The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
55 Points
The Contender
kylevd
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

9/11 was NOT a hoax or conspiracy.

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: 1/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,389 times Debate No: 1643
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (21)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

There were dozens of replies in the other thread about this that I am arguing in. However, my opponent there is hardly worthy, and has forfeited his last round. If it pleases, I'd like to open this debate to everyone, but especially those who commented in the other debate (http://www.debate.org...).

I have set the debate for 5 rounds so that we may have 4 rounds of actual debate after my opponent posts reasons why he/she believes it was a hoax/conspiracy. Since I am in effect using one of my rounds to start the debate, I would ask the Con side to please post a minimum-character response in the 5th round, thus making it so the Con side effectively leads, since I will not have a chance to respond to any new arguments made, even though they may have a perfectly reasonable explanation.

So - our premise:

9/11 was NOT a hoax or conspiracy. Four flights were hijacked, two of which were crashed into WTC 1 and 2, one of which was crashed into the Pentagon, and another which crash-landed in Pennsylvania. There was no government involvement in the perpetration of 9/11.

****
If you wanted this debate, but it's already taken, just challenge me with your objections in a different debate. Thanks!
****
kylevd

Con

i really dont have much to say in this debate, except to watch this movie:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com...

i would also like you to look at this picture and explain to me what the circled explosions are if all that happened was that the planes hit:

http://a660.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

First - introducing a two-hour long movie is completely unacceptable. If you can't take the time to withdraw objections from it, why should I? The burden of proof is on you here - Provide me something to argue about, not links to movies. Go here (http://www.debate.org...) and read the arguments and comments - that should refute 99% of whatever your movie contains. I believe I've seen that movie, and if it's the same one I've seen, then it has several instances of doctored photos, as well as some simple factual errors.

Second - the "explosions" are easy to explain. As you can see in the picture, the building happens to be falling down. The interior of the building contains many elevator shafts, which are enclosed areas. When the building begins to collapse, the elevator shafts will compress and then blow out, creating the horizontal bursts out the side of the building, even tens of stories below the wavefront of collapse. It's relatively simple physics. Also, the interior of the building would act as a mostly-enclosed area and create the many more horizontal puffs we see much closer to the wavefront.

Lets see some actual propositions from Con in the next round, please.
kylevd

Con

i apologize for not elaborating in my first argument. part 1 really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. what we are talking about starts at roughly 37 minutes into the film and continues to the end. here, i will outline the main arguments supporting the 9/11 conspiracy for both the readers and my opponent. however, you will get a lot more out of this debate if you simply watch the movie from minute 37 on.[just as a note, if i capitalize anything, i am only showing stress on those words. im not yelling at anybody.]

the engineers that designed the wtc[interviewed in the movie] stated that the building would not have collapsed like in demolitions when a plane crashed into it. in fact, the engineers stated that both towers could have sustained MULTIPLE hits from jetliners and NOT COLLAPSE. also, the columns supporting the buildings were cut just as a demolitions expert would destroy a building without affecting the other buildings around it. there were in fact explosions and NOT from gas lines, etc. but from explosives. "Through electron microscope analysis of the melted wtc steel and the iron-rich microspheres in the dust, Dr. Jones found exact traces of not only the 'Thermite' explosive compound, but, due to the high sulfur content, "thermate" - a patented brand of thermite used in the demolition industry."

there are actually 19 hijackers and several of them are still alive. the passport from one of the hijackers that hit the towers magically came out of the explosion "UNSCATHED" to prove that it in fact was him that hijacked the plane. "no evidence has ever linked any of the alive or dead 'hijackers' to Osama Bin Laden.'"

the pilot that flew the plane into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour "...was known as a terrible pilot and could not even safely fly a small plane." it also allegedly completed a "270 degree downward spiral" which is considered impossible among experts.

as for the plane that crashlanded in pennsylvania and the plane that crashed into the pentagon, they both "vaporized", leaving little if any evidence besides a huge crater behind, which is never the case in any crashlanding scenario.

various people IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER were interviewed and one of them stated that an explosion came from the basement and "...pushed us upwards..." BEFORE THE PLANE HIT.

everything i have just said is summarized/quoted from zeitgeist and most of my information if not all will be coming from there. i look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Lets examine your points one by one...

