The Instigator
blond_guy
Con (against)
Losing
36 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points

9/11 was an inside job done by the government of the United States of America.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,796 times Debate No: 2734
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (18)
Votes (21)

 

blond_guy

Con

I just want to see if I can plunder a conspiracy junkie in a debate on 9/11, just to shut him up.

9/11 was obviously done by Al-Qaeda. The tapes of Bin Laden admitting to have attacked us in 9/11 couldn't have been fake, it's not that easy to forge a video. We meddled around in the Middle East and Al-Qaeda got sick of it.

Also, you conspiracy maniacs never answer this question:
If the U.S. government (mainly the Bush administration) caused 9/11 without the help of Al-Qaeda, how do you explain the attacks made on Spain and England, to which Al-Qaeda also took responsibility for?
Yraelz

Pro

Alright. Thanks for the debate. I'm going to start this round by putting a little offense on your claims and then I will move on to supply some defense for my own position.

The very first thing you tell me is quite simply that the confession video could not have been fake because it is not easy to forge a video. Here are my points on this argument.

1. Hollywood. We make videos every day with amazing special effects in them. Look at James Bond, Harry Potter, 300, etc.... These movies are loaded with special effects and actually manage to come off looking real. So my question to you is this, here is the video of him confessing that he attacked us: . How hard would it actually be to make a movie of a guy simply sitting on the floor and eating for 9 minutes? A movie with fuzzy reception at that.

I'm pretty sure the answer is not hard at all. In fact with a wig and a bit of make-up I think I could have made a home video nearly as convincing if not more so. After all he is reportedly left handed but he makes every gesture with his right hand in the video. Not to mention the fact that the entire thing is in a different language. As far as the American public knows that video could be in any language, we just added sub-titles.

2. Aside from the fact that he uses the wrong hand the entire time and his turban is reportedly on the wrong way we also have the fact that he looks nothing like Osama Bin Laden. Compare this video of him to any other picture of him you have seen. Actually if you have time to load http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com... scroll directly to 45:00 minutes into the video and it will do the comparisons for you. It will show you 4 other photos of Bin Laden and the one in the movie, looks nothing alike, minus a turban.

Ron Paul even notices this coincidence on his War room page when he says, "That the tape in which bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks was released by the State Department after having been found providentially by US forces in Afghanistan, and depicts a fattened Osama with a broader face and a flatter nose, proves Osama, and Osama alone, masterminded 9/11."

3. Third point, on the morning of Sept. 11 George Bush Senior was actually meeting with Bin Laden's older brother; while this doesn't actually prove anything it does show that the Bush family had ties with the Bin Laden's.
Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com...

George Bush senior has also made multiple trips to Saudi Arabia to meet with Bin Laden in the past regarding oil.

4. Bush actually ordered that investigations on the Laden family to be stopped before Sept. 11 ever occurred. Our intelligence had some suspicion that the Ladens could possibly be a threat in the future but Pres. Bush prevented them from investigating. This once again isn't 100% proof but at the very least we can conclude that something very strange was going on.

Source: http://www.webcom.com...

5. Osama Bin Laden reportedly was treated in an American hospital in Dubai and met with the local CIA agent between the 4th and 14th of July in 2001. This was well after he was known to be one of America's most wanted criminals. Yet he was allowed to leave the hospital with no repercussions.

Source: http://emperors-clothes.com...

6. The only piece of evidence that actually links Bin Laden to sept. 11 was the confession video you have provided me. One of the easiest things ever to forge.

Now for some offense. I'm going to start with the Pentagon because it is the strangest of them all. I'm going to be using this photo for reference its an easy one. I would have liked one of the photos with people walking in front of it for perspective but I can't seem to find a large one of those. So here goes. http://images.google.com...

1. Like the photo says where is the Plane? Last time I checked steel melts at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit (http://www.chemicalelements.com...). Meanwhile jet fuel burns at what? About 1500 degrees farenhiet? But this is an over simplification. We are not talking about the plane melting in this scenario we are talking about is simply vaporizing and we are not talking about steel we are talking about alloys. How do you manage to vaporize a plane made of steel alloys within seconds and somehow leave the building looking as if a couple stories collapsed. Not to mention the impact, wouldn't there be at least a wing or something somewhere.... Which brings me to point number two.

2. Where are wings holes.... We have a hole in this building, that on the left side at least, is a complete straight line. Where are the holes where the wings hit on either side....? Did those just happen to fall off and vaporize on the lawn?

