The Instigator
Pro (for)
22 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
26 Points

9/11 was an inside job and the official 9/11 Commission Report does not explain what really happened

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 7 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,808 times Debate No: 7195
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (57)
Votes (7)




Hello. I am for the Pro. side of this debate. I will show you very convincing evidence of why 9/11 was an inside job and also that the official 9/11 Commission Report does not explain what really happened. After I do that, or if you are convinced that I have done that effectively, then I invite you to vote "Pro". Thank you.

I welcome my opponent and look forward to an interesting debate.

I will now begin:

The towers were brought down by demolition explosives, not because a plane crashed into them. To quote CNN from that day: "The way this structure is collapsing, it is the result of something planted, It is not accidental that the first tower just happened to collapse, then the second tower just happened to collapse in exactly the same way, how they accomplished this, we don't know."[1]

I will show that the official 9/11 story does not make sense for these reasons:
A. WARNINGS -They claim there were no warnings. But there were many warnings.
B. 19 HIJACKERS -There were no Arab names whatsoever on the passenger logs. 6 of the 19 men listed are still alive.
C. OSAMA BIN LADEN -No evidence has ever linked any of the alive or dead "hijackers" to Osama Bin Laden. The alleged confession tape is planted evidence. In the video he has darker skin fuller cheeks and broader nose than the Osama bin Laden in other videos. Also the issue of right handedness, when in the FBI files he is left handed, shows that the video is not a true confession tape. There are many connections between Bin Laden family and Bush family, one is the Carlyle Group, which is one of world's largest defense contractors, which continues to reap massive profits off of the post 9/11 war on terrorism. Also Bush Sr. met with Bin Laden's Brother on 9/11.
D. PENTAGON - A 60 ton 125 ft. wide 44 foot tall plane was somehow guided through an obstacle course of hazards without hitting any and executed a 270 degree downward spiral, but Hani Hanjour was known as a terrible pilot, who could not safely fly even a small plane. "I am still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon...He could not fly at all..." - AZ. Flight School Employee. No seats, no luggage, and no bodies were found. The official story is that intense heat from the burning jet fuel vaporized the entire plane. Flight 77 was a 757 and it had 2 Rolls Royce engines made of steel and titanium alloy which weighed 6 tons each. It is scientifically impossible that 12 tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by jet fuel. Also according to the CNN Live Report at the time they said "no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the pentagon". Afterwards there was a literal "cover up"! Dirt and gravel was dumped on the lawn to literally cover up any forensic evidence. Also the videos which would HAVE shown what really happened were immediately confiscated by agents of the FBI and the Dept. Of Justice to this day has refused to release them.
E. SHANKSVILLE- Here are 2 official quotes from an authority who was on the scene. 1. "It looks like there is nothing there except for a hole in the ground." 2. "It looked like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped trash into it." Wally Miller- Sommerset County Coroner. There was nothing that you could see to distinguish that a plane had crashed there.
F. TRADE TOWERS 1,2, 7 - The official story is the "Pancake theory" where floors falling would start a chain reaction. If this really happened one would expect to see a column of core columns still standing and floors piled up at the bottom. The core was made up of 47 massive steel columns, and they would have still been sticking up in the air 1,000 feet high. "The building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners"- Frank A. Demartini (Manager, WTC Construction). When the building collapsed the building was near free fall speed, it encountered no resistance whatsoever. There is no scenario where the pancake effect will allow buildings to fall at the rate that they did. So what can do that? What can move mass out of the way? Explosives. And there is evidence of core columns that were cut at an angle. And there was molten metal for well over 6 week after the collapse. Hot spots of over 2000 degrees were documented in the debris (that is 500 degree F. hotter than Jet fuel even burns). What do the reports say about the metal? they say nothing! Thermite is where it came from. Dr. Steven Jones, Physics Professor, BYU - found thermite explosive compound and high sulfur content. He found it below bldg 7 too (WHICH WASN'T EVEN HIT BY A JET YET COLLAPSED!) - a 47 story building that fell that was not hit by a plane! The central columns of other towers were taken out first so they didn't structurally damage buildings that were close to them. The official explanation was fire. But NEVER before or after 911, has any steel building collapsed from fire. The characteristics fit the model of controlled demolition exactly. There also were sub basement explosions that occurred seconds before the first plane hit. William Rodriguez, the last man out, talks about that on his website [2] An explosion in the B2-B3 levels pushed him upwards.
G. NORAD - The scramble order of fighters is usually 10 minutes before they intercept. On 9/11 it took 80 min. before the jets even launched. There was deliberate confusion in place so they could not respond. On 9/11 a number of conflicting war game exercises were taking place which involved false radar blips on the screens. One was called "Operation Vigilant Warrior". It was a live-fly hijack drill being conducted at the same time. There were only 8 planes available at the time to scramble. There were too many intercepts and couldn't distinguish real world from exercises. Dick Cheney was in charge at the time.
H. 9/11 COMMISSION - The 9/11 Commission could not trace the source of the funding but concluded by saying "it is of little consequence". Also Building 7 is NOT even mentioned in the official report. When Bush and Cheney met with the 9/11 commission they did so only on their own terms: Together, not under oath, no press or family members were allowed to attend, no recordings of any kind was allowed, no transcript allowed. The 9/11 report was a "unanimous report" which means any objections to anything were not reported.
I. TERRORISM -One of the possible motivations of the 9/11 attacks could be that it was a "False Flag" operation. There are techniques used by governments to manipulate public opinion in order to further their agenda. There is a lot of evidence to support this opinion and I am also willing to expound further on this point if so desired.

I believe that I have given sufficient evidence here to convince you that 9/11 was an inside job and also that the official 9/11 Commission Report does not explain what really happened. I encourage you to vote "Pro". I now look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

1. (video #7)


I negate the resolution and will move through his points quickly to debunk this nonsense.

A. Warnings.

Many of the "notices" of the impending attack were not actual notices, but more "general threats" and vague details. And by the way, For example, Putin (and Russian Intelligence) is cited as a common source for detail - however, Putin's own statement revealed that he was talking about IRAQ and "terrorist attacks... beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets. But we did not have information that they [Saddam's Regime] were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things." As one can see - ( - outlines several different pieces of "forewarning" - many of the tips were incomplete, too vague, delivered after the fact, did not come from reliable sources, or were delivered far before 9-11-01. The amount of raw intelligence, combined with the task of sorting through what was credible and what was not produced a situation that has been described as containing no "actionable intelligence."

B. 19 Hijackers.

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.

C. 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.

D. Pentagon.

Here's a quote from his flight instructor that granted Hanjour 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. 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: ( 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.

E. Shanksville.

Actually, this article ( 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

F. WTC 1, 2, and 7.

Soooo many things wrong here...

