The Instigator
KILLUMINATI
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

9/11 was an inside job

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Rational_Thinker9119
Started: 4/7/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,500 times Debate No: 22644
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)

 

KILLUMINATI

Pro

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
I will be arguing that 9/11 was an inside job

Ok I'm going to let my opponent go first

-my opponent's case
-my rebuttals
-their questions
-my answers and questions
-their answers
-my final rebuttals and closing
-their closing
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

The burden of proof is on my opponent to show that 911 was an inside job, my burden is to knock down the reasoning for why 911 was an inside job. However, since I have been given the opportunity to go first, I will take the liberty of rebutting some of the common Truther claims.

Explosions:

Many people will claim that because there was explosions heard and seen coming from inside the Towers, that this supports the hypothesis that the WTC's were taken down in controlled demolition.


The problem with this claim, is that when buildings undergo massive fires of that nature then explosions are going to be a given, especially considering the contents of the WTC.

Explosions as Firefighters Tackle Fire at Falmouth Docks:

"Then there was some massive, massive explosions and we saw a big raging fire on top of these canisters," he told the BBC [1]

Winter Haven Fire Claims 3 Homes:

"We ran out of water, we waited for more water. Then started attacking the explosions... We have multiple explosions..." [2]


Firefighters battle three-alarm fire involving explosions:

"As more firefighters responded to the fire, more callers reported hearing explosions"


The above examples are meant to demonstrate how common it is to hear explosions during building fires.

Thousands of hi-voltage transformers probably went off like grenades in the Towers, and there was explosive material throughout the buildings -- propane & LPG tanks for restaurants & snack bars; O2 & NO3 tanks in medical/dental offices, oxyacetylene tanks in the maint. shops, and tens of thousands of gallons of diesel in generators.

If there weren't explosions heard that day, that would be weird. The fact that there were, in no way shape or form leads credence to the idea that a controlled demolition took place on the towers that day.

Explosions heard during large fires are the norm.

Norad:

Many Truthers claim that it took Norad too long to get to the WTC buildings, and this is suspicious. They believe this lends credence to the idea that the government planned the whole thing, well this isn't exactly true.

Fact: In the entire decade prior to 911, NORAD intercepted only one plane inside the United States. It took a whole 76 minutes. On 911, the longest that any of the hijacked planes was in the air was 43 minutes. One hit it's target just 16 minutes after being hijacked. [3]

NEADS learned at 8:37am that flight 11 was hijacked. Just one minute later, two fighter pilots at Otis ANGB in Massachusetts were ordered to ready their F-15's. Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower 8 minutes later at 8:46am

The F-15's launched at 8:52am and (breaking protocol) flew at supersonic speeds, but the trip to NYC still took 15 minutes. By this time, Flight 175 had already struck the South Tower at 9:03am

The US Government would have had to have had Superman pilots in all reality to make it there on time, there is nothing suspicious or odd about how long it took Norad to reach the Towers.

Lack of debris at The Pentagon:

A lack of debris found at The Pentagon site, leads credence to the idea of an inside job to many people.

The problem is when a plane hits re-enforced concrete 500 miles per hour, the concrete will rip the plane to shreds. It is not surprising that there weren't large pieces of debris found at The Pentagon.

The video attached shows what happens to a plane in this situation (the plane in the video is even more strong than the one that hit The Pentagon)



Osama tape:

Many believe that the video of Osama in the video of him discussing his involvement in 911, didn't actually contain the real Osama in it. This apparently leads credence to the idea that The US was actually responsible for 911.

The problem is it was the real Osama. The video quality in the video was horrible, but the picture included in my sources section [4] shows that it was still the real Osama.


Conclusion:

My opponent has the burden of proof so I really didn't know what to say this round. Regardless, I knocked down 4 common truther claims to kick this debate off. Hopefully my opponent brings something interesting to the table.

Sources:

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[2]http://www.kyma.com...
[3]http://www.911myths.com...
[4]http://i931.photobucket.com...

Debate Round No. 1
KILLUMINATI

Pro

Thx to my opponent for accepting this debate......

Before I begin, I would like to state that theorizing about what happened on 911 when your not given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so is normal.As is suspecting that the reason these answers arent being given is sinister in nature.3,000 innocent people were murdered I will never forget that morning as I am sure you will not forget.After years of fog, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 911 attacks it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why.

I dont need to come up with a theory because facts speak for themselves. I am going to do my very best to prove my point.