3. Perhaps the most disturbing point. Our government, not only has no tape of a plane flying onto the pentagon but actually seized the tapes from private businesses that had vantage points of the Pentagon.

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net...

The only pieces of evidence that have been cited to show a Plane hitting the Pentagon were from Pentagon cameras and the evidence looks like this:

http://archives.cnn.com...

Very conclusive. Can someone point me to the plane in this picture....?

If a plane had actually hit the pentagon why has our government seized the tapes and has not bothered to show us them despite multiple inquiries?

4. Watch this if you have time. It has some of my ideas and is fairly short.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...

OFFENSE 2: The Hijackers

1. The planes... Once again of the four planes that crashed, not a piece of wreckage is shown anywhere for any of them. The official story once again being that they vaporized on impact.

2. We found the passports for four of the hijackers, Ziad Jarrah, Abdulaziz Alomari, Saeed Alghamdi, Satam Al Suqami , in the rubble and on the streets below (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org...). So let me explain this situation briefly. The plane and passengers are vaporized on impact, but the passports, made of paper, are hurdled through the flames and found by a random passersby on the street below unsinged. 4 paper passports survive where 12 tons of jet steel and titanium was vaporized. What....?

3. The FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers. 4 or 5 per plane. Yet mere days later at least 6 of the suspected hijackers are still alive. (http://news.bbc.co.uk...)
And yet, to date, the FBI list hasn't been revised, ummm what? Also we have the issue that not one of the flight manifests actually contained any of the hijackers names or any names of middle eastern origin for that matter.

Offense 3: WTC 1 2 & 7

1. Despite popular belief 3 world trade centers actually fell on September 11th. Official report cites fire melted the 3 however all three fell at nearly the speed of free fall. The only feasible scenario for such would be controlled demolition. No building has ever been known to collapse in this way from fire, yet on Sept. 11th three building collapsed.... Care to explain?
Debate Round No. 1
blond_guy

Con

Of course special effects are easy, but making a specific person do certain motions and so on is not is not.

"As far as the American public knows that video could be in any language, we just added sub-titles."

Oh yeah, like there's no U.S. citizens that speak Arabic and would notice that.

"After all he is reportedly left handed but he makes every gesture with his right hand in the video."

You can't prove this. I make hand gestures with my left hand although I'm right handed. This says nothing.

"Ron Paul even notices this coincidence on his War room page when he says..."

I don't know how Ron Paul entered this conversation, he does not support your crazy theory.

Points 3 and 4 say nothing to me. And there is no proof for your point 5, only some cheap website probably invented by a conspiracy wacko. There's a reason why no official website supports this theory.

"where is the Plane?"

Well who said the airplane vaporized? They probably got it out of there. The pentagon isn't in such bad shape, it seems like that picture is not of the pentagon right after the plane hit, but a long time after.

"The only piece of evidence that actually links Bin Laden to sept. 11 was the confession video you have provided me. One of the easiest things ever to forge."

Did you forget about the question conspiracy maniacs never answer? What happened in Spain and England then? Did our government do that too?

"http://archives.cnn.com......
Very conclusive. Can someone point me to the plane in this picture....? "

The plane should be right in those huge flames. By the way, try saying there was no plane to the families of the victims that died there. And those airlines that are missing a jet.

"The FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers. 4 or 5 per plane. Yet mere days later at least 6 of the suspected hijackers are still alive."

The F.B.I. didn't really know. There were suspects of course, now they are not suspects anymore since they're alive. If the government did all of this, wouldn't they be smart enough to at least blame it on someone who won't just show up alive?

Overall, if the government really did this. Wouldn't they use a real plane? Bush is not famous for his intelligence, but his administration could do better than that.

You still haven't answered the question in my opening statement.

Anyways, thank you for this debate, I'm looking forward to your next argument.
Yraelz

Pro

I urge voters to vote not on the debate content and not their own bias. I realize this probably won't happen but I feel better if I urge it. =)

Anyways I'm going to go down my own points that I made last round and defend the ones my opponent attacked.

I started my last round with offense on my opponents video claim.

1. This point can be summarized as "forging videos is easy, particularly one where all the main character does is sit for 9 minutes." My opponent responded with this,

"Of course special effects are easy, but making a specific person do certain motions and so on is not is not."

