The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

9/11 was a US government plot

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 610 times Debate No: 49348
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




There are many clues that point to the fact that the US was responsible for the 9/11 tragedy. For this argument, if you are American, please put your patriotism aside and look at the cold hard facts.


A plot? The fact of the matter is that we were attacked by Al Qaeda. Whether or not President Bush knew more than he let on is something I can't know. The myth is that Bush probably had some warning earlier that something like this is possible. But there is no evidence for this and unfortunately you have no evidence to suggest anything but a conspiracy theory.
Debate Round No. 1


Well, first, let's look at NORAD. Very advanced system, yes? In 2000, NORAD intercepted 67 planes, but suddenly fails twice in one day?

Also, there are videos of the explosion and if you record the amount of time it took for the building to fall, it is almost at the speed of free-fall. Nothing can move mass out of the way that fast except explosives. Extra explosives planted in the building by US government.


I disagree. If a plane hit a building, it makes logical sense that the entire building would fall. First, once the plane hits, was there not a "shockwave"? The power of the plane could have easily passed on its energy all the way down the building, breaking the support of the building. You make say, "well, its a very large and strong building isn't it?". Which it is, but have you seen the size of a B-52? Very very large. The metal at the base of the tower most could not absorb the impact, even if it happened at the top of the tower.
Debate Round No. 2


Indeed, it would make logical sense, but only to those who do not know the specific characteristics of this building (as well as skyscrapers in general). This building was designed to withstand wind loads 30 times greater than the weight of the aircraft.
There are those who believe jet fuel was the reason for the collapse. That, too, is false. Jet fuel burns at a temperature of about 600 C. The melting point of steel (which is what the structure of the building was made of) is about 1500 C. The MOST the jet fuel could have done is slightly stressed the enormous steel columns.
Using the above evidence, there is virtually no chance that the impact of a large plane alone could cause this building to collapse.


There are things that I personally cannot explain. I however can explain the other side. There is heavy amounts of evidence that points to Al Qaeda. Not just what points to them, but also their response to the attacks.

According to your theory, could it also have been possible for terrorist to plant the bombs at the base of the towers themselves? Why would you immediately point to our own government? What is your evidence that it could only have been the government?
Debate Round No. 3


The US needed to completely destroy the buildings to have an excuse to go into Iraq (along with other Middle Eastern nations). The US profited enormously from oil trade because of US occupation because this allowed to get oil much cheaper.
But, let's look at some more hard evidence. The US kept the black-box data secret, why?

Read this article as well:

"There is heavy amounts of evidence that points to Al Qaeda."
I would appreciate some examples.

If you are going to say "Bin Laden tapes" and such, here is proof that the tapes are fake:

Also take a look at these pictures, the man on the left is Bin Laden, the man on the right is in the video that the CIA released, claiming it was a "confession" from Bin Laden. It is obvious that they are not the same person. We have been lied to.

Also, I would like to point out that up to this point my opponent has provided no hard evidence to support his case.

Thank you for the debate.


LaBibliotecha forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
No there is not.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: It should be obvious. Pro made more substantiable claims backed with adequate amount of evidence while Con's argument rests on his opinion only, backed without any evidence. That forfeiture in the end warrants loss of conduct also.