Fact #1
The Bush Administration came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq.This is so heavily documented that Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asked Bush about it. He denied it of course and used 911 as the justification for what he and his administration have done.Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill said that Saddam was topic *A* ten days after the inauguration at the very first National Security Council meeting and eight months before 911.
Fact #2
Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. During his tenure there he gave a speech at the Institute of Petroleum that said,while many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities the Middle East(ME) with two thirds of the worlds oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies even though companies are anxious for greater access there progress continues to be slow.On 10/11/2005 it was reported that the shares that Cheney claimed he no longer had with Halliburton rose 3281% in one year.In late 2010 Halliburton was kind enough to pay $250Million to get the government of the Nigeria to drop bribery charges against the former corporate CEO and other Halliburton employees and operatives.
Fact #3
There are indications that military action in Afghanistan was planned before 911. On 3/7/2001 the New York Times reports that Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley chairs an informal meeting to discuss Al-Qaeda. The approach is two-pronged and included a crisis warning effort to deal with immediate threats and longer range planning by senior officials to put into place a comprehensive strategy to eradicate Al-Qaeda.Bush had plans for the invasion of Afghanistan on his desk on 9/9/2001.They outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the 911 attacks.The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans off the shelf.
Fact #4
On the morning of 911 there were several military exercises taking place some of which mirrored the events taking place that day.A lot of different people didn't know whether or not the hijackings were real world or exercise.According to Richard Clarke on the morning of 911 at around 9:28am he says to Gen. Richard Myers during a video teleconference "I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS.How many?Where?" Myers who is at the Pentagon, replies its, "NOT A PRETTY PICTURE, DICK WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF VIGILANT WARRIOR A NORAD EXERCISE but Otis has launched two birds toward New York.Langley is trying to get two up now toward Washington. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert."The 911 Report only mentioned one of these exercises Vigilant Guardian and in a footnote in the back of the book.
Fact #5
On the day of 911 Rumsfeld started planning the Iraq War.DoD Staffer Stephen Cambone took down several notes with regards to what Rumsfeld was saying."Best info fas judge whether good enough to hit Saddam Hussein(SH) at same time not only Osama Bin Laden(OBL)"...."Go massive…Sweep it all up.Things related and not."....."Hard to get a good case." Like Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice started planning for the Iraq War within hours of the 911 attacks.Sir Christopher Meyer, "a former British ambassador to the United States says then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice talked to him about Iraq and Saddam Hussein hours after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001."Also, "George Bush tried to make a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida in a conversation with Tony Blair three days after the 911 attacks, according to Blair's foreign policy adviser of the time."
Fact #6
Between 9:30pm and 10:00pm on 911 Bush says, "this is a great opportunity.We have to think of this as an opportunity."He does so again during his State Of The Union speech on 1/29/2002.Karl Rove said "sometimes history sends you things and 911 came our way."
http://911truthnews.com...

There are plenty more facts besides these six(which I will show in later rounds) that lead up to the day changed America as we knew it.This is a start though.

Explosions:
As my opponent stated "Explosions heard during large fires are the norm. The fact that there were in no way shape or form leads credence to the idea that a controlled demolition took place on the towers that day." Really? But that does not rule it out.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org...
8:46:40 Flight 11 crashes at roughly 466 mph between floors 93 and 99
9:03:02 Flight 175 crashes at about 590 mph banked between floors 77 and 85
9:59:01 The South Tower of the World Trade Center begins to collapse, 55 minutes and 59 seconds after the impact of Flight 175
10:28:25 The North Tower of the World Trade Center begins to collapse 1 hour, 41 minutes and 45 seconds after the impact of Flight 11
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Now on the night of February 12, 2005 a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain a 32story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete.At its peak the fire which burned for a day completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building.My point is that this building burned for a full day and did not collapse.But the WTC burned for 1hour45minutes and completly collapsed.

Norad:
As my opponent stated "there is nothing suspicious or odd about how long it took Norad to reach the Towers."
I agree plus with the confusion that morning and not knowing what was happening they were not going to shoot a civilian aircraft out of the sky.

Lack of debris at The Pentagon:
My opponent stated "The problem is when a plane hits re-enforced concrete 500 miles per hour the concrete will rip the plane to shreds.It is not surprising that there weren't large pieces of debris found at The Pentagon."

Maybe so I do not know but do you think that even an advanced military pilot would of been capable of flying a Boeing 757 only a few of feet above the ground weaving and dodging objects while flying at over 500 MPH?

"I am still to this day amazed that he could of flown into the Pentagon, he could not fly at all" - Staff Member from Arizona Flight School
"It was like dumb and dumber, I mean they were clueless, it was clear to me they were not going to make it as pilots" - Rick Garza Flight Instructor
"I could not believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had" - Peggy Chevrette Arizona Flight School Manager

Osama tape:
My opponent stated "The problem is it was the real Osama.The video quality in the video was horrible, but the picture included in my sources section shows that it was still the real Osama."
What a coincidence that the 911 Bin Laden tape was such poor quality you cant see it but all the others can be seen.

Bin Laden didnt take responsibility for the attacks there is no way he could of done it all by himself just for the record.
"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."
-Bin Laden

Conclusion: As a layman I can't accept the fact that terrorist hijacked 4 planes and the crashed them all alone.My argument is that they were helped in the 911 attacks by the U.S. government.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I'm not going to lie, my opponent's arguments for why 911 was an inside job are absolutely horrible. I'm going to explain why:

"After years of fog, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 911 attacks it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why."

