The Instigator
Prodigy_X
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
wayneii308
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

9/11 was a made by the government so they could invade another country for oil

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
wayneii308
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,394 times Debate No: 12886
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

Prodigy_X

Pro

This is my first debate so tell me if i did something wrong
ill let my opponent start first so i can think of a good argument for i need to think of a plan to WIN.

so let us begin
wayneii308

Con

Is this legitimate? Are you saying that 9/11 never happened?

I'm pretty sure the 3,000 people dead and over 6,000 injured proved that.

If I'm misunderstanding the purpose of this debate, please let me know.

But if your saying that 9/11 never happened and it was made up by the US government then I'm ready to talk this one out.
Debate Round No. 1
Prodigy_X

Pro

i'd like to thank my opponent for stepping up to the challenge

i'm not saying 9/11 didnt exist Im saying this:
the U.S goverment took a couple of people from the middle east to stage an "attack" on the world trade centre, an airplane crashing into the pentagon and another one in a field to make the people in believing "terrorists" are attacking the U.S and rally them up so they can invade another country for its oil since the oils supply in the world is decreasing.

i'm not saying that all Americans are evil just George Bush because when 9/11 happened Afghanistan was invaded by the Americans and it continues till this day. what the people in afghanistan will say" thanks for letting me walk through my own roads in my own country".

And when they defeat the "terrorists" that "attacked" America, the military have just made things worse and just completely fucked things up even worse then when they werent there and still they are there making things worse. in maybe a few years the U.S will have turned Iraq and Afghanistan into a land of which no one can go to unless wearing a radiation suit and the U.S would of just took their oil and left laughing after another triumphant victory over nothing.

Thank you
wayneii308

Con

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I would like to remind you that this is about the validity of the US' involvement in 9/11 and not about the effects and need for the war on terrorism/Afghanistan/Iraq. I will not address the validity or invalidity of the statements you have proposed on such issues.

If America was behind this as you suggest, it would be illogical considering that Afghanistan isn't even in the top ten countries in oil production (http://www.mapsofworld.com...). I'm pretty sure the US government would be smart enough to attack a country that had higher oil production.

In regards to the terrorists that attacked us on that terrible day, the idea for the attacks was conceived by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed years before the actual attack. He was a personal friend to Osama Bin Ladin and a member of the Al Qaeda. HE planned the attacks himself after being inspired by the attention that the bomber involved in the 1993 parking lot bombings that occurred in the World Trade Center as well.

The selected attackers were all well respected Jihads in their community. They were hand selected by Osama Bin Ladin himself.

Therefore, none of the things you are putting forth in regards to the US' involvement in these heinous crimes have validity because 9/11 was an attack on the US by terrorist organizations based on the presence of US in Saudi Arabia, the support of Israel by US troops, and the sanctions against Iraq.

Sources:

http://www.mapsofworld.com...
http://www.9-11commission.gov...
http://www.slate.com...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
http://english.aljazeera.net...
Debate Round No. 2
Prodigy_X

Pro

Now i am going to flaw the government on how they perfected 9/11

1. War Games
US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon

2.Pentagon strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation's capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

3.Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives?

And finally 4. Awol chain of command
It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers

But dont give me credit for these arguments i got most of them from a 9/11 truth website so thank them

for these reasons and more vote..........
Pro!
thank you
wayneii308

Con

wayneii308 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wayneii308 6 years ago
wayneii308
Because I agree with myself. Lol.
Posted by Prodigy_X 6 years ago
Prodigy_X
Why did you vote for yourself?
Posted by wayneii308 6 years ago
wayneii308
I was away on vacation for Labor day. I apologize. If it resuslts in a loss, then it does. I apologize.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro presented no arguments until the last round, and he provided no evidence whatsoever that there was US government involvement. He showed no written documents, plans, or testimony by anyone that there was a conspiracy. The allegedly impossible events were very well explained by investigators. Pro would have to, at a minimum, refute the NIST reports.

The resolution includes the contention that the plot was conceived to get oil. As Con pointed out, there is no oil in Afghanistan. Consequently, the resolution necessarily fails.

Pro should understand that a case giving the contentions, arguments, and evidence should be presented as part of the initial challenge.

Con loses the conduct category for forfeiting. Con should link his references to each assertion, not offer a reading list. However, at least Con had references.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
i didn't know our government was competent enough to pull something like that off.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
There is too much evidence to be able to logically claim that it was a terrorist strike. Too many unexplained incidences, too many scientific contradictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Geo... is that you?
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
I think he means something like the government caused it, so they could then lead a war to impose on the middle eastern countries.
If so, I'm not sure who I agree with lol.

Also advice for pro (since you asked) spelling and grammar affects the votes.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by alyssa_16 6 years ago
alyssa_16
Prodigy_Xwayneii308Tied
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 
Vote Placed by wayneii308 6 years ago
wayneii308
Prodigy_Xwayneii308Tied
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 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Prodigy_Xwayneii308Tied
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 lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Prodigy_Xwayneii308Tied
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:43 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Prodigy_Xwayneii308Tied
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:16