First, the engineers of the WTC. The WTC was designed by mainly two people - architect Minoru Yamasaki and engineer Leslie Robertson. Since Yamasaki is dead (as of 1986), he's kind of hard to reach for comment. Robertson is quoted as saying: "I designed it for a 707 to smash into it." This is a DIRECT response to his being asked specifically about terrorism. Odd that the main engineer would say nothing about jet fuel. Only John Skilling, a structural engineer said anything about the fuel - mentioning that there would be a "horrendous fire." However, the problem that caused the collapse was not that the main structural elements failed. The WTC was built with a central core and an outer mesh. The floors are supported by both the core and the mesh. However, when the steel lost its strength from the kinetic collision and burning fuel, the connections between the floors and the mesh/core failed. As this happens, the floor begins to drop, causing the floors ABOVE it to fail as well and putting additional pressure on the floors above it. As one can seen in videos of the collapse - the collapse did in fact begin at the upper stories.

Second - Thermate/Thermite - Thermite (which they found) is a product of Aluminum and an Oxide (like rust). The most common oxide is Iron Oxide, but any oxide will do. Other common sources available in the WTC would have included Copper. So Aluminum airplane + Oxide (rust, melted copper pipes, etc...) = Thermite. I'm no chemist, but I'm willing to bet that what can be interpreted as thermite on a scan can come from stuff that's present in a huge building and a plane.

Third - there were indeed 19 hijackers, but they are all dead.

UA Flight 175: Marwan al-Shehhi, Fayez Banihammad, Mohand al-Shehri, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Ghamdi.

AA Flight 11: Mohamed Atta al Sayed, Waleed al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, Abdulaziz al-Omari, Satam al-Suqami.

UA Flight 93: Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ahmed al-Nami, Saeed al-Ghamdi.

AA Flight 77: Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi.

All the above men are dead. There is some speculation as to whether or not there was intended to be more hijackers or not. Flight 93 only had 4, whereas the other flights had five. Zacarias Moussaoui, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mohamed al-Kahtani, Fawaz al-Nashimi, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Tawfiq bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mushabib al-Hamlan, Zakariyah Essabar, Saeed Ahmad al-Zahrani, Ali Abd al-Rahman al-Faqasi al-Ghamdi, Saeed al-Baluchi, Qutaybah al-Najdi, Zuhair al-Thubaiti, and Saud al-Rashi are all candidates for the remainder of the members of al-Qaeda that were to have contributed to the attacks. Most of THESE men are in fact still alive.

Fourth - the "Unscathed" passport. Well... it's not unscathed - look here: (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org...) As you can plainly see - it's not unscathed by any means, unless the Saudi government incorporates decorative burn marks and such in their passports. Why did it survive? The best explanation I have is that the cockpit of an aircraft is surrounded by thick bulkheads. The ignition of the fuel would have separated the cockpit module from the rest of the plane. It's certainly possible that the cockpit module could have been part of the debris that was propelled out of the building by the explosion instead of being completely incinerated by it.

Fifth - the link to Bin Laden - Aside from the fact that Bin Laden has publicly stated on numerous accounts that he was involved, had specific foreknowledge, and personally communicated with the hijackers... There is also the testimony of Khalid Sheik Mohammed that he (Mohammed) not only planned the attacks, but presented them to Bin Laden and Mohammed Atef. Bin Laden then both approved the plan, and supplied the financial means for it to take place.

Sixth - the claim that Hani Hanjour was a poor pilot. Here's a quote from his flight instructor that granted him a commercial pilot's license in 1999: "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot... There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." I'm not sure what "experts" you consulted to determine this 270 degree spiral claim. Pilots do it frequently when they need to land on a different runway that was originally intended, or are flying a flight time that forces them onto an inconvenient (geographically) runway. It would be child's play to program the autopilot on a relatively modern 757-200 to execute the maneuver and then resume control when the plane was close to its destination.