Or maybe they US government didn't what to look like idiots because they could have prevented it if they were smarter, so they lied to make the attacks seem unavoidable. The 911 attacks being an inside job is based on the assumption that the US government was clever enough to pull it off.

Fact #1

"The Bush Administration came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq.This is so heavily documented that Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asked Bush about it. He denied it of course and used 911 as the justification for what he and his administration have done."

If a president wants to go to war, he can. Bush wouldn't have needed to orchestrate 911 in order to invade Iraq, that's absurd. Bush could have said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction if 911 never happened, and the war still would have happened. The real truth is that when Bush found out Saddam had nothing to do with 911, he was upset because he wanted Saddam, so he chose to go after him anyway. Saying it's logical for Bush to orchestrate 911 to go to war would be like saying it's logical to shoot your own self in the foot for an ice cream. If the ice cream can be obtained without shooting yourself in the foot, this method would be preferable.

Fact #2

Nothing about fact 2 indicates an inside job. Even if Cheney made money off of oil that doesn't mean 911 was done by the US government. This is a non-sequitur.

Fact #3

"There are indications that military action in Afghanistan was planned before 911. On 3/7/2001 the New York Times reports that Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley chairs an informal meeting to discuss Al-Qaeda."

Yes, Al-Queda planned to attack the US years before 911. The fact is the government didn't know how strong they were or what exactly their plan of attack would be, so there really was no way to defend against the attacks. If I hear that someone wants to beat me up for a couple years before it happens, does that mean him beating me up was an "inside job"? My opponent's logic isn't adding up here...

Fact #4

"On the morning of 911 there were several military exercises taking place some of which mirrored the events taking place that day.A lot of different people didn't know whether or not the hijackings were real world or exercise"

If my opponent is talking about The Pentagon Mass Casualty project (codenamed Pentagon Mascal), then this was a contingency exercise that was held in the Office of the Secretary of Defense conference room between October 24 and October 26, 2000 (not on the morning of 911). The exercise required emergency response teams, members of the defense protective services, and U.S. government officials to conduct emergency simulations in preparation for a possible plane crash into The Pentagon. The plane crash didn't involve a terrorist intentionally using the plan as a missile though. There is nothing about this that indicates an inside job, my opponent is simply trying to connect dots that are not there.

Fact #5

"On the day of 911 Rumsfeld started planning the Iraq War."

Once more, the war in Iraq easily could have been justified without 911 occurring. There is no logical reason to think Bush and his administration:

a) Had the witts to pull off an attack of this nature

or

b) Couldn't have gotten what they wanted accomplished without 911 occurring

Fact #6

"Between 9:30pm and 10:00pm on 911 Bush says, "this is a great opportunity.We have to think of this as an opportunity."He does so again during his State Of The Union speech on 1/29/2002.Karl Rove said "sometimes history sends you things and 911 came our way.""

How does this tie into 911 being an inside job exactly?

Regarding my opponent's arguments

My opponent is either mentioning facts that are not true, or facts that have no link to 911 being an inside job and are just mentioned (I don't know for what reason). Pro has presented no good argument for why 911 was an inside job.


Explosions

"As my opponent stated "Explosions heard during large fires are the norm. The fact that there were in no way shape or form leads credence to the idea that a controlled demolition took place on the towers that day." Really? But that does not rule it out."

No it doesn't rule it out, all it does is take away the reason to believe it.

If the belief is "explosions heard that day were not normal, there must have been a controlled demolition" then that line of reasoning fails, because explosions heard during large building fires are the norm.

What rules out a controlled demolition is people hearing an explosion here or there at different times without the building collapsing right after. When a controlled demolition is carried out, it is a bunch of loud bangs one right after eachother/ at once with the building falling right after.

People's reports of explosions are more consistent with fire than controlled demolitions

"Now on the night of February 12, 2005 a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain a 32story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete.At its peak the fire which burned for a day completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building.My point is that this building burned for a full day and did not collapse.But the WTC burned for 1hour45minutes and completly collapsed."

1. The building in Madrid was a completely different type of building, the WTC's had no concrete cores.

2. The building in Madrid was not hit with the kinetic energy of a huge jetliner slamming into it at 500mph, so same damage was not inflicted.

Since my opponent's argument is an apples and oranges argument it can be dismissed. Regardless, at 1:37 of the video attached you can see a building collapse in the same fashion as Building 7 due to fires alone. There is absolutely no reason to think that anything on 911 couldn't have happened without it being an inside job.

Norad:

My opponent concedes my point.

The Pentagon:

"Maybe so I do not know but do you think that even an advanced military pilot would of been capable of flying a Boeing 757 only a few of feet above the ground weaving and dodging objects while flying at over 500 MPH?"