1) The pancake theory doesn't take into account the fact that the jetliners severed several of the support columns in the center of the building... and that the weight of the floors above that was transferred to the remaining columns - weight they were never meant to hold.

2) Demartini is a construction manager, NOT an engineer. His quote actually reads: "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..." A fully loaded 707 is almost 67,000 pounds lighter than a 767 (the plane that actually HIT the towers) and carries almost 1000 gallons less fuel.

3) Actually, if you use some common sense and consider the fact that it took about 17 seconds for the towers to fall, it;s pretty obvious that they didn't just pop down into the ground. The pancake effect would have this EXACT effect considering the snapping of the outer mesh, which is plainly visible in the various video clips of the falls.

4) The core columns show shear, not explosive separation. If you look here ( you can see the difference between explosive shear (left) and cuts. If you look at pictures of the wreckage of the towers, you will plainly see that what he calls explosive shear is post-collapse cleanup cuts with an oxyacetylene torch.

5) Dr. Jones was never at the WTC site, and is merely presenting conjecture that thermite (aluminum + rust - plane + steel building??). Furthermore, thermite is not stable enough to be used in large-scale detonations.

6) WT7 burned inside-out and out of control for some 7 hours... most pictures of the building are from the outside... not the side torn to shreds by falling debris from WTC1 & 2... or the burning cantilever beams that collapsed and brought the middle of the building down.

7) 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.

G. Norad.

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

H. 9/11 Commission.

As stated before, there are multiple sources stating that al-Qaeda was responsible for the funding. The 9/11 commission report is only about 1 and 2 WTC... not the whole blessed complex. It doesn't mention any of the OTHER WTC buildings either. 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.

I. Terrorism.

A false flag operation? Really? An operation that cripples the domestic economy and gives an excuse for a war about oil that makes the price of oil go UP and the US get LESS of it?? Really??


My apologies, but I am out of characters. See the following for more info:
Debate Round No. 1


I welcome my opponent to the debate and wish him good luck.

A. Despite this Administration's rhetoric that they had "no warnings" has become abundantly clear, that key Administration officials were made aware of the vast array of Al Qaeda threats and warnings that existed in years prior, and more importantly, in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

Those other warnings include, but are not limited to:
Warnings from leaders of other nations and foreign intelligence apparatus' of terrorist threats

June 30, 2001 Senior Executive Intelligence Briefing (SEIB) entitled "bin Laden Threats Are Real"

52 FAA warnings – five of which mentioned al Qaeda's training for hijacking

August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"

National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)entitled "Islamist Extremists Learn to Fly"

and many more...

The abundance of post 9/11 reports and commissions found no evidence of any action taken by appropriate officials. The 9/11 Commission itself concluded that in spite of an unprecedented attack threat in the months before 9/11, US "domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. [1]

B. There is no credible evidence that any of the alleged hijackers were on any of the jetliners, and considerable evidence to the contrary.
None of the passenger lists published by the airlines contained any of the alleged hijackers' names.
No airport video shows any of the alleged hijackers boarding the flights.
Several of the alleged hijackers turned up alive after the attack.

Not a "Single Piece of Paper" Links Alleged Hijackers to Plot
FBI director Robert Mueller admitted that his agency failed to find "a single piece of paper" linking the alleged hijackers to the 9/11 plot.
"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot."

With such a lack of evidence it is no wonder that there has not been a single prosecution leading to conviction anywhere in the world of the alleged perps, with the single exception of Zaccarias Moussaoui, who was only convicted because he admitted to involvement in the alleged plot. [2]

Also several of the alleged hijackers turned up alive after the attack. From your list of supposed hijackers over half of the men are still alive. How can the 9/11 Commission be taken seriously when they refer to 9/11 'hijackers' who are still alive?[3]

C. A leading expert on Osama Bin Laden has officially gone on the record saying that he believes the so called 9/11 Confession tape, released shortly after the attacks, is an outright fake. The "Osama" in this video uses the wrong hand to write with and wears gold rings, a practice totally in opposition to the Muslim faith.[4]

D. Just minutes after the attack, standing in front of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Jamie McIntyre, CNN's senior Pentagon correspondent since November 1992, reported:

"From my close up inspection there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . . The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage - nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon."[5]

There are also pictures of light poles standing in the path of the "supposed" plane. There are pictures of the lawn not torn up. There is a picture of a small hole in building. And, oops did someone accidentally say "missile hit"? [5]

E. In some rare video footage of Flt. 93 from NBC and Fox news television from September 11, 2001 we hear:
NBC Reporter: "The debris here is spread over a 3 to 4 mile radius...". That refutes my opponent's idea.

Also, the Flight 93 crash site looks remarkably different from other plane crash sites, eg that of Pan Am Flight 103 - a Boeing 747-100, or the Dash 8 Q400 Bombardier that crashed in Buffalo.

See video of Flt. 93 footage (Top video) and comparison of pictures (middle of page). The pictures do not look the same at all.[6]

F. No scenario enables the near free fall speed that the towers came down at.

According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.[Trumpman][Hoffman] But, for the sake of evaluating the "collapse" time, we'll assume there was. After all, millions of people believe they saw the buildings "collapse."

I will dispute your time of 17 seconds for the towers to fall. "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2."[7]

Also how fast did WTC7 fall? 6.6 seconds. Complete free fall would be 7 sec. [8]

G. Oops. Not sure if my opponent wants use that as a source. From the page of his link: "Is this story true? Its central assumptions have never been tested by an official government body whose members lack obvious conflicts of interest. There are numerous red flags in the official story, which requires a long series of highly improbable coincidences."[his source]

Here is a timeline of the events to consider:
(Under 6:30 AM) NORAD is currently running a real-world operation named Operation Northern Vigilance.
"Deskins and other NORAD officials later are initially confused about whether the 9/11 attacks are real or part of the exercise" [9]

8:43 a.m. September 11, 2001: NORAD Reportedly Notified that Flight 175 Has Been Hijacked[9]

H. As my opponent has just clearly stated
"The 9/11 commission report is only about 1 and 2 WTC"

Wouldn't you think it would be prudent for the report to have investigated the causes of why WTC 7 fell? This statement certainly proves my contention that the official report doesn't explain what really happened, just as I have argued. The official explanation was fire. But NEVER before or after 911, has any steel building collapsed from fire. My opponent has failed to rebut that point.

I. Allow me to explain: Money does not disappear into thin air, it is getting paid to certain companies or individuals. Those receiving this money may not really care that much about the economy of the USA.

I thank my opponent for his response and I also thank those who have read this, and I look forward to the next round.



My opponent seems plagued by misinformation...