Seventh - the plane that hit the Pentagon did NOT disintegrate. There is wreckage ALL OVER in photos that were taken before the cleanup started. If you take the time to actually look closely at the photos, you can see all sorts of debris - engine parts, wheels, aluminum pieces, burnt corpses... The pentagon is made of masonry, concrete, steel, brick, and wood. Where'd all the aluminum come from in the wreckage if not a plane? Where'd the aircraft components come from? Read this: (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com...). Also, from the nature of the Pentagon's construction, much of the debris would be inside the E ring and between the D and E rings, not on the exterior of the building, where most of the pictures are taken from.

Eighth - Flight 93 - Why would you expect there to be large pieces of debris from a plane that nose-dived into the ground at 500+ miles per hour? Upon impact, the airframe would have basically shattered, and then the remaining fuel would have exploded, scattering the shattered airframe all over. The actual debris field, including human remains, is much larger than the two football fields-sized area that was smoldering at the crash site.

And last, but not least, the people interviewed in the WTC... There are numerous videos and pictures of the lobby. Any explosion powerful enough to push people upwards would have damaged the floor of the lobby. None of this damage is visible in any photos. The powerful explosions in the basement are probably the result of electric feedback into the machinery that controls much of the tower's internal functionality. These explosions would have been instantaneous with the crash of the jet into the upper floors. Primary tremors from the kinetic energy of the crash would probably have come after the tremors from the basement, given that the basement is some 70-ish floors closer to the lobby. Also, there is no report from the firefighters inside the building before, during, and after the collapse (Stairway B) of a "basement bomb."

Certainly plausible, if not complete refutations of all points. Any more?
kylevd

Con

first of all, i would like to know where you're getting any of your information from, since you list only two links, one of which is a photo and the other only about the pentagon attack.

your first rebuttal:

the manager of wtc construction, frank a. demartini, stated that "the building probably could sustain MULTIPLE impacts of jetliners." i posted this previous quote[summarized] before and you did not prove it to be wrong. "the twin towers came down at nearly free fall speed. 200 thousand tons of steel shatters and explodes outwards over 500 feet." "this means that floors shattered at an average rate of about ten floors per second." "there is no scenario of a pancake effect of buildings falling that allows them to fall at the rate of free fall.you said "...the problem that caused the collapse was not that the main structural elements failed." look at this picture:

http://www.rense.com...

as i said before, this is how experts would have cut columns in a demolition. you did not refute this claim.

your second rebuttal:

now you're going against what an experienced doctor has said and concluded. not be offensive, but i would trust a trained doctor over a civilian when talking about the materials that make up bombs and interpreting them.

your third rebuttal:

"although we are told that four or five of the alleged hijackers were on each of the flights, [the soul?] of their names should have been on the flight manifest." (abdulaziz al-omari)"i couldn't believe it when the FBI put my name on their list. they gave my name and my date of birth, but i am not a suicide bomber. i am here. i am alive. i have no idea how to fly a plane"[the telegraph, 9/23/2001] "at least 6 of the "hijackers" are still alive." "the FBI has to this day not revised their list."

your fourth rebuttal:

i agree that this is possible, but highly improbable. by the time the fuel tanks had exploded, the plane would have been buried into the building, because that is what caused the explosion, the collision. and the cockpit module would have been propelled into the building, not out.

your fifth rebuttal:

bin laden did not finance the attacks. "no inquiry was ever made as to why general ahmad[ISI()]ordered $100k to be sent to mohamed atta." "the 911 commission deemed the financing of the attacks "of LITTLE significance" in their official report." (Greg Palest and David Paltister-Guardian, Wed. november 7, 2001)"FBI and military intelligence officials in washington say they were prevented for POLITICAL REASONS from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of september 11." "January 2001-The bush administration orders the FBI and intelligence agencies to "back off" investigations involving the bin Laden family, including two of Osama bin Laden's relatives(abdullah and omar) who were living in falls church, VA - right next to CIA headquarters."

your sixth rebuttal:

first of all, because he had "poor reviews" then why did he get his license? you can either fly safely or you can't fly at all. there is or should not be a minimally acceptable pilot. second, he was considered a poor pilot. a well trained pilot could commit that kind of a maneuver, but not one that was considered poor. "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course"[AZ flight school employee][New York Times 5/4/02] "I'm am still amazed that he could have flown into the pentagon...he could not fly at all." so how did he get his license again?

your seventh rebuttal:

"no seats, no luggage, no bodies. nothing but bricks and limestone."[zeitgeist] "the official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane. Flight 77 had two rolls royce engines made of steel and titanium alloy and weigh six tons each. it is scientifically impossible for twelve tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by jet fuel." "we were also told that the bodies were able to be identified either by their fingerprints or their DNA. so what kind of fire can vaporized aluminum and tempered steel and yet leave human bodies intact?" "shortly after the strike, government agents picked up debris and carried it off." "the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, so that any remaining forensic evidence was literally covered up." "over 80 video recordings of the pentagon strike are currently being withheld by the FBI."

your eighth rebuttal:

"it looks like there's nothing there but a hole in the ground." "it looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky." "it looked like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped trash into it."[Wally Miller, somerset county coroner. "there was nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there." in the film, they compared a commercial flight crash in nigeria to the flight 93 crash. while the nigerian flight crash had a seat visible, scrap metal lying all around, flight 93 had barely any debris. to see the picture comparison, go to 48 minutes, 36 seconds.

I would like for you to explain to me, that if all of this was caused solely by hijackers, what happened with NORAD[north american aerospace defense command]. "according to standard operating procedure, if an FAA flight controller notices anything that suggests a possible hijacking, the controller is to contact a superior. if the problem cannot be fixed within about a minute, the superior [should ask?] NORAD...to setup or scramble jet fighters to find out what is going on...although interceptions occur in ten or so minutes, in this case, 80 or so minutes had elapsed before the fighters were even airborne."

also, "when bush and cheney met with the 911 commission, they did so only on their own terms:
-they appeared together
-they were NOT under oath
-no press or family members were allowed to attend
-no recording of any kind was allowed
-no transcript was allowed"

also, "there is literally nothing in the 9/11 report that the bush administration did not approve of." wouldn't you consider this at least suspicious?

also, "nearly all terror suspects are released without charges...but thats after they make it to the front page for you to see."

also, "look at the terrorist acts that have occurred...the CIA behind most if not all of them." "the FBI actually carried out the attack on the world trade center in 1993."

in london-(interviewer)"you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?" (interviewee)"precisely."

also, "at least 12 countries warned the US regarding intelligence about an eminent attack on america."

so, my final question is that: are you directly challenging the correctness/authenticity of the quotations or information in the film zeitgeist? because if you are, i need you to give me some reason to think that the sources' claims, that you disagree with, listed at the very end of the film, are somehow incorrect.
Debate Round No. 3
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Finally... some actual good debate on this subject. I would like to see where you get your information as well, since you only provide one link to a picture. Your quoted material is from where? Mine is summary, but in the future I will provide links to my sources.

As you have said, Demartini was a construction manager - not an engineer. He is not authorized to pass judgment on the structural capabilities of the towers. On top of that, his statement did not mention any actual hard data concerning multiple jetliners: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I BELIEVE that the building PROBABLY COULD sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. [Emphasis added]" Demartini's belief has no bearing on the actual capabilities of the structure. In fact, Demartini wasn't even involved with the WTC untill the truck bomb in 1993. (http://911research.wtc7.net...)

As for the free-fall - I will appeal to common sense. The towers could not begin to collapse until the internal connections between the floor and the mesh/core were severed. A collapse of one floor probably isn't enough to damage the building. However, the jet took out 3 or 4 floors at once. The combined collapse would not only begun a pancake scenario inside the building, but destabilized the mesh, causing the snapping we see as the mesh buckles outward in the collapses. This snapping, nearly a thousand feet off the ground would have only needed to impart a VERY SMALL lateral velocity to move debris 500 feet away from the tower. That's only a 6 inch per foot lateral movement as it falls 1000 feet.

As for your picture, you didn't present that before, so claims I didn't refute it are immaterial. Examine the following pictures:

1) http://milmac.com...
2) http://milmac.com...
3) http://milmac.com...
4) http://milmac.com...
5) http://algoxy.com...

The first one is the inset beam in the picture. Second is what we'd expect to see from an explosive shear of the same beam (I simply modeled a beam in 3ds Max 9). Third is what we actually see in the photo - the brown segment representing the differences. The fourth picture shows the surfaces with molten metal on them. And the last picture is a comparison between explosive shear (left) and a torch cut (right). Now compare the first and last pictures. Looks like a torch cut to me.

