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

9-11 was an inside job.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2013 Category: News
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,895 times Debate No: 40683
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)




I believe that the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01 were NOT an inside job. BOP is on my opponent, who will argue that the government/illuminati/Jews/Freemasons/ Rebublicans/Homer Simpson or whoever they want is resposnsible and that it was an inside job.

Sources must be reliable, as I will check each and every one.
Good luck, and let the debate begin!


Sorry for late respose, I was very busy. I will continue On R2
Debate Round No. 1


I repeat, BOP is on my opponent. This debate will not commence until he posts his arguments.


That means peace in Arabic.

I will, with the aid of God, and with the best of my knowledge, try to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.


Inside Job: An irregular or criminal act perpetrated by or with the connivance of a person occupying a position of trust in respect to the victim of the act.
Conspiracy: the act of conspiring together.
Theory: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events, an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.
Conspiracy Theory: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.[1]

Now many people associate the word conspiracy, with theory. A theory -the active word here-. is an idea, a concept, a hypothesis. Suppose in theory, you wanted to purchase a raffle ticket. If you win the prize, that win is considered theoretical. But if you actually purchase that raffle ticket, you winning the prize is not theoretical, it becomes a possibility. And the more raffle tickets your purchase, the more possible-and eventually probable-the win becomes.

Apply this same concept with conspiracy theories. As long as there is no evidence, it is considered a conspiracy theory. But the moment you have a piece of evidence, no matter what type of evidence it may be, flimsy or circimstantial, it becomes a possibility. The more evidence that is gathered, the more possible-and eventually probable-the conspiracy is.[2]

We know from history that the TRUTH goes through 3 stages:
1) The first stage being denial.
2) The second stage being opposition.
3) The third stage being widespread acceptance.

With the information that I am about to provide, the reader, as well as Con, will belong in one of these 3 categories.

My job here is to provide evidence to prove that the conspiracy theory of 9/11 being an inside job, is actually a conspiracy, and not just a conspiracy theory. It is up to you to decide whether you accept these evidences or not.

So what I am trying to prove within this debate, is simple. That 9/11 was executed by, and/or with the connivance of an unexpected and unknown people who were also among the victims during the attacks.

On 9/11, 4 events occured within an hour and 15 minutes of one another:
1. On 8:45 a.m. Eastern Standard time, American Airlines flight 11 crashed into the north tower of the WTC.
2. 18 minutes later at 9:03, the south tower was struck by United Airlines 175.
3. At 9:43 it was REPORTED that American Airlines flight 757 crashed into the Pentagon.
4. Finally at 10:00, United Airlines flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.[2]

Now let me ask you, doesn't it seem like such a coincidence that all 4 of these events seem married to one another? And that if you find one person involved in one of these events, they may just be involved in all of them?

Since there was no real claim of responsibility for 9/11, isn't it reasonable that WHOEVER perpetrated these attacks, whether an invidivual or a group of agencies, that they would have done everything in their power to cover up, distort, distract, and obfuscate, any evidence that would lead to their discovery? Isn't it reasonable to assume this?

And if you DO happen to find ANYBODY responsible for the distortion, distraction, and obfuscation of information to prevent people from knowing the truth, does this not indicate possible involvement and guilt in regards to the attacks?

According to what I have learned and what seems reasonable, 9/11 could not have been done by an old man and his students, living in a cave on the other side of the planet, to execute one of the most deadly attacks on American soil on the most protected airspace on the globe. It just seems unreasonable.

On top of that, the information and proof that the public, WE, demanded to see, was not provided to us. The information that WAS provided for us, was clearly tampered with. How can the public find the actual truth, without addition and omission?


Now the evidence for 9/11 today cannot be direct and tangible. It was an event that occured over 11 years ago, we cannot revisit this event ever again (unless we build a time machine). So what do we still have today that we can use as proof to prove the reality of 9/11, which may help us lead to the fact that it may have been an inside job, and that it is NOT a conspiracy theory, but a real and true conspiracy?