A. Warnings

Interestingly enough, if you actually take the time to read the news sources that reference these warnings, you will see that they say things like:

"Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council for whom the report was written, said that in 1999, "It became such a rich threat environment that it was almost too much for Congress and the administration to absorb," he said. "They couldn't prioritize what was the most significant threat."
Gannon said it is "egregiously unfair" to blame the president for failing to act to prevent Sept. 11 since there was no "actionable intelligence.""

Little snippets of information that are determined after the fact to have been related to an event are NOT "actionable intelligence" concerning the event itself. The 9/11 commission did not state that domestic agencies *could not* have mobilized in response to the threat - there was no credible threat made.

B. Living Hijackers.

Come now. Really? Here's the PASSPORT of one of them, found burned in the wreckage of the tower ( Take for example Abdulaziz Al Omari - there are many, many articles citing in great detail the case of mistaken identity with another Abdul Aziz Al Omari ( Furthermore, there are simply cases of misinformation - there are multiple pictures of the hijackers getting onto the planes in airport security. Wail Alshehri's baggage was even doublescreened at security.

Please do some elementary research on these issues.

C. Bin Laden.

We're not talking about Bin Laden's tapes. We're talking about confessions from 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.

D. Jamie McIntyre

This is truly laughable. Read the transcript. It CLEARLY states:


A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane (

PLEASE do elementary research.

E. Flight 93.

Actually, your notion doesn't refute any of my "ideas." It's fact - debris from the crash was found 2-3 miles from the crash site. What kind of debris? "Investigators later said the debris was all very light material, such as paper and thin nylon the wind would easily blow. The wind was blowing towards Indian Lake and New Baltimore at 9 knots" ( What do paper and nylon do in the wind? They blow away.

F. Speed of Tower Fall

First of all, the towers fell MUCH slower than free fall. If you look at any set of photos, you can see the debris and such falling off the side of the building and falling away faster than the actual collapse. Using some simple physics, you can calculate the MINIMUM fall speed of the towers to be 9.1 secs ( The actual fall speeds were closer to between 11 and 13 seconds, estimated to be 11.6 and 12.5. Again - MUCH slower than free fall.

The pancake theory clearly does not fully describe the collapse, as you can see the top of the towers begin to tilt off. However, the case is NOT that one floor just impacted into the next floor - the collapse started mid-building. So you have 30 floors falling on the next floor to start the collapse.

WTC 7 on fire:

As you can see, the fire is MUCH worse than conspiracy nuts would have you believe. Furthermore, if you watch videos of the ENTIRE collapse, you will see the left penthouse suite collapse 3-4 seconds before the rest of the building, causing massive internal damage to a building burning out of control. The actual collapse took nearly 15 seconds. The 6.6 seconds you cite is just for the north wall. That's all well and good - I'm talking about the whole building.

G. NORAD timeline.

I'm not sure what my opponent is reading, but that text never appears here: ( - the page with the NORAD Timeline. It's possible DDO truncated the link... My opponent also says nothing about the response time of NORAD... perhaps he's read the timeline and knows their response time to be actually quite short.

H. The 911 Commission

My opponent asks if it is prudent to inquire why WTC7 fell... of course it is. It's completely answered by the raging fire and the 15 second fall time!!! The steel building collapsed because of a fire that weakened the internal structure of the building and falling debris that damaged a 47 story building held up by cantilever-style beams at the ground floor, the failure of any ONE of which, under the circumstances, would have brought down the entire structure.

I. Money

Where is your debate on this topic? You just state that people like getting money. Duh. This is a red herring.


My opponent has demonstrated significant lack of research and independent thought. I have completely rebutted his points on all issues. I await more.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for his interesting and thought provoking reply.

A. Warnings

The quote by my opponent also solidifies my contention that the claim in the 9/11 Report of "no warnings" is not accurate. "It became such a rich threat environment that it was almost too much for Congress and the administration to absorb,"

There are only 2 scenarios possible: They were warned or they were not warned. The official report takes the view that they were not warned. I have shown this to be false and therefore the official report does not explain what really happened. Therefore my contention stands.

Furthermore, using his quote again: "They couldn't prioritize what was the most significant threat."

So does that justify them for taking NO actions? Something should have been done! (unless it was the PLAN that nothing be done = inside job, Which proves the 2nd part of my contention, that 9/11 was an inside job)

B. Hijackers

Just because someone writes down a name doesn't prove to anyone that they were on a particular flight. As I stated last round in my source, the FBI couldn't make any connections between the aforementioned names and anything to do with 9/11 (even with examining a treasure trove of information in Afghanistan), which my opponent did not disprove.
Therefore my point still stands.

My opponent claims there are multiple pictures of the hijackers getting on the planes, but provides no source for that. He does however give a source of a charred looking passport (first link) the passport is not very good evidence though, since the name cannot even be read and even if it could be read it could have been 'planted' evidence.

Even if there was a source showing someone getting on a plane, there also needs to be a connection with a name to the person. That is a lot to prove, and my opponent has not done that. I will also add in some findings from my "elementary research" for my opponent here. Passenger lists for all the flights [1]. There are NO Arab names on any of the passenger lists.

C. Bin Laden

My opponent has not challenged my claim that the Bin Laden confession tape is a fake, and unless he challenges that point I will assume he agrees. Therefore, the fact that a faked confession tape exists, and was used as justification for the responses of the government, clearly shows that this was an inside job.

D. Pentagon

I am not saying that "A" plane didn't hit the Pentagon. I am saying that it wasn't a "757" that hit the Pentagon. Perhaps it was a commuter plane or a military plane or a missile, but the official story is "757" and here is why the official story doesn't make sense:

I have included a link to some images from right after the crash[2]. In the first (and third) images the second ring of the building is visible so it is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. How can a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damage the outside of the Pentagon? (*250 mph when landing, 600 mph in flight)

In image 2 we can observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The building is 26 yards high. Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

Next, in the image showing the lawn in front of the damaged building, Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph? remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring.

In the next image it shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf. Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?[2]

Also as a side note (from your source), why did Jamie Mcintyre find silver, green, and red paint when American Airlines colors are red and blue?

E. Shanksville

I want to point again that there is a clear difference in the pictures of what plane crash sites are supposed to look like, that I pointed out last round, and that the Shanksville 'crash' is not consistent with that at all. My point here still stands.


I appreciate my opponent withdrawing his collapse time of 17 sec. that he used in round 1 and acknowledging that the collapses were much faster than that. With that, I feel my case is still very strong on this point from last round and I will use my words for other points, even though I do want to make comments.

I will say however that calling people "conspiracy nuts" who do not agree with the official report is not reasonable, because even though I have only listed 9 points that don't add up, there are many, many more things I didn't list that don't make sense either. Why refer to someone as a nut, who is trying to understand a very complex event?

G. Norad timeline

I did look at the timeline, just out of words (like this time). It supports my case in both that there were critical delays in scrambling as well as the destinations they scrambled to.