Yes I do think so. The Pentagon-Dutch-Simulator simulated the maneuver of the Plane, it wasn't as difficult as some people lead on.

Osama Tape:

"What a coincidence that the 911 Bin Laden tape was such poor quality you cant see it but all the others can be seen."

Can't see what? You can clearly see it's Osama in that tape.

"Bin Laden didnt take responsibility for the attacks there is no way he could of done it all by himself just for the record.

"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."

-Bin Laden"

No he didn't do it all by himself, he funded it. The 19 hi-jackers obviously helped him, so I agree he couldn't do it all by himself. This doesn't mean 911 was an inside job though. Also, that statement came out right after 911 happened (of course he would deny it). Once the evidence started to pile up against him though, he had no choice but to admit the truth that he did it.

"We decided to destroy towers in America...God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind." - Osama Bin Laden[1]

Conclusion:

The arguments for why 911 was an inside job are certainly not convincing and cannot stand up against more convincing rebuttal. My objections to common Truther claims did not go logically refuted, therefore, I have the upper hand in this debate.

Source(s):

[1] http://www.pbs.org...
Debate Round No. 2
KILLUMINATI

Pro

My opponent would like you to believe 19 hijackers directed by Bin Laden took over 4 Commercial Jets with box cutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD). Hit 75% of their targets. In turn, World Trade Towers 1,2 & 7 collapsed due to structural failure through fire in a "pancake" fashion, while the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane that crashed in Shanksville.The 911 Commission found that there were no warnings for this act of Terrorism, while multiple government failures prevented adequate defense." out smarted the CIA, FBI, NSA, FAA, The Pentagon, and our Multi Trillion Dollar Military by crashing 4 planes without any intervention.
Really?

FACT1:
MY OPP said"If a president wants to go to war, he can. Bush wouldn't have needed to orchestrate 911"

I never said he did I said he"used 911 as the justification for what he and his administration had done."
***Former Secretary of Treasury Paul ONeill said that Saddam was topic"A" According to O'Neill, "it was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.'"
***Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence said there was no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks nor that he was aiding Al Qaeda.Yet the White House was encouraging a false impression as it seeked to maintain US support for a war against Iraq and demonstrated seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"The administration succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection 911 and Hussein," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

**Fact**Polling data had shown that right after 911 when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks only 3% mentioned Iraq.But by January 2003 attitudes had been transformed 44% of Americans reported that either most or some of the 911 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.

FACT2:
OPP said"Nothing about fact 2 indicates an inside job. Even if Cheney made money off it"
***Dick Cheney told a national television audience "since I left Halliburton to become vice president I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests," Cheney said. "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years." Even at the time, the claim wasn't true.

A non-partisan congressional report requested by Sen. Frank Lautenberg showed that Cheney still had substantial financial interests in Halliburton including lucrative deferred compensation and more than 433,000 stock options. But instead of acknowledging the ties divesting himself from his former company Cheney denied everything.

Innocent men have no reason to lie so why did he?

FACT3:
OPP said"Yes, Al-Queda planned to attack the US years before 911. The fact is the government didn't know how strong they were or what exactly their plan of attack would be"

*Initially, the CIA Director had warned congress shortly before 9/11 "that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected"

*Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused.

*U.S. received warnings from numerous foreign intelligence services about planned attacks, many of them quite detailed. Indeed, America's closest ally apparently tracked the hijackers' every movement prior to the attacks, and may have sent agents to film the attack on the World Trade Centers.

*According to the New York Times, "Foreign intelligence service agents had infiltrated Bin Laden's network and were carefully tracking its moves", and in January 2001 the French intelligence services gave a report to the CIA entitled "Plan to hijack an aircraft by Islamic radicals".

*There were extraordinarily high terrorist attack threat levels in the summer of 2001, involving threats of attack within the U.S., and the U.S. government knew there were Al-Qaeda cells within the U.S.

*An employee who worked in the Twin Towers stated "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on"

*Suffice it to say goverment knew about 911

FACT4:
Morning of 911 five war games and terror drills were being conducted.Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony -- see transcript here: http://www.fromthewilderness.com...

Which scenario is more likely from a strictly logistical perspective:
(1) An outsider sitting in a cave defeating the air defense system of the sole military superpower or
(2) Someone like Cheney who on 911 apparently had full control over all defense war game and counter terrorism powers rigging and gaming the system?
**Remember that for the attacks to have succeeded it was necessary that actions be taken in the middle of the war games and the actual attacks which would thwart the normal military response. For example Cheney watched flight 77 approach the Pentagon from many miles out but instructed the military to do nothing(as shown in the testimony linked above). . Could Bin Laden have done that alone?
**It is much more likely that Cheney and/or other U.S. government and military officials pulled the 911 trigger than that Bin Laden did it. At the very least they took affirmative steps to guarantee that the hijackers attacks succeeded.