We have tapes and clips, that were aired on TV, broadcasted live for the world to see. With these video clips, we can discover the truth, and the reality, of what really happened on that terrible day. We also have official photographic evidence, which can be considered in the same category of the video clips.

Let us start with the twin towers.


Twin Towers

I want to start by bringing up the Newton's Laws of physics.

An aluminum plane crashing into the strong steel towers completely contradicts, and negates with, the laws of physics. According to the second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. The acceleration of an object depends directly upon the net force acting upon the object, and inversely upon the mass of the object. As the force acting upon an object is increased, the acceleration of the object is increased. As the mass of an object is increased, the acceleration of the object is decreased.

Now the object that crashed into the WTC's were aluminum planes. If you watch the first 30 seconds of this YouTube video, [4], you can see that an aluminum plane CANNOT ever enter/penetrate/disappear/swim/melt into a steel and concrete struction. This contradicts with the laws of physics, these laws are NOT optional. If I throw a rock into the ocean, the water HAS to make a splash. Just an analogy.

So it is impossible that those planes that you see swimming into the WTC's could have been ACTUAL planes. It is literally impossible that something like this can even happen. What should have happened is what the video showed you. The plane itself should have been completely demolished by the time its tip struck the tower. On top of that, the twin towers were designed to be withstand multiple plane crashes.

"Both technical calculations and testimony from WTC structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11. Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world atthe time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600mph without collapsing." [5]

So as you can see, I think I've made myself clear that the WTC's could not have been brought down by planes alone. Not even planes, as those airliners could never have penetrated the concrete steel structure of the towers.

But apparently, we HAVE video clips that DO portray planes melting into the towers, but the Newton's laws of physics, vs. crummy and eddited looking video clips portrayed on the media, I'm going to have to go with the former. The video clips I will simply prove fake. There were absolutely no planes used on 9/11 at all whatsoever, what you see however, are editted video clips, DEPICTING that a plane had crashed into the towers, when none of that in itself is true. There were no planes used at all, but the multivarious clips and shots that were taken at various angles and heights, that were produced, were all editted and later depicted on live television for the entire world to see who were not present in New York. This is the ONLY logical answer. If you accept the fact that the planes crashed into the world trade center, and have brought them down, you are negating the laws of physics.

Your choice.

This simple video trickery has apparently fooled the whole world. But because all of this was done in a rush, we, with our intellect, can see that there are contradictions that appear within the video clips. What I mean by this is that if you take two separate video clips of two different angles and heights, portraying the flight path of the plane crashing into the towers, you can clearly see the two clips are NOT consistent and do NOT match each other.

Here's a good example that you yourself cannot deny.

See the entire 15 minute video at the top that I linked.

While watching the video, understand what is being shown to you. Do not be ready to deny everything. Take notice towards the end, I am going to go over it.

At 8:30, the video begins to depict the Fox News shot. Take notice of this, the 6 seconds before the plane crashes into the tower, and then the flight path, and then the crash.

At 13:06, the video immediately shows 2 different clips side by side, showing a different angle.

Compare the Fox News shot at 8:30 that you've been seeing, vs the two clips at 13:06.

What does this tell us? It tells us many things, here's a few things I want Con to refute.

1) In the Fox shot, the plane flies straight into the tower, (notice the speed). However in the other two shots, you can see that the plane makes a slight turn and then crashes into the tower.
2) The two clips themselves shown at 13:06, you can see more buildings in front of the towers on the right, but on the left clip, those buildings are not there, and on top of that, the flight paths are INCONSISTENT, yet the explosion happens at the same time.
3) Where did the plane go in the Fox clip when the tape was reversed?

I challenge Con to refute these.

I believe with this, 9/11 can be proven to be an inside job, and a true conspiracy.

[2] Documentary: 911: In Plane Sight
[4] /watch?v=4efisaj4aBc
Debate Round No. 2


PotBelliedGeek forfeited this round.



I am granting Con some more time to refute my arguments from R2 if he happens to find some spare time during the 72 hour time limit.

If not, I may later post some extra arguments anyway to support the side of Pro and prove that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. This debate ain't over.