But I rather wanted to firmly establish that there were live hijack drills going on at the same time (codenamed: Crown Vigilance, Apollo Guardian, Vigilant Guardian, Amalgam Warrior, and Global Guardian). Also, I felt the need to comment on your link that round (it worked this round).

I have shown that there were live hijack drills going on, which has not been disputed, which confused the real threats with the fake. This is further evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Someone with inside information planned the date for these 5+ hijack drills to coincide with the actual hijackings.

H. 9/11 Commission

15 seconds? I again dispute the time. Get out your stopwatches, go to this link and time it yourself! [3] I got about 6 sec. and it fell uniformly on all sides. Does my opponent believe that Building 7 was so shoddily constructed that it was the only steel building in the history of the world to fall from fire?

Also there were 400 questions put forth from the families of 9/11 to the Commission [4]. The results of the investigation in answering their questions were (from my count):
1. Adequately answered = 28/400
2. Discussed but not adequately answered = 178/400
3. Not even addressed = 194/400

Because the 9/11 commission did not answer the questions of the victim's families any better than that (7% is clearly an "F") this is evidence that the 9/11 commission report doesn't explain what really happened on 9/11.

I want to also add in a link of respected and credible professionals who do not agree with the official 9/11 commission report, in addition to the families of the victims. This list includes engineers, architects, pilots, senior military and intelligence and govt. officials, professors, law enforcement etc. [5]

I. Terrorism

In the second round my point was not a 'red herring'. I was simply answering your question from rd. 1. My point in bringing up this topic is simply to show that there could be ulterior motivations, by those in power. I would cite history itself, and point out that in the past there have been 'false flag' operations which have been used to shape public opinion by staging events. By these events the majority of the people can be talked into following the goals and agenda of the people in power. I think my opponent will agree that 'false flag' attacks are real.[6]

4. (click on victim's families review of report)


A. Warnings

My opponent makes the case for me: "It became such a rich threat environment" - the fact of the matter is that the United States receives so many threats they have to prioritize to determine which ones are ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE. As I showed in the previous round, none of the intelligence they received was of high enough quality to constitute using valuable resources. Simply because someone made a mistake does NOT indicate that 9/11 was an inside job.

B. Hijackers.

My opponent's source claims the following men are alive. This is simply false.

Waleed M. Alshehri - Mistaken Identity (Waleed A. Alshehri is a living Saudi airline pilot)
Wail M. Alshehri - Saudi misinformation (A man with the same name was reported to the LA times. Wail's father states that he has been missing since about 10 months before 9/11).
Abdulaziz Alomari - Mistaken Identity (Abdul Rahman Alomari is a Saudi pilot. Another Abdul Aziz Alomari is a Saudi student).
Mohand Alshehri - Saudi misinformation (They gave the same information for Mohand, Mohald, Mohamd, and Mohammed Alsheri).
Salem Alhazmi - Mistaken Identity (Salem I.A. Alhazmi owns a petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia).
Saeed Alghamdi - Mistaken Identity (Saeed Al-Ghamdi is a living Saudi airline pilot).
Ahmed Alnami - Mistaken Identity (Ahmed Al-Nam (not Ahmed ABDULLAH) is a living supervisor with Saudi Airlines).

Details on all these dead people available here:

C. Bin Laden

With confessions of those who PLANNED the attack stating that Bin Laden was involved, the status of the tape is irrelevant, as it could have come from an imposter, yet still be correct concerning Bin Laden's involvement.

However, the two points my opponent raises about the tape - that it shows a "fat" Bin Laden, gold rings, and that he writes with the wrong hand.

The video is in black and white - therefore, the identification of the rings as gold (which Muslims don't wear) instead of silver (which they DO) is impossible. Furthermore, if you watch the movie "The Paladin of Jihad" on Osama Bin Laden, you will see him writing with his right hand (

Oh - and the "fat" bin Laden?? Again - PLEASE do elementary research. The location of the world where the video was shot uses PAL format (576 lines). The West uses NTSC format (480 lines). So when the PAL bin Laden is squashed into NTSC format, he appears fatter. If you revert the NTSC images to PAL, the individual looks.... exactly like bin Laden.

D. Pentagon

I'll handle the sand issue first since it's the easiest... it's very common to spread sand and gravel down before moving heavy equipment like the kind used to clear debris and reconstruct the Pentagon. You also ask about the sliver green and red paint - well red is out since it's an AA color... but the interior of the plane would have paint of many different colors. I'd be surprised to not find paints of other colors than red and silver.

Ok - lets do some critical thinking. What happens to an airframe when it runs into a reinforced concrete wall? It shatters - as evidenced by this video of an F-14 (far sturdier than a 757) hitting a concrete wall ( As noted in that video, and as common sense would suggest, the majority of the damage came from the dense portions of the aircraft like the engines and cockpit module. So after the airframe shattered, you have the dense parts of the airplane and a bunch of fuel crash into the building, causing the explosion we see, and the roughly airframe+wing shaped hole clearly visible in this picture ( And the no debris on the lawn? Perhaps you haven't seen this photo with thousands of pieces of the shattered airframe ALL OVER the lawn: (

E. Shanksville

My opponent asserts that there is no similarity in the crash sites to other plane crashes. This is simply false.

AA Flight 585 (Boeing 737-200) crash in 1991 (
AA Flight 93 (Boeing 757-222) crash in 2001 (

Looks REALLY similar to me.

F. WTC 1, 2, 7

My opponent offers no argument here, yet complains about the title "conspiracy nut" as though it has anything to do with the incoherence of his claims. He then punts to his previous argument, despite the fact that I have already refuted the pancake argument for 1 & 2 WTC, and provided a perfectly reasonable explanation of WTC7's collapse.


The fact that NORAD was engaged in war games that it has run EVERY YEAR in no way indicates that 9/11 was an inside job. Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission Report indicates that "According to General Eberhart, "it took about 30 seconds" to make the adjustment to the real-world situation" due to the fact that there were extra personnel on station paying extra attention to the war game. The NORAD timeline still shows a response time of 12 mins - a fact my opponent didn't dispute. 12 mins from notice of a threat to jets in the air sounds pretty fast to me.

H. 9/11 Commission

Yes indeed, grab your stopwatches and go watch as many videos that start BEFORE the penthouse collapse as you wish. All the photos in my opponent's link show the collapse ALREADY UNDER WAY. The penthouse is symmetrical - look in all the photos and you will see an asymmetrical penthouse. The collapse began in the left penthouse. This video is not of the entire collapse, but from the time the penthouse begins to fall to the end of the video is about 12 seconds () !!!

The list of questions does NOT come from the victims' families - it comes from the Family Steering Committee... which only has 12 members, according to their "Members" page on their website. So where did these questions really come from? The 3000+ families that lost someone, or these 12 people?? Let's think about that...