My response: All he does in the movie is eat and talk..... And as I said he does the motions with the wrong hand. My opponent answer this by saying that he makes hand gestures with his left even though he is right. However I would doubt that my opponent makes every single hand gesture with his left. Doing such almost defeats the idea of being right handed.

Next my opponent mentions that it could not be in a different language because Arabic speaking U.S citizens are true. I admit this is true, I was simply illustrating the ignorance of the average American citizen on such a matter and how it could potentially be exploited.

2). I give my opponent multiple sources showing how Osama Bin Laden looks different in this video than in any other. My opponent responds with,

"I don't know how Ron Paul entered this conversation, he does not support your crazy theory."

I concede to my opponent that this is true. Ron Paul does not support me at all, he is in complete negation. I was simply showing that even he noticed this phenomenon. He simply chooses to disregard it. I would like to point out that aside from this point my opponent did not attack my point, thus it stands in this round.

3. Concerning the family relations with the Bush family and the Ladens. My opponent simply states that this point means nothing to him. I'm simply pointing out that it is interesting our president has relations with a terrorist organization in such a way.

4. Bush ordered investigations of Bin Laden family to be halted. My opponent states,

"Points 3 and 4 say nothing to me. "

It seems odd to me that the George Bush would stop investigations on one of the biggest terrorists ever. Might be something to do with the fact that their families have close relations.....

5. Osama was treated in an American hospital and talked to a CIA agent. My opponent states,

"And there is no proof for your point 5, only some cheap website probably invented by a conspiracy wacko. There's a reason why no official website supports this theory."

Here are the sources where this idea originated from, "According to United Press International (Oct. 31, 2001), bin Laden underwent clandestine kidney treatment by Dr. Terry Calloway (Canadian urologist) for 11 days in July at the American Hospital in Dubai. During his hospital stay, bin Laden met with a U.S. CIA agent, according to French daily Le Figaro and Radio France International."

6. Only piece of evidence that link Bin Laden to 9/11 was this confession video. My opponent attempts to prove this using Spain and England. However even if he could prove that Osama Bin Laden did such acts to assume that he therefor did 9/11 would be fallacious. It would actually make sense that our government blame a known terrorist. It makes the story more plausible.

Next I offered my offense.

Scenario 1: Pentagon

1. Plane vaporization. My opponent,

"Well who said the airplane vaporized? They probably got it out of there. The pentagon isn't in such bad shape, it seems like that picture is not of the pentagon right after the plane hit, but a long time after."

In response that picture was taken the same day.... Look up pentagon plane on google you'll find many similar pictures. As far as the plane vaporizing goes. Thats the official story given by the white house. It would be rather difficult to explain the idea that the plane did not vaporize when we have pictures like this http://media.graytvinc.com... where there is nearly 0 wreckage. However many many studies have been done proving that a plane cannot vaporize in any of these conditions.

2. No wing holes. My opponents makes no response. There are no wing holes, tapes were confiscated. Conclusion: No plane, otherwise government would show tapes.

3. Tapes seized by government. My opponent makes no response except to say that the plane should be right in the flames. My questions still remains, why is there no picture of the plane anywhere? Nearly 50 cameras from nearby building seized that would all show a plane, and the government has released 0 of the those tapes. Only showing us pictures of explosions. Cross apply my opponents argument from earlier, "Of course special effects are easy."

4. http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...... , my opponent makes no response.

Offense 2: Hijackers

1. No wreckage, vaporized on impact. My opponent makes no comment.

2. Found the passports of four hijackers despite the fact the plane vaporized. My opponent makes no comment.

3. FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers yet days later 6 of them were still known to be alive. My opponent responds with,

"The F.B.I. didn't really know. There were suspects of course, now they are not suspects anymore since they're alive. If the government did all of this, wouldn't they be smart enough to at least blame it on someone who won't just show up alive?"

They're still suspects, the FBI has never revised their list. Page 563 of the 9/11 comission report, note 32, clearly states, "Two of the hijackers (Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari) presented passports in a fraudulent manner that has subsequently been associated with Al Qaeda."

Why has the FBI not revised their list? Because it frankly doesn't matter who flew the plans; they made America believe at the time that the planes were flown by those men. The fact that they weren't, at this point, is of little consequence as America still firmly believes that they were flown by Al Qaeda. Until a great many people stop believing this the government has no need to deal with the issue.