Debate Round No. 3


As I stated in the comments, I am cancelling all debates due to time constraints. I will issue a challenge to my opponent in roughly a week, and I will debate him on this same subject. My opponent chose one of the most inherently ignorant and witless arguments to defend, that there were no planes involved on 9-11. I feel insulted at the absurdity of this claim, and I look forward to completing this debate at a later time.


IslamAhmadiyya forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Cancelled, as stated. Do not vote on this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Freddyfazbear 3 years ago
First what a ridiculous statement!!! Gas prices were already rising! Its called desert storm and previous conflicts!
Posted by PotBelliedGeek 4 years ago
This debate has been cancelled. Do not vote on this debate. I am not forfeiting this debate, I am delaying it.
Posted by Nulosaur 4 years ago
Con, the fact that you are constrained by time does not mean that we shouldn't vote on this debate. Pro has clearly won this due to your numerous FF's and poor conduct.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 4 years ago

Should have thought of that before you even created this debate.

There's still two rounds left, I'll wait for Con in case he decides to post more arguments. If I feel like it, I'll post some more arguments anyway for the side of Pro and rebut some arguments that Con could have possibly brought to light.

Posted by PotBelliedGeek 4 years ago
I apologize, but I am unable complete this debate. Final exams are next week, and I must devote all of my time to study. I will mention that my opponent chose most irrational of all 9/11 conspiracy theories to try and prove. It would have been a fun debate, as his argument is completely witless and absolutely ignorant of basic physics. I will reinstate the challenge as soon as exams are over and I look forward to mopping the floor with this debate.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 4 years ago

Thanks, just doin' my job to bring the truth to light. I'm glad there's still open minded people out there that question things at the least, rather than deny deny deny.
Posted by TheBajanConnection 4 years ago
I must say IslamAhmadiyya, I never thought it was an inside job but your debate has made me question things. Wow...
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 4 years ago

Your ignorance is quite astounding. For one thing, I never called myself a 'truther', you have however blatantly labeled me as one, and on top of that, you are using stereotypes to back up your position.

The reality is, I am on the side of the truth, no matter how crazy it may sound to you, others, and the rest of the world, even myself. The truth is always distinct and easily understood when compared with falsehood. Falsehood is filled with doubts and giant leaps of faith. Falsehood is something that vanishes quickly, and in the end, the truth prevails.

You labeling me as a truther and and putting words in my mouth does not change the reality and what is actually true. Anyone who has a brain and an average IQ will be able to understand the proofs and evidences that are brought up. It is however sad that so many of our own folks are brainwashed and influenced by whatever the television portrays and depicts to the world.

If you really are that smart, then investigate the truth for yourself instead of believing what your eyes tell you.

Now to actually get into topic, can you PROVE to me planes actually struck the towers, or the pentagon, or in the forests of Shanksville? Can you PROVE this, not say, "Oh I see it on the news, so it must be there."

Can you actually prove those planes were there? Of course not, you weren't there, neither was I. But one thing for sure, we certainly have videos and images, clips that contradict each other from one clip to another. This is all the proof, and there's much more, that simply proves no planes ever existed.

On top of that, the laws of physics being violated, you must hate science to believe that aluminum objects can swim through steel structures.

So one thing for sure, I'd rather be called a 'truther' than a 'falsifier.'

And THAT is actually a word, something that you defend so greatly, within bias, without evidence.
Posted by ararmer1919 4 years ago
It's just, being a truther is probably one of the sadist things on the planet and your kind are the grandest example of how low the human brain can go bit at least the moderate truthers, the ones who talk about nano thermite and what not, have crazy rtard theories that are at least believable. Your specific group on the other hand have such outrageous theories it stands on insanity. I mean come on? Iv even heard the ones were the planes were holographic projections. Let me guess you also believe in the evil American deathray in outer space?
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 4 years ago

I honestly can say the exact same thing to you as well.

"A definite-planes truther. This is amazing!!! I always love the ignorance and blindness of these kinds of people."
No votes have been placed for this debate.