I'm sure there is an equal number of respected and academic people that believe the 9/11 commission. Your ad populum fallacy is inadmissible here. Besides - people collect lists of respected people that believe stupid things, like Young Earth Creationism - nobody collects lists of people that believe the truth about an issue.

I. Terrorism.

I'm still confused by my opponent's argument here. He basically asserts that since false flag operations exist, this must be one of them. Surely even the most plebeian reader can see the error in that position. This is still a red herring argument - it's completely irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 3


A. My opponent claims there was not "Actionable Intelligence", but this is not the case.[1]

1. "Intelligence agency heads describing themselves with their "hair on fire" to characterize the imminent nature of the threats they were intercepting from Al Qaeda and their sense of urgency in relating them to the Bush Administration"

2. "...CIA Director, George Tenet ...described the non-routine meeting that he and Cofer Black called for with then National Security Advisor, Condoleez Rice as one of the "starkest warnings" ever given by the CIA to the White House on Al Qaeda."

If no action can be taken on "one of the "starkest warnings" ever given then what IS it possible to take action on?

B. My opponent is simply trying to apply a case of "mistaken identity" to each man. There are a ways, however to get confirmation that goes beyond just the name: pictures that go with the name, take DNA samples, and autopsy reports.

According to my source[2] the report on DNA samples and autopsy reports support my proposition (Pro).

"the alleged hijackers could have been positively identified only if samples had been obtained from their relatives, and there is no indication that this occurred. Indeed, one can wonder why not... The Jarrah's family has indicated they would be willing to provide DNA samples to US researchers, ...[but] the FBI has shown no interest thus far."

The lack of positive identification of the alleged hijackers is consistent with the autopsy report, which was released to Dr. Thomas Olmsted, who had made a FOIA request for it. Like the flight manifest for Flight 77, he revealed, this report also contains no Arab names.

If there is no proof that Arab men committed the crime then why did the USA rush to war? ('false flag' connection)

As far as pictures to go with the names: "...the BBC published an article by David Bamford entitled "Hijack "-Suspect' Alive in Morocco." It showed that the Waleed al-Shehri identified by the FBI as one of the hijackers was still alive. Explaining why the problem could not be dismissed as a case of mistaken identity, Bamford wrote: His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack..."

(Others are confirmed by pictures also)

C. Other reasons the tape is not real:

1. In Bin Laden's first interview after the 9/11 attacks he denied any involvement. Terrorists always claim responsibility for attacks they have perpetrated.

2. 9/11 was not specifically mentioned on Bin Laden's wanted page on the FBI website, because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Also Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were simply incapable of orchestrating these attacks. Several political and military leaders from other countries have stated that bin Laden and al-Qaeda simply could not have carried out the attacks. General Leonid Ivashov, who in 2001 was the chief of staff for the Russian armed forces, wrote:
"...They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders..."[3]

D. You don't usually cover a crime scene with sand, a construction yard sure, but not a site when forensics evidence is needed. What I see in my opponent's source 1 is charred spools of wire (is that supposed to look like plane wreckage?)
and in source 2 I see 1 twisted piece of metal and a scrap piece, and some papers over by the building, that is not too convincing to me.

I also tried to do a bit of critical thinking here, and I was thinking that with the height of a 757 the upper stories on the Pentagon would have been hit. My opponent's picture shows only 26ft high on the building being hit. I listed the height of a 757 last round as 14.9 YARDS high (plus higher with the cockpit). That would mean it was at least 44.7 FEET high. If it had indeed been a 757 that hit the Pentagon those upper stories would have been hit.

I also didn't remember seeing any green paint inside of planes I've flown in, so out of curiosity I looked at pictures of the insides of a 757 from American and found there is no green paint.[4]

E. My opponent's 2 crash photos aren't really that convincing to me. Here is a video that 1. Explains a bit about what the crash site looked like before [5](2:00) and 2. What real plane crashes look like.(2:00-4:00)

F. Here is another way the official pancake theory is not logical. There are only 2 things that could have happened to the floors: 1. They fell and added weight and momentum to falling on the next floor. If this happened (pancake theory) one would expect to see a pile of floors stacked up. We do not see a pile of floors stacked up. 2. The floors could be pulverized, but if this is the case then there would be no weight of these floors to help collapse the next floor.
"If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both. For one thing, that energy can only be spent once. If the potential energy is used to pulverize a floor upward and outward, it can't also be used to accelerate the building downward. In order to have pancaking, a force is required to trigger the failure of the next floor. If the building above that floor has been pulverized, there can be no force pushing down. As observed in the pictures below, much of the material has been ejected upward and outward. Any pulverized material remaining over the footprint of the building will be suspended in the air and can't contribute to a downward force slamming onto the next floor."[6]

G. Even though it may be true the war games are run every year, what are the odds of it being held on this day? 1/365 = .003% (but the real odds are 1/1825 because of 5). No matter how fast the response time sounds (or was) they were not able to intercept the hijacked planes because there were false blips on the radars, that is why I am highlighting the exercises being held.

I do disagree with my opponent's times however: "Myers told the Senate that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the 9/11 flights until after the Pentagon was struck . The Pentagon attack occurred at 9:38 a.m., a full 1 hour 20 minutes after the first of the 9/11 flights was diverted from its designated flight path."[7]

H. NIST has admitted free-fall speed occurred in their own reports. The main question is why did WTC7 fall at all? Here is a picture of a steel constructed building like WTC7 that was burned in a WORSE fire and it never even fell at all. No fire has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.[8]

I. Here is an online petition[9](signed by 33,469 people) which includes some of the ulterior motives that people want to be investigated. Which includes (but not limited to): 1. Insider trading of United and American airlines 2. Over 100 million dollars that electronically passed through WTC on 9/11 8.Unocal's oil pipeline across Afghanistan 9. Carlyle Corporation's role 11. George W. Bush's possible foreknowledge of the attacks 12. Role of Northern Alliance in explosive growth of opium production in Afghanistan after US military intervention.

I thank the readers and my opponent and wish him good luck.

2. (8 -11)
3. (12)
5. (see above if not here)
6. (see pictures a-d)(These pictures clearly show the floors were pulverized.)


JustCallMeTarzan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I see that my opponent has forfeited his 4th round. I am guessing that it may possibly be due to his spring break. This is unfortunate timing for my opponent with regards to this debate.

As there was nothing refuted from my opponent in the 4th round I have nothing to re establish.