Offense 3: WTC 1, 2, & 7

1. Let me paste the entire argument that my opponent never responded to,

"1. Despite popular belief 3 world trade centers actually fell on September 11th. Official report cites fire melted the 3 however all three fell at nearly the speed of free fall. The only feasible scenario for such would be controlled demolition. No building has ever been known to collapse in this way from fire, yet on Sept. 11th three building collapsed.... Care to explain?"

To add to my point a small amount. The official cause of these collapses was that fire melted the supports to the main beams of each tower. Thus the tower collapsed in a pancake fashion 1 floor hitting the next. Unfortunately this would leave the main beams still intact, which it didn't, and would not allow the towers to fall at the speed of free fall.

In conclusion my opponents final statement is as follows,

"Overall, if the government really did this. Wouldn't they use a real plane? "

No, that would be a bad idea. If it ever gets out that this was all a farce by our government to get us into a war it will be much better if the government can tell the public that planes loaded with civilians never crashed. You seem to be under the idea that our government is incapable of harming our citizens for gain. This is fallacious, as empirical data from the past proves. Operation North Woods is a fine example.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Prescott bush helping WWII is another
http://rinf.com...
Debate Round No. 2
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
The Spanish government clearly states that Al Qaeda did no such thing!
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Well like I said, I think it's too much of a coincidence that 911 days after 9/11, Al-Qaeda attacks Spain, another country meddling around in the Middle East other than America.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Anyways, even if Al Qaeda had committed hundreds of terrorist attacks against other targets after 9/11 it doesn't prove that they committed the one on 9/11.

This would be like me blaming a known mass murderer for killing my mother and then citing the fact that he killed 2 people after my mother as proof.
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
You were right about one thing. NO LINK! You gave me no link for this wikipedia article you speak of, nor do you tell me where it says that there is no link to Al-Qaeda
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Wiki = common knowledge. Its cites the official reports from both governments. You're denying what their governments said. O.o
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Yraelz, so you're saying al-qaeda isn't linked to england or spain either? You just proved how much of a crazy conspiracy theorist you are, im not even gona try to find evidence to prove u wrong, waste of time. You're just in the state of denial like the rest of these conspiracy theorists.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
RE: Alibaba you said,

"Yraelz says some of blond guy's points mean nothing to him...thats good debating."

You have this backwards, I never said such a thing, that was clearly him while dropping my third and fourth point.

RE: Mmadderom

What do you mean the conspiracy theories were ridiculous? I didn't use conspiracy theories at all. My argument doesn't have theories in it, it has sighted evidence from multiple sources. I may have drawn my own conjecture all of once or twice....

Please point me to the part of what I said that was simply ridiculous. -.-
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Hmmm....

Spain:

"The official investigation by the Spanish Judiciary determined the attacks were directed by an al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist cell[2][3][4] although no direct al-Qaeda participation (only "inspiration"[5][6][7]) has been established.[8][9][10] Spanish nationals who sold the explosives to the terrorists were also arrested." -Wiki

"After 21 months of investigation, judge Juan del Olmo ruled Moroccan national Jamal Zougam guilty of physically carrying out the attack, ruling out any ETA intervention. [30] The September 2007 sentence established no known mastermind nor direct al-Qaida link." -Wiki

Conclusion sighted by multiple sources, no known direct link.

England:

Once again this was an attack where they suspected Al Qaeda to begin with but they actually know the four people who did it now. The official report makes no claim of Al Qaeda and in fact the wiki article, one of three times it mentions Al Qaeda, says,

"There has been no report that Khan said anything linking the bombing to Al Qaeda."

So let me clear this up in two words....

NO LINK
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
"My opponent attempts to prove this using Spain and England. However even if he could prove that Osama Bin Laden did such acts to assume that he therefor did 9/11 would be fallacious. It would actually make sense that our government blame a known terrorist. It makes the story more plausible."

Oh yeah Yraelz? So they use a known terrorist's name and then out of pure coincidence Al-Qaeda commits its 2 most major terrorist attacks. And what about the March 11th coincidence? Don't you think there's something special in that date? 911 days after our attack?
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
blond_guyYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
blond_guyYraelzTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
blond_guyYraelzTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
blond_guyYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
blond_guyYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by figoitalia 9 years ago
figoitalia
blond_guyYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Out_and_Proud 9 years ago
Out_and_Proud
blond_guyYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RonPaul08 9 years ago
RonPaul08
blond_guyYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
blond_guyYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
blond_guyYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03