There is no evidence to suggest that Steven E. Young - the "experienced doctor" who put forth the argument towards thermite - was even present at ground zero to examine the materials. All Young says is that it's possible that thermite could have been used to demolish the Towers. It's also possible that a nuclear bomb could have done it. Young does not present fact - only conjecture.

Furthermore, there is a list of reasons why thermite could not have been the cause of the collapse, including the fact that pre-planted thermite on the upper floors would have ignited when the plane crashed into the building. Also, thermite isn't stable enough to be used in large-scale detonations like would be required to level the WTC Towers. (http://www.cloakanddagger.de...)

The hijackers that were on the airplanes are dead. A simple Google search will reveal a number of images of the hijackers going through airport security (http://images.google.com...). This notion that the people who flew the planes into the towers are still alive is laughable. The people claiming to be the hijackers are clearly seeking media attention, or being paid by al-Qaeda.

If you watch this video (http://youtube.com...) you will see a scientific reconstruction of the collision with the building. Debris can clearly be seen exiting the far side of the building in both the reconstruction and in actual footage. It's not hard to believe at all that portions of the cockpit module could have remained intact and exited the buildings.

You provide no counterattack besides third hand accounts of Bin Laden financing the attacks. Al-Qeada members have specifically stated that Bin Laden financed and was partially responsible for 9-11. The person who PLANNED the attack even said Bin Laden was responsible. (http://www.9-11commission.gov...) and (http://news.bbc.co.uk...)

This notion of there being only safe pilots and non-safe pilots is laughable as well. You call the person who graduated last in his class at med school "doctor" - you call the person who graduated last in his class at flight school "Captain." Look here: (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org...) a picture of Hani Hanjour's Commercial Pilot's License. Obviously he must have been able to pass the tests to get a license. The FAA doesn't just hand them out as party favors. I still await your source on this "impossible maneuver" that is performed on a daily basis by pilots, live and computers. My source? I've been INSIDE a plane performing that maneuver on three separate occasions.

The FBI only confiscated 3 videos of the Pentagon attack. The gas station, the hotel roof, and the camera overseeing I-395. You present a series of quotes, all of which are refuted by the link I already posted that you apparently did not read. So I'll post it again: (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com...)

Actually, this article (http://www.smh.com.au...) about the Nigerian plane crash sounds very much like what happened to Flight 93. It cites things like no whole bodies, papers surviving, and a 20 meter wide hole. Which is pretty much what we see in pictures of the Flight 93 crash. I'm not sure that your point is here. The Zeitgeist movie is simply using one aspect of a crash to support claims about the entire thing.

Why did the NORAD failure occur? Well let's look at NORAD's timeline: (http://911research.wtc7.net...) Oops - it looks like the maximum time from FAA notification to NORAD planes being in the air was only 12 minutes.

When top government officials are meeting, they usually don't invite civilians.
The 9/11 Commission was not a government legal body - they didn't NEED to be under oath. And if the media and civilians weren't present for the commission's questioning, how do they know there was no recording or transcript?

It's not the least bit suspicious that the administration would review the 9/11 Commission's Report - it would have included possibly sensitive data regarding NORAD, CIA, FBI, and other government procedures and capabilities.

The FBI was not behind the WTC attack in 1993 - it was Ramzi Yousef (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Provide a source for ridiculous claims like the CIA being behind terrorism.

Do your research - the quote about the scenario being run was about the London Bombings, not 9-11. (http://www.wsws.org...)

This last quote doesn't really surprise me - another example of bureaucratic failure. So what? All that means is that it could have possibly been prevented - not that it didn't happen.