During this debate, due to lack of words I have not emphasized many things that could have been emphasized. I also have not mentioned many things that could have been mentioned. I have tried to diligently use my limited words to convey to all who read this debate of the convincing facts that 9/11 was an inside job and that the 9/11 Commission Report does not explain what really happened. I set the word length at maximum as well as the number of rounds at maximum in order to achieve as thorough of a debate as possible on the subject. I have done this because I have nothing to be concerned about other than trying to figure out what REALLY happened, and the more discussion and debate about it the better. And although I would like to have brought in new evidences this round (Ex: Who bin Laden is (CIA connections), explain the conflicts of interests of those on the 9/11 Commission, etc...). And I also would have liked to have offered rebuttals to things my opponent may attack from round 4 (I have more evidences), nevertheless, I believe enough has been brought up that my opponent needs to address, and if I was to add more to that it would make it more difficult for my opponent to respond to everything due to lack of words, so instead I will basically summarize the debate and offer my closing arguments. I will now go through the earlier rounds and point out the things which my opponent has not addressed, as well as how the points that have been made for PRO still stand.


THE FOLLOWING POINTS HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN CHALLENGED and must therefore go to PRO unless addressed by my opponent in his final round.




1. "No evidence has ever linked any of the alive or dead "hijackers" to Osama Bin Laden." During the entire debate this was not denied nor proven false.

2. My opponent did not deny or address the many connections between the Bin Laden family and Bush family, one being the Carlyle Group, which is one of world's largest defense contractors, which continues to reap massive profits off of the post 9/11 war on terrorism.

3.Bush Sr. met with Bin Laden's Brother on 9/11 was not denied.


1. The scientific impossibility that 12 tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by jet fuel (official story). This "scientific impossibility" was not denied by my opponent.

2. The videos which would HAVE shown what really happened were immediately confiscated by agents of the FBI and the Dept. Of Justice has refused to release them. This has not been denied by my opponent.


1. The 9/11 Commission could not trace the source of the funding but concluded by saying "it is of little consequence". Even though the tracing of funding is one of the major tools in fighting terrorism. This was not disputed by my opponent.




1. FBI director Robert Mueller admitted that his agency failed to find "a single piece of paper" linking the alleged hijackers to the 9/11 plot. My opponent did not even address this.

2. There is no evidence so there has not been a single prosecution leading to conviction anywhere in the world of the alleged perps, with the single exception of Zaccarias Moussaoui. This was also not addressed.


1. There were light poles still standing which would have been in the path of the 'alleged' 757. Not addressed.




1.Someone with inside information planned the date for these 5+ hijack drills to coincide with the actual hijackings. My opponent has not denied this.



Entire round goes to PRO, NOTHING refuted at all by opponent (due to forfeit).


The other points that my opponent did challenge I have also rebutted.


A. WARNINGS - PRO has shown that there was sufficient warning given so that action should have been taken.

B. HIJACKERS - PRO has established that there was no connection linking the alleged hijackers to the 9/11 plot.

C. OSAMA BIN LADEN - PRO has shown that bin Laden was not involved and also that Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were simply incapable of orchestrating these attacks.

D. PENTAGON- PRO has proven that the official story of a 757 hitting the pentagon is not realistic, and therefore things did not happen according to the official report.

E. SHANKSVILLE - PRO has shown that the alleged crash site of Flt. 93 is in fact not the site of any plane crash.

F. TRADE TOWERS - PRO has shown how the official "pancake theory" does not make sense in any possible scenario and therefore the official report does not explain what really happened. Further, PRO has highlighted the astounding anomaly of the only 3 steel skyscrapers in the history of the world being brought down allegedly due to fire.

G. NORAD - PRO has proven that there were live hijack drills going on at the same time as the hijackings, and that there were contributing factors (inside job) which prevented any of the 4 hijacked planes from being intercepted.

H. 9/11 COMMISSION - PRO has shown how the official 9/11 commission has not even begun to scratch the surface of what really happened.

I. TERRORISM - PRO has established that 'false flag' operations exist and that there are indeed ulterior motives that need to be explored as to why 9/11 happened that the official report does not address.


All 9 points still stand firmly PRO as of the final round. Although my opponent is allowed to have the last word, I am confident that even after that, the evidence for PRO will still stand strong. I believe that I have given sufficient evidence here to convince the readers that 9/11 was an inside job and also that the official 9/11 Commission Report does not
explain what really happened. I encourage you to vote "Pro". Thank you.


I suppose I'll address Pro's R5 comments since that seems to be the best way to do this... Shoulda gone out Californ-e-way for internet over break...

B - Hijackers

1. I did indeed address this point, showing the image of the hijacker's passport found at the WTC site. Another passport fragment was found at the Pentagon, and there are numerous paper-trail documents involved in tracing the funding of the attacks, as outlined below.

2. You mean convictions like: Yahya Goba, Shafal Mosed, Yasein Taher, Taysal Galab, Mukhtar al-Bakri, Sahim Alwan, Jeffrey Battle, Patrice Ford, Ahmed Bilal, Muhammad Bilal, October Lewis, Mike Hawash, Masoud Ahmad Khan, Seifullah Chapman, Yong Ki Kwon, Donald Surratt, Hammad Abdur-Raheem, James Ujaama, and Iyman Faris?

C - Osama Bin Laden

1. Basic googling shows Mustafa Mohamed Ahmad, a financier for bin Laden, owned several of the accounts the hijackers were financed from. Furthermore, we have the previous assertions of bin Laden's involvement from the people wo planned 9/11.

2. According to SourceWatch, the Carlyle Group is some 16.6 BILLION in debt. Massive profits indeed.

3. The bin Laden family is one of the most influential Saudi Families - they have all SORTS of business dealings. This isn't unusual at all. Furthermore, the meeting was on 9/10, NOT 9/11. (

D - Pentagon

1. Pro never introduced any sort of evidence for the vaporization of this 12 tons of steel and titanium... which is interesting, because the Pentagon is made of concrete, wood, slate, and limestone... not titanium.

2. The FBI only confiscated 3 videos - the gas station, the hotel roof, and the camera overseeing I-395. The Citgo camera (gas station) is UNDER the canopy of the pumps - you can see the flash in the video released in September 2006. The Doubletree Hotel roof video released on 12/7/06 shows the explosion, but is of such poor quality one would not be able to see the plane ( The VDOT cameras on I-395 do not refresh fast enough to catch the plane (

3. You mean light poles like these ones: ??

H - The 9/11 Commission

The government DID trace the source of funding - to one of bin Laden's financiers, as stated above.


1. Of course someone planned the military exercises!! How else would the exercises get started?? My opponent contends without evidence that the planners of these exercises had inside information despite the fact that I presented evidence showing that the presence of the military exercises IMPROVED response time on 9/11 and that these exercises are yearly events.


All of Pro's outstanding contentions in his summary of the points have been refuted. He has no points to stand on to back up his assertions, as has been clearly evidenced if you read my rebuttals.