FACT5:
OPP said:"Once more, the war in Iraq easily could have been justified without 911 occurring."

To justify the war Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with "continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and who else aided the attacks that occurred on 911"
Vice President Cheney cited "evidence" cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was "pretty well confirmed" that Iraq had contacts with 911 hijackers.

Bush never stated then as he did later that Iraq had "nothing" to do with 911.

*Suffice it to say again goverment knew about 911

FACT6:
OPP asked How does this tie into 911 being an inside job exactly?
Read the quotes for fact6

Explosions:
OPP"What rules out a controlled demolition is people hearing an explosion here or there at different times without the building collapsing right after."

I am sure while runing for their lives they listened to explosions.

The 10,000+ page NIST report admits that all of the jet fuel burned off within 15 minutes. The remaining fires were fuelled by office furniture and wall boards. it also admits that only the worst case estimate in their simulation would result in any collapse.Why does the NIST report not explain what caused the rest of the towers to peel apart after the top started to collapse? They just refer to it as 'global colapse' with no explanation how that occurred in the undamaged sections.

The Pentagon:
"The Pentagon-Dutch-Simulator simulated the maneuver of the Plane.It wasn't as difficult as some people lead on"
How convenient. Just another simple explanation. If Hani Hanjour was incompetent at flying a single engine prop plane then how are we to believe he maneuvered a commercial airliner making a 270 deg turn at 400 mph all while dropping 7,000 feet in two minutes and hitting the Pentagon inches above the lawn? Many experienced pilots say with luck it would take several tries to accomplish such a feat. Oh I forgot the simulator.

Is it all coincidence ?
http://www.nc911truth.org...

My opponent wants us to believe 19 goat farmers and a man in a cave pulled off 911. All alone with box cutters am I missing something I think not.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rebutting my opponent's claims


1. My opponent already conceded that NORAD not being able to make it on time was reasonable, now he is claiming that the terrorists evading NORAD is unreasonable. I already provided the timeline regarding what time the towers were hit and how long it look NORAD to respond. The time it took NORAD to get pilots in the air it was too late, being human doesn't indicate an inside job.

2. There is no reason why a terrorist attack where only 75% of the targets get hit is unreasonable. Osama Bin Laden was a rich architect, and the people who were behind him were not idiots and had much wealth. It's absurd to think Osama's funding of this project and the years of planning would result in some massive failure due to the Bush Administration and their wit, and that "911 was an inside job". My opponent's logic just doesn't add up. Pro also seems to forget that Bush was obsessed with missile defense before 911, an attack using planes from the inside the country itself was a strategy used by Osama and it worked.

3. All three towers fell in a progressive collapse, I'm not sure if the pancake theory is still valid or not.

4. I already provided a video showing what happens what a plane hits re-enforced concrete at 500mph. That wasn't an argument, that was solid proof that there is no reason why anyone should expect any large pieces of debris. Therefore, Pros's argument fails.

Fact 1:

Lets say I granted the claims that the government tried to tie 911 to Saddam strictly for the sake of argument, all you would be demonstrating is that the Bush Administration took advantage of a bad situation. This fits better with what I claimed regarding Bush being upset that Saddam had nothing to do with it, so he went after him anyway.

"Polling data had shown that right after 911 when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks only 3% mentioned Iraq.But by January 2003 attitudes had been transformed 44% of Americans reported that either most or some of the 911 hijackers were Iraqi citizens."

This has nothing to do with 911 being an inside job though, this only shows that the idea grew somehow that Iraq had something to do with 911. Claiming that indicates 911 wasn't done by Al Quaeda and was orchistrated by the US government does not follow from your premise.

Fact 2

"Innocent men have no reason to lie so why did he?"

It makes politicians look bad to be making money on the side of their regular government work, so he didn't want to acknowledge it. Claiming this somehow leads to the conclusion that 911 was in inside job is false.

Fact 3


"*An employee who worked in the Twin Towers stated "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on""

I'm skeptical of this particular claim (expecially without a source). It's true that the US government had warnings that Al-Queda was going to attack the US but the exact locations were not known.

It's a known fact that Bush's numbers went down after 911, and the economy went down the tubes (less money being sucked from the tax payers). 911 made bush like an idiot because he didn't consciously let it happen, he just didn't take it seriously enough. Pro so far, has presented no good reasons for why 911 was an inside job.

Fact 4

"Which scenario is more likely from a strictly logistical perspective:
(1) An outsider sitting in a cave defeating the air defense system of the sole military superpower or
(2) Someone like Cheney who on 911 apparently had full control over all defense war game and counter terrorism powers rigging and gaming the system?"

War games are a military exercise carried out to test or improve tactical expertise using simulations and don't equate to "rigging and gaming" actual military combaty systems.

"**It is much more likely that Cheney and/or other U.S. government and military officials pulled the 911 trigger than that Bin Laden did it. At the very least they took affirmative steps to guarantee that the hijackers attacks succeeded."

