The truth of the matter, that many people tend to reject, is that we were simply caught off guard, plain and simple.

9/11 was a tragedy that never should have happened. The government was not prepared to defend us but it was definitely not the aggressor. Instead, the most infamous figure behind the 9/11 attacks met an ironic end when a team of Navy Seals put a bullet in his skull after he had settled down, thinking that he was untouchable...

The audience has seen both sides of the argument and now it is up to them to decide. Anyone can say anything but the important part is to be able to back up your argument with reliable sources and I believe that my opponent has failed to do that.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by DouggyFresh 5 years ago
DouggyFresh
Pro, you are so absorbed in thinking you are right and trying to get everyone else to see your "truth" that you are unable to accept valid arguments of others. For that reason, you have a negative impact on DDO and the world and you should re-evaluate your purpose of being here.

Are you here to truly openly discuss issues with others or to try and indoctrinate people and have them think your way because you are so absorbed in the idea that you are special and everyone else needs to be educated by you and accept your truth?
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro never got his case off the ground. Note:

The rubble from 9/11 was sent to a landfill in Staten Island where months were spent sifting through it and recovering evidence.

Steel in tempered (by quick cooling) to increase it's strength by a factor of three. Heating the steel to low temperatures (900F) takes out the temper, causing it to lose its strength. No melting or softening occurs, but it loses it's strength. This is common knowledge for engineers.

The claim is made repeatedly that thermite can melt steel and beyond that, and contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, keep the steel melted without adding heat. Using thermite to melt a small part of a beam would result in the liquid rehardening within seconds.

Thermite is not an explosive. "Nanothermite" is claimed to be an explosive, but never demonstrated. But if the plan is to use an explosive, there is no need to use nanothermite over conventional explosives. When explosives are used, the steel is not melted, rather the shock cracks the hardened melt. So nanothermite would not produce molten metal.

The rate at which jet fuel burns is determined by the air supply to the fuel. There was plenty of air flowing into the damaged tower, so it could easily consume 300,000 pounds of fuel in an hour or two. The office materials in the air-restriction of the collapsed rubble burned for weeks.

A report was issued by DOT a couple years ago on the eutectic in the rubble, showing it was consisted with the long-term burning of the office materials.

It is not possible to answer conspiracy theorist questions to their satisfaction. If they haven't learned about tempered steel in a decade, saying it again won't help.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DouggyFresh 5 years ago
DouggyFresh
KILLUMINATIjkovarTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con. Pro liked to use formatting to attempt to persuade voters with irrelevant and/or cliche quotes or "truth speaks for itself" which is non-sense. Con for S/G: Pro displayed frequent errors and Con had few. Con for arguments, because Pro failed to prove "9/11 must have been assisted by the US government". Despite Con not using sources in his first round, he rectified the mistake in later rounds. Pro did not effectively use reliable sources, and largely failed to cite many arguments.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
KILLUMINATIjkovarTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof and then upped the ante by claiming "must have been assisted." His case is then built on unimportant details, like whether Bush or Cheney was in charge and whether the aircraft striking the Pentagon bounced or not. On important issues Pro relies mainly on bogus conspiracy theory sites. Evey structural engineer in the world knows that steel loses its temper, and most of its strength, below 1000F. So why have none of Pro's sources picked that up?
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
KILLUMINATIjkovarTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: inconsistancies in official reports and occasional contradictory statements by officials =/= massive government conspiracy and a cover up.... Arguments were not convincing however the con did attack the pro when he was unprovoked and the con didnt use sources nearly as well as he should have. pro did have some spelling mistakes though. Not the best 9/11 debate by either side but this is the best vote i can give