To address R4:

A - Warnings

1, 2. This meeting took place on July 10, 2001. I wouldn't call something that happened more than 2 months later to be the "imminent" threat they describe. Oh, and their meeting was about how to secure funds to search for and neutralize Bin Laden, not that there was going to be a hijacking attack.

B - Hijackers

The Saudi government initially denied that the hijackers were Saudi, presenting many pieces of misinformation. I'm curious what samples from relatives would do if the bodies were completely destroyed in the explosions? And why would the FBI need samples to prove what they already know? It's like getting your calculator to check 2+2...

Oh, and the passenger manifest from Flight 77 with "no Arab names" ?? Those are taken from CNN's reports of the victims, NOT the actual passenger manifests. CNN did not include the hijackers as "victims" because they simply weren't "victims" in the common sense of the word.

There is extensive proof of the fact that the hijackers were Arab men... passports, videos from airport security, passenger manifests (like Flight 11, showing the hijackers: and even the CONFESSIONS of the planners!!

Again - read this: - it explains IN DETAIL about the "alive" (read: dead) hijackers.

C - Bin Laden Tape

1. Terrorists do not "always claim responsibility." This is quite simply false. Furthermore, the Bin Laden never denied involvement - the TALIBAN, who has a very strong incentive to not get turned to dust by Navy bombers, denied involvement (

2. Bin Laden has been wanted for many, many other things besides 9/11. The FBI's page on him lists what he was first wanted for, not what his most notorious crime was. Al Capone was wanted for tax evasion, not organized crime. Bin Laden's poster was created in 1999... Why would it list something from 2001 as his primary crime??

D. Pentagon

In a piece of laughable evidence, my opponent posts 1 picture of the passenger cabin of an AA plane and concludes there is no green paint anywhere in the plane. Really??

Why would they cover the Pentagon yard with sand? Easy - as I explained before, sand and gravel is needed to support large construction equipment. The breach in the Pentagon wall left it vulnerable, and they would want to start reconstruction as soon as possible. In the pictures I provided, you can see the hole and pitting that matches the impact from a shattered airframe, and in the second, you can easily see aluminum (not paper) all over the Pentagon lawn.

Most people don't realize that aluminum planes shatter when they hit concrete and THEN puncture it, not blow right through in their exact shape.

E. Shanksville

My opponent calls my two pictures "not really that convincing" despite the fact that they are almost identical. Interesting...

F. Pancake

Once again, I must remind my opponent that only a few floors pancaked before the weight of the upper 30-some floors began to simply crush the building in a more "conventional" collapse. My opponent also doesn't seem to understand that pulverized material from a pancaking floor still adds weight to the floors below it...


The odds of it being scheduled for one day are EXACTLY the same as for the next. So, in effect, it's no more unusual that the war games took place on 9/11 than on 2/12. What's unusual is the terrorist attack, not the war games. So unless my opponent thinks terrorist attacks are a normal event, there is nothing unusual about the coincidence of war games & a terrorist attack - it's not a miracle of statistics - it's a coincidence.

No jets were scrambled because the government thought the two jets in the towers were all of the planes. After they grounded all planes and there were still some flying (Pentagon) THEN they scrambled jets to force all planes down. And my opponent's time is incorrect - "Fighter Scramble Order (Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Mass. Two F-15s )0846" - 8:46 AM - not 9:38...


If you actually watch videos of the collapse, it is OBVIOUS that it was much slower than free fall. As I have stated before, WTC7 suffered EXTENSIVE structural damage. An excellent overview -

I. Online Petition

33,469 people is .0001 percent of the US population. OF COURSE there are that many people that want answers!


My apologies again for missing the 4th round. I believe I have accurately and concisely presented rebuttals to my opponent's points... he has no argument to stand on. Vote CON.

Debate Round No. 5
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 8 years ago
RoyLatham, great ideas and insights, I appreciate the elaboration on your points. I mean some of those ideas are pretty foreign to me steel being "brittle" and "shattering"!!! isn't steel chosen as the building material because it will NOT do those things? but yes... I suppose if steel does shatter and crack that could explain the noises, rather than it being explosives....

I also am not completely sure why a "partial" rigging of the building with explosives wouldn't work to bring it down...why is that again? (it's been a long time since I was reading about this stuff...)

I really appreciate your logic in explaning how those other things could happen! thanks
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
A guy who claims to be an engineer and doesn't know all those things I listed is a fraud, period.

Bombs are not directional, they blow up in all directions at once. To get something to act like a rocket it has to be constructed like a rocket, with a container (like a tube) and a nozzle. A bomb could throw stuff out of the building, but unexploded material after that wouldn't generate any net thrust in one direction.

If you look at regular building demolition, the bottom of the building collapses first, and then the building collapses from the bottom up. The upper part stays intact until it adds to the rubble at the bottom. The WTC collapsed from the top down. No one ever demolishes a building that way, but it could be done by placing charges on the upper floors to start the collapse. Conspiracy theorists claim that a building cannot collapse from the top down just by the weight of the falling building, because if that happened then there would be nothing for the conspiracy to explain. So if they are right that it could not have happen as explained by NIST, then all 100+ floors must have been rigged.

How could a parking area be wired with explosives with no one noticing? People park there. All the steel is covered with either concrete or foam to protect against fire, so even in a parking area the steel would have to be exposed to place either thermite or shaped charges. It would be a mess.

Smoke, really dust, rises from the base because all the air that was inside the building is forced out by the collapse. It can't go out the top because the collapsing structure blocks it. It's going to end up going out the sides and the bottom. In an ordinary building demolition, the same dust cloud appears. It appears even though there is no enough explosive to produce appreciable smoke; it's all air and dust. Explosion sounds can come from windows being blown out and from the brittle fracture of steel, like breaking brittle glass.
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 8 years ago
RoyLatham - OK those are great ideas...thank you...I'm not sure his credibility is zero, but I do think that you have a LOT of credibility and I consider you to be very intelligent. As far as this rocket business...what I think would be going on would just be that an bomb (or a part of a bomb that was flammable) got blown out of the building before it went off...then in the air it ignited (shooting whatever it was with in another direction OR downwards faster than gravity) doesn't seem too far fetched to me...But again...I will say OK...perhaps I can't trust my eyes there...given your explanation....there could be some effects going on there that I don't know about...
as far as the placement of demolition I don't know too much about that...but if charges needed to be placed at the bottom (which seems to be agreed upon) there were about 3-4 levels underground...parking and such...probably not real heavy use areas where a lot had to be concealed from people....and at night didn't a lot of them go home and sleep???
Did you see in the other video I posted how the smoke was rising up from the base...after you could hear explosions going off? What were those 9 explosion sounds from? (and why the smoke rising up?). Also I wanted to say thanks...I do appreciate your insights and for you taking the time to comment...sometimes I see things or read things that reawaken my curiosity. (you too Tarzan!)
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
The guy on the video says it couldn't be perspective, but his credibility is zero. He doesn't understand potential energy or thrust or aerodynamics or compressed air blowing out windows or the properties of thermite or the basics of building demolition ... so why should he be trusted on understanding tricks of perspective? Clearly he is pretending to know stuff about which he knows nothing.