You are confusing criminal negligence and careless neglet. Bush and his administration was most likely focused on Saddam and it caused Bush to let Osama and his attacks slip through his fingers.


Fact 5


"Bush never stated then as he did later that Iraq had "nothing" to do with 911.

*Suffice it to say again goverment knew about 911"

The government knew that Al-Queda was planning to attack them yes, but they didn't have specific warnings of actual targets. Also if Bush lied to tie Iraq to Osama'd doing, then why not say Saddam did it? Think about it, if all this was to get Saddam,invade Iraq, and the US government planned the whole thing anyway then why not just say Saddam did it instead of Osama? 911 was an attack that was a thorn in Bush's side, I dont doubt he tried to make the best of it, that doesn't mean he carried it out.


Fact 6

"I am sure while runing for their lives they listened to explosions."

Reports of explosions took place, what they described sounded like random lone shark explosions. In some videos of the collapses you can hear the clear audio, there are no explosions heard directly before the towers fell. These do not fall in line with classic controlled demolitions.

"The 10,000+ page NIST report admits that all of the jet fuel burned off within 15 minutes."

Not all the fuel was used in the fire ball. Eye witnesses actually claim that jet fuel was creating curtains of fire as it poured down from the impact zone. The problem for the conspiracy theorist is the jet fuel only started the fires. NIST never said that it was the jet fuel alone that caused the collaspe.[1]

"The remaining fires were fuelled by office furniture and wall boards. it also admits that only the worst case estimate in their simulation would result in any collapse."

The top video video I included this round shows how fast office fires can spread and how deadly they can really be.

"Why does the NIST report not explain what caused the rest of the towers to peel apart after the top started to collapse? They just refer to it as 'global colapse' with no explanation how that occurred in the undamaged sections."

I already provided a video in my last round showing how a building collapsed similar to the ones on 911 due to fire alone, global collapses are not some phenomenon therefore there is nothing to be "suspicious" about. My opponent is trying to connect dots that are simply not there.

"The Pentagon:
"The Pentagon-Dutch-Simulator simulated the maneuver of the Plane.It wasn't as difficult as some people lead on"
How convenient. Just another simple explanation."

The law of Parsinomy states that the simplest explanation is usually correct. Once more, the burden is on you to show why all these things you mention lead to the conclusion that 911 was in inside job. You have not done so.

"Is it all coincidence ?"

What to you mean by "all"? You haven't established that your claims indicate an inside job, let alone there being a real pattern you believe you are seeing in this.

"My opponent wants us to believe 19 goat farmers and a man in a cave pulled off 911. All alone with box cutters am I missing something I think not."

Osama Bin Laden was a member of a huge wealthy family and an architect himself. I think your comment about goat farmers wasn't logically warrented because it paints a picture of Osama which was simply not true. There was no reason to think he couldn't have pulled off 911.[2]

Conclusion

All of my opponent's claims are resting on shaky grounds and do not provide a very presenting case in favor if 911 being an inside job. Pro didn't tie his argument together very well and I refuted all of his claims with evidence to back it up many of the refutations. I believe I have met my burden while my opponent has not..

Sources

[1] http://www.debunking911.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...




Debate Round No. 3
KILLUMINATI

Pro

Norad:I said"I agree plus with the confusion that morning and not knowing what was happening they were not going to shoot a civilian aircraft out of the sky."

(1)It is standard operating procedure to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost.

Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times.In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times.

There are several elements involved in domestic air defense. The air traffic control system continuously monitors air traffic and notifies

NORAD of any deviations of any aircraft from their flight-paths or loss of radio contact. NORAD monitors air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. It has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble. Routine interception procedures were not followed on 911.



It was just another coincidence that standard operating procedure was not followed on that particular morning.





(2)Bin Laden's initial reaction to 911 was not to take credit for the crime at all. In fact, he continually denied any involvement in 911 up until the 'confession' video was mysteriously presented. Almost no one in the U.S. has read Bin Laden's first statement in response to 911, which so conflicts the later 'confession'. Here it is, from September 17, 2001:

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent

attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have

been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders'

rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."




The reason that this is so important is that lying is an unforgivable sin in Islam that it is greatly punishable. These people are driven by thier religious beliefs so if Bin Laden had lied he would have faced punishment by Allah as strange as it sounds to us this is how these people think.

In fact, Bin Laden, in a Sept. 28, 2001, interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, is reported to have said:



“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.”



It is clear Bin Laden was not behind 911.



Facts:

(1)The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable."Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767."

(2) The history of high-rise building fires provides no case histories of buildings collapsing due to steel beams melting from a fire.



(3) The collapse of both towers were both perfectly symmetrical and methodical. The straight down collapse was identical in appearance to a well engineered, controlled implosion. A demolition company could not have done it better. Now that we know that all one has to do to bring a tall building straight down is set a fuel fire in it, the well trained experts who work for demolition

companies should all be out of a job by now.



