9/11 was a US government plot
Debate Rounds (4)
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.
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.
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?
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.