My response to your final question: I question anything that purports the United States as the responsible party for the attacks on 9/11. And you should too, when they are as founded on conjecture and hypothesis as the Zeitgeist source and not science and logic.
kylevd

Con

i only have two objections to your claims. you first claimed that i only had one link to a picture, when i actually had two. one of them was to the movie, and i later clearly stated that all the sources were listed at the very end of the film. everyone i quoted came directly from that video, word for word or as close as i could make out pronunciation. my second objection is to your claim that "...including the fact that pre-planted thermite on the upper floors would have ignited when the plane crashed into the building." i know you were only speculating, but are you suggesting that someone might have planted thermite in the towers before the planes hit? if so, how?

but, besides that im glad to have debated with you on this subject. you have completely refuted the zeitgeist film, and have eliminated my suspicions.

thanks,

kyle
Debate Round No. 4
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

I didn't mean to suggest that someone DID plant thermite on the upper floors. It has been suggested by conspiracy theorists that the apparent molten metal pouring from an upper floor during the collapses is because of thermite planted up there.

I don't see any way someone could have done that without anybody realizing.

I realize the Zeitgeist film has sources listed, but without any way to examine the sources for myself, I don't know how they're being used, as we saw with the misquote regarding the London bombings.

And if you could just post something to get rid of your 5th round response, we could get this to the voting page 3 days sooner and without the mar of a forfeit.

Thanks for a great debate!
kylevd

Con

in response to some of the comments, yes, i am now convinced that the 9/11 attacks were not an inside job. the reason i took this debate was to test the credibility of my source, the film zeitgeist, not to simply win. i hope this is the reason many, if not all, debate as well.

thanks again for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zeitgeistmovement 6 years ago
Zeitgeistmovement
What about the third tower that went down at record speeds untouched?
Posted by Vol 9 years ago
Vol
Does anyone know how long it takes to set up a building for a controlled demolition? An answer with a source will be great.
Posted by GeoffG 9 years ago
GeoffG
I bet I can guess who kylevd is voting for...
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Zeitgeist is basically, The God Who Wasn't There, Loose Change, and various anti-banking conspiracies.

The first part is the only one worth anything, and even there that's just for being interesting though the case is hugely overblown.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I hope so. The persistence of conspiracy theories is not good for America...
Posted by captgeech 9 years ago
captgeech
wow that was pretty easy, no need for a fifth round here. Another citizen sees the truth, thank you Tarzan. Sorry about being one off on his links, too bad. But nice research in the last rebuttal, there were maybe fifteen links, to his two, its good to see that you know how to research something, not just watch a movie and quote someone. Thats the real problem here, kyle watched a movie, and just believed what they said, didn't research anything. As if you need to research anything. Just about every ten seconds of that movie I could pause it and tell you what was wrong with what they were saying, just by using my brain, good old common sense. I wonder if you really convinced him...
Posted by captgeech 9 years ago
captgeech
Well I wonder who gets my vote...(as if this even needs to be debated)

Kylevd, whose entire foundation is built on a video filled with nonsense, speculation, poor logic, poor research, and dramatic music and special effects.

or...

Tarzan, who builds his argument on common sense first of all, and as if that isn't enough to realize "what really happened" he also has sound scientific evidence,and multiple real sources to back his thoughts.

well done Tarzan, you have my vote sir, I doubt three more rounds is necessary though.
Posted by sheepgotoheaven 9 years ago
sheepgotoheaven
kylevd...It's a great movie, but this is a debate, post your facts and do this thing!
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
So far, JustCallMeTarzan's argument seems air tight. I'm usually one willing to argue that the earth is flat or that the sun is green, but I'm not so sure I'd fair well in this debate as the evidence there is a mountain of evidence that it wasn't a hoax.

Kylevds, your sure have your work cut out for you.
Posted by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
9 11 is deffidently not a hoax, but there can be conspericy theroys that can be true about it, idk any though.

anyway, why oppen up this argument, every 1 know whoever goes against it will lose
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by BruceDoh 9 years ago
BruceDoh
JustCallMeTarzankylevdTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Vol 9 years ago
Vol
JustCallMeTarzankylevdTied
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 MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
JustCallMeTarzankylevdTied
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 stk1990 9 years ago
stk1990
JustCallMeTarzankylevdTied
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
JustCallMeTarzankylevdTied
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 NragedX312 9 years ago
NragedX312
JustCallMeTarzankylevdTied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
JustCallMeTarzankylevdTied
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
JustCallMeTarzankylevdTied
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 walkerajr 9 years ago
walkerajr
JustCallMeTarzankylevdTied
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 debater123 9 years ago
debater123
JustCallMeTarzankylevdTied
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