All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up

(1) Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.

(2)US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).

(3) Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.

(4)Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.



Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:

(1)The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.

(2)The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash."

(3)The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance."



The Stonewall

(1)Colin Powell promised a "white paper" from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.

(2)Bush and Cheney pressured the leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 911 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.

(3)The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 911 Commission.


Conclusion:
911 happened 11 years ago if you asked me in 2006 was it an inside job I would have said no as would most of American citizens. Today it is a different story none of it adds up to 19 men and Bin Laden pulling off these attacks without any help is absurd think about it.




9/11 - Pure Coincidence?




Rational_Thinker9119

Con



I thank my opponent for this interesting debate, unfortunately it's clear why this entire debate is a failure for Pro. My opponent seems to just be listing "facts" instead of actually trying to tie together all these pieces of information into a valid argument for 911 being an inside job. In this round, I'm going to rebut all of my opponent final objections and hopefully put this nail in this coffin regarding this issue.

NORAD

"Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times.In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times."

This doesn't mean any planes were actually intercepted.

"Routine interception procedures were not followed on 911."

Yes they were, and they were extremely fast considering the confusion that day. Either my opponent hasn't done the proper research on this subject or is simply intellectually dishonest. Regardless, I already presented the facts that should have put this issue to rest a few rounds ago but if it must be done, I will repeat myself.

In the entire decade prior to 911, NORAD intercepted only one plane inside the United States. It took a whole 76 minutes. On 911, the longest that any of the hijacked planes was in the air was 43 minutes. One hit it's target just 16 minutes after being hijacked.[1]

If you also review the timeline I provided in round one, you will see that there was absolutely nothing suspicious about NORAD's response to 911 and it should have been expected.

Osama Bin Laden


My opponent simply quoted Bin Laden saying he didn't do it, that doesn't mean he didn't do it. If that logic is valid, then I can say Bin Laden did do it because he also said this:

"We decided to destroy towers in America...God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind." - Osama Bin Laden

My opponent is basically saying that it's suspicious for a criminal to deny he did a crime, therefore, the victim actually committed the crime on themselves. This of course, is absurd.

"The reason that this is so important is that lying is an unforgivable sin in Islam that it is greatly punishable."

So the logic here, is that it's more likely that 911 was an inside job rather than Osama Bin Laden being a bad Mulsim? It's a shame you didn't have a chance to explain yourself further on this point.

“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle” - Osama Bin Laden

My opponent quotes a criminal denying he did a crime like it's somehow out of the norm. He says he doesn't kill women or children in the quote above, but here he says this:

"We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets" - Osama Bin Laden [2]

It's clear Osama was a liar.


The only thing I found suspicious about 911 was the fact that the government kept saying the US was attacked because of their "freedom" but in reality, Osama made clear it was because of US's ties with the Jews (Israel) and all the the people they have killed in the Middle East prior. If there was a cover up, it was probably to cover up the reason for 911 (it makes the US and Israel look bad), however that doesn't mean it was an inside job by any stretch of the imagination, and there has been no argument in this debate which could be interpreted as a valid implication of such and it's clear Osama had motive.

"It is clear Bin Laden was not behind 911."

This should have been demonstrated during one of your rounds I'm afraid. Quoting a murderer denying he committed murders, isn't evidence that the murderer didn't commit murders. Think about how empty prisons would be if that logic was valid...

Facts:

(1) My opponent claims that the WTC's were designed to handle the impact of a 707 hitting it, and the 707 has almost the same fuel capacity. The problem is that the buildings were designed to handle the impact of a 707 low on fuel, coming back and travelling slow in the fog. When it's foggy planes have been known to crash into sky scrapers so this is what the towers were designed to take. They were not designed to take a fully loaded 767 slamming into it at 500mph. Therefore, my opponent's argument fails.

(2) . The steal didn't have to melt, just weaken (which is what happened)

. The towers were not like most other steel framed structures. They were based upon a solid grid of girders, the result was structures of immense strength, but they all had the same drawback. There were too many columns in those types of buildings and it was better for business to have less columns for support to gain more available rent space. Inner columns would be moved to the outside in WTC's structure, with only a core in the middle. Most of the buildings load would be transferred to outer walls, this was never done. Tube in Tube designs are are money saver, but a life risker. The wind resistance was good though, the perimeter columns would actually bend in the wind.

. I already provided a video in Round 2 showing how a collapse of a steel framed structure can occur just from fire. My opponent's claims simply just don't stand up to the facts about reality.

(3) The video I provided in Round 2 conclusively proves that a building can come down almost symmetrical from office fires alone. Nothing on 911 indicated a controlled demolition took place, there is a paper written by some controlled demolition experts who explain why there was no controlled demolition of the Twin Towers on 911 that I will include in the sources section of my argument [3].