Do you remember all the nonsense about seeing a pod under the fuselage of one of the airplanes? People claimed they saw a pod for sure. Yet for a pod to have been there the engine would have no have cast a shadow and the aircraft could not have had a landing gear. Besides which, there would have been absolutely no point in having pod in the first place, a missile fired at the building could do nothing that that missile carried by an airplane could not do. So the it makes no, sense at all, but the, "I see it with my own eyes" argument was used.

The same thing is going on here. You certainly are seeing something, and no one claims you are not. The problem is that there are much better explanations for what you are seeing. In fact, leaving it unexplained is a better explanation than a preposterous one about rockets being there for no logical reason.

The planning for preparing the buildings for demolition would require making sure that roughly 10,000 people working and visiting the buildings never saw or never reported the steel being revealed, stripped of the foam protectant, packed with demolition material, and wired up. That is well beyond any plausible planning. There would have to be something like 10,000 conspirators. Since there is no way to pre-place all those people in the building, most would have to be bribed or threatened. Then for eight years, not a single one would ever reveal the plot out of a guilty conscience or for a fabulous book deal.
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 8 years ago
This video is pretty good documents 9 explosions and dust clouds obviously rising UP...while the tower is still standing for a long time after being hit by the plane.
the video under this quote: "I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 8 years ago
The video says that it takes into consideration the perspective...and that the movement is too extreme for that to be the cause...sorry for the tiny video...I actually viewed it as a larger video (you probably can too).
I am not totally dismissing any explanations like you say many conspiracy theorists do...I listened to your 'perspective' theory of it moving left and right due to the aerodynamics...but I've just got to say that to me the video of it moving like that is pretty convincing to makes sense what I SEE there happening rather than a THEORY of how what I am seeing is not really happening...are you sure that the non-conspiracy theorists aren't the ones who are accepting an explanation that doesn't make sense ?(...I mean they have to make up a reason for why what they are seeing) (rocket-like movement of projectiles) is not really happening... or what it actually appears to be...
I'm still open to both views though...
Also to pull something like this off it seems like a lot of extensive planning would have to go into it anyway...I mean if they are able to coordinate 5 live hijack drills on the same day, and take that many resources and people out of commission leaving the entire airspace of the nation's most critical buildings completely defenseless (and that happened)...then I imagine that same level of planning could be applied to other things as preparing a building...
here is a link that explains some ideas pertaining to it: bomb sniffing dogs were removed (providing opportunity) and the firemen did claim that they heard explosions...I mean that is more eyewitness testimony that has to be discarded --> a non-conspiracy theorist has to say that the firemen didn't REALLY see and hear what they say they actually saw...I mean why is what they say dismissed so easily? it seems there is a pre-set notion of what happened in a person's mind (prejudice) if that is done...(?)
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
From the video it's not possible to tell how massive the object was, so it's not possible to tell what the aerodynamics would be. "Reversing direction" can be an artifact of perspective. Something that moves left and right relative to its general direction looks to be reversing direction when viewed head on.

Also, why would there be a rocket as any part of a plot to demolish the building? Thermite isn't explosive and shaped charges act virtually instantly. so what use would a rocket be? Part of the 10,000 tons of TNT used to accelerate the fall of the building for no purpose? Since the rocket idea is so off-the-wall, I think it's better left as unexplained. For example, suppose someone had a propane tank or welding tank in the building that was thrown free in the collapse by air pressure, then ignited and made a rocket effect. No, that's not likely, but there are many such possibilities that no one would ever take the trouble to try to identify and catalog. The conspiracy proponent dismisses any possible explanation other than the one that suits him, even though that explanation makes no sense.

All demolition theories have to explain how the building was packed with thermite or shaped charges without anyone noticing. It takes many months to prepare a building with a very large crew. One expert estimated a crew of more than 50 working for three months on the first four floors. Moreover, since ordinary demolition causes failure from the bottom up, and the WTC went from the top down, virtually every floor must have been prepared, not just the ordinary ground floors. That implies a crew of at least several hundred people working for at least three months exposing the steel and packing them with charges. That hypothesis makes no sense at all. It's more reasonable to suppose that some things happened for reasons unidentified.
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 8 years ago
RoyLatham thanks for the comment also. I can appreciate that the air on the surface area of the object might affect it a LITTLE...but what about what happens at the 1:10 mark ? that looks VERY suspicious don't you think?

quoting them--- referring to the "Rocket Projectile" ---"it stopped midair and changed directions...this requires an impulse".

Then there is also that piece that they showed before that which does actually look like it is falling faster than the rest of the debris and has a smoke trail...what do you think about the theory of some kind of late firing explosive doing that? (non thermite) trying to put it in terms I could understand in my mind I was imagining it to be like a bottle rocket which was falling...with its fuse lit...then it exploded and shot down towards the ground faster than gravity. (?)
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Take a piece of something flat and throw it in the air and see if it changes directions or follows a smooth trajectory. Better yet, watch a leaf flutter to the earth from a tree. By the argument offered in the video, it is absolutely impossible for a falling leaf to change directions. What happens is that irregularly shaped objects present different aspects to the air so they transfer momentum to the air irregularly. This happens for heavy objects as well, as for example, when an airplane breaks up in flight.

The basic point of the video misunderstands the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy. The potential energy of the WTC tower was equal to about 5000 tons of TNT, and when the tower falls all that energy goes somewhere.

Under the hypothesis that thermite blew the building, it would generate no downward force. To get a downward force, there has to be a container to channel the thrust, like a nozzle on a rocket. Otherwise, whatever explosive force there is goes in all directions. Besides which, thermite burns slowly, it doesn't explode. The slow burn is one reason it isn't used for building demolition. It's too difficult to precisely time the collapse pattern.

Note, that if something with downward thrust were used, it would have to have a force appreciably greater than the potential energy of the building in order to speed it up. So maybe 10,000 tons of TNT in rockets?

The "side explosions" are likely due to air compressing inside the building and then blowing out the windows and expelling smoke and debris. The power of rapidly compressed air is difficult to appreciate. The air escaping from under a major rock slide in Yosemite leveled a grove of trees that were never touched directly by the rocks.
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 8 years ago
Tarzan - thanks for the comment.
What do you think about that piece they showed taking the different trajectory and its smoke trail?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Osiris 8 years ago
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 rougeagent21 8 years ago
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 Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
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 Angrypants66 8 years ago
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 SchinkBR 8 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by heart_of_the_matter 8 years ago
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
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