Implications of Controlled Demolition paper

The towers did not look like a controlled demolition to a demolition expert who knows what he's talking about. Controlled demolition of buildings knock them out at the base then the tower comes down, yet videos of the collapses clearly show each building beginning to fail at precisely the point where the respective planes struck. There was no evidence of explosions going off at the times they should have if a controlled demolition takes place. Basically, the theories about controlled demolitions are only pushed by people who don't know what they are talking about and have no expertise on explosives.


All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up

I question the validity of these claims, regardless I already conceded that it could be likely they covered up the real reason 911 happened (US ties with Israel, death of Middle Eastern people at the hands of the US and Israel) and lied about many things. However, to claim that the US government actually carried out the attacks themselves is a giant leap not supported by any evidence.

Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:

The answer I gave to "All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up" applies to this as well.

The Stonewall

(1) So because somebody didn't provide the expected White Paper, this is somehow supposed to be evidence of an inside job?

(2) There are many reasons why they would want to delay the investigation, there is no reason why this indicates an actual inside job.

(3) There are many details the government may have wanted to keep secret about, how does this indicate an inside job?

Conclusion

Pro did not present a very convincing case for 911 being an inside job, and my arguments/ rebuttals were more convincing.


Sources

[1] http://www.911myths.com...

[2] http://en.wikiquote.org...

[3] http://www.implosionworld.com...



Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by truther1111 3 months ago
truther1111
why would a concrete core support the conspiracy theory , a steel core of 47 columns impossible to collapse due to fire .
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 1 year ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"There was a concrete core in both towers."

Both towers had steel cores, are you getting your information from conspiracy theory websites?
Posted by K.GKevinGeary 2 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
There was a concrete core in both towers.
Posted by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
@ Rational

I agree that you won this easily (I voted for you)... and you will win regardless of the VB's.
But it cheapens victories, and it's clear it's not something you wish to be associated with.
Vote bombing is indeed lame, and has no place on this site... This obviously has nothing to do with you specifically, and it's a shame your points will be tainted by the poor conduct of others.

Otherwise, well done on this debate.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I agree with airmax1227, regardless I still would have won so it's not like the actions on their behalf effected the outcome.

Vote bombing is lame though...
Posted by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
@Moroni23 & 1Historygenius: (I'd have sent you both PM's but neither of you accept messages for some reason)

Your votes are "vote bombs"

If you are going to give all seven points to a debater, you better be prepared to write a detailed RFD as to why. You are not making a meaningful political statement by doing so, and you are threatening the integrity of this site. Should you continue voting in such a manner, your voting privileges (or membership) to this site will be revoked.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
This indicates 911 was an inside job, how?
Posted by GeoLaureate8 2 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two year."
-- John Farmer (911 Commission Chair)

" "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day"
-- Washington Post

http://www.infowars.com...
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"9/11 Commission Chair already admitted the government lied about 9/11. Case closed."

Lied about what, who did 911?

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable
http://www.cbsnews.com...

All he said was that they government failed to prevent the 911 attacks from happening like they should have, that doesn't mean that the US government was complicit in the attacks or carried them out themselves. If I hear someone wants to beat up my little brother and I don't do a good job of preventing it and I don't act in time like I should have, that doesn't mean I wanted my brother to get beat up or I orchestrated it by any stretch of the imagination.

There are no good reasons to think the US government carried out the attacks themselves, or that Al-Queda didn't carry out the attacks themselves.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 2 years ago
GeoLaureate8
9/11 Commission Chair already admitted the government lied about 9/11. Case closed.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by babygirl23 2 years ago
babygirl23
KILLUMINATIRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: i think they both had really good arguments
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
KILLUMINATIRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Epic Fail
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
KILLUMINATIRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't meet BOP
Vote Placed by Moroni23 2 years ago
Moroni23
KILLUMINATIRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry pro but you lost this one terribly. NO WAY 9/11 could have been an inside job.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
KILLUMINATIRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate, and well done by both debaters. There is a huge BOP on the Pro in this resolution, of which he was unable to carry. Con did an excellent job debunking all of Pro's major assertions, and made better arguments in general. Pro's biggest failure seems to be tying his facts into a coherent explanation for how 9/11 was an inside job, in failing to do so, all of his 'facts' just seem random and ultimately meaningless to the resolution.
Vote Placed by Idauntiles 2 years ago
Idauntiles
KILLUMINATIRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty obvious really. Pro didn't meet BOP, so forth.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
KILLUMINATIRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro claims that 9/11 was an inside job then like any 9/11 conspiracist wingnut spends all of his time highlighting discrepancies in government reports here and there rather than offer an actual explanation of why plane debris was found everywhere in the places they crashed and how dozens of agencies were somehow in on the elaborate cover up. BOP was not met, con dismantled the pro's arguments. Dont argue that something was an inside job then not offer a single theory of how it was carried out...
Research this debate: Gian Lorenzo Bernini,United States