The Instigator
PeeDub
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

9/11 was an inside job

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,151 times Debate No: 38849
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

PeeDub

Pro

Evidence suggesting that the official story of 9/11 being an inside job is overwhelming. Would appreciate someone presenting a counter view i'm willing to change my mind maybe i'm just one of the conspiracy sheep. Hopefully this wlll solve this
imabench

Con

Ill give this a whirl....

Just because there are discrepancies about the official story of 9/11, it doesnt mean a mass conspiracy exists. We know much more about how and why 9/11 happened then we did when the 9/11 commission report first came out, and many conspiracy theories are far, FAR more ludicrous then the official story of what actually happened.

There is no entity that could have pulled off such an elaborate cover-up who has the motive and resources to do so either.
Debate Round No. 1
PeeDub

Pro

Just because there are discrepancies about the official story of 9/11, it doesnt mean a mass conspiracy exists. I'll give you this, no it doesn't mean a mass conspiracy exists but it does mean that the official story should be questioned and if the official story or the facts can't be explained by something ordinary then the only explanation is something extraordinary. I would like to see what you think happened on 9/11 please. You speak of us knowing more about what happened i don't understand what you mean. Now as for an entity being powerful enough to organize such a cover up not being possible to exist i think you underestimate governments power, secondly you forget that if an official story is placed and people accept it they start doing the defending against problems in the story themselves. I'm sure many conspiracy theories are more ludicrous i'm sure there are theories outlining how the lizard people are behind it all but this conversation isn't dealing well in my view with the outlandish ones. All i'm trying to prove is that the us government orchestrated the attacks. I think you are confused by the shock factor of such a statement. It seems unlikely that a government would do something like that to its own people but why? It's happened before in history why not here?
imabench

Con

"if the official story or the facts can't be explained by something ordinary then the only explanation is something extraordinary."

Well the problem is that the events of 9/11 are extraordinary even without the existence of a mass conspiracy.... There has never been a time in history where very large planes loaded with jet fuel hit tall buildings and caused them to collapse outside of 9/11. The reason why some aspects of what happened when the towers collapsed cant be explained is because its literally never been observed before either before or after 9/11.....




"You speak of us knowing more about what happened i don't understand what you mean"

The 9/11 Commission report, the official account of 9/11, came out barely a year after 9/11 happened..... The report focused mostly on the actions of the hijackers and how the government failed to prevent the attacks, it did not focus on the nature of how the twin towers collapsed the way they did or why they did. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

A lot of the 9/11 commission report only speculated on why certain things of the collapse of the Twin Towers and the attack on the Pentagon happened since their goal was focused on other things.... It was only in later years did we find out how Jet fuel played a part in the fire, how the plane compromised fire protection, etc etc.

The report doesnt completely explain why the towers collapsed because its focus was assigning blame and detailing teh plot of those behind the attacks.




"Now as for an entity being powerful enough to organize such a cover up not being possible to exist i think you underestimate governments power"

If the government couldn't even handle a response to Hurricane Katrina, or handle the annual budget without shutting themselves down , then how do you expect them to pull off a conspiracy as large as the one you are proposing? Governments are certainly powerful but even they can fail the simplest of its duties.....




"All i'm trying to prove is that the us government orchestrated the attacks"

In order to prove that the US government orchestrated the attacks though you need actual proof that they were behind it..... Al-Qaeda after a while even admitted that they were the ones behind the attacks in addition to past attacks on the US which is something they never wouldve admitted to if the government were the ones who were behind the attacks.....




"It seems unlikely that a government would do something like that to its own people but why? It's happened before in history why not here?"

1) A conspiracy of this size has never even been attempted by a government in history

and 2) A conspiracy of this proportion would involve the government having to pay off the New York Port Authority, the families of all those who had loved ones die in the crashes, the FAA, the CIA, the FBI, Al-Qaeda, Local fire departments, Local police, the pilots of the planes, every organization and study that investigated the crash and collapse of the planes into the Twin Towers and concluded there was no conspiracy, Al-Qaeda itself................ And this is the same government that couldnt figure out that Iraq didnt have weapons of mass destruction when they invaded iraq literally two years later......

To claim the government was behind a plot as intricate as this when it has failed even the simplest of attacks is the equivalent of saying that an old lady killed 20 people with her bare hands during a bank robbery even though she has trouble opening a bottle of Gatorade......

Debate Round No. 2
PeeDub

Pro

"The reason why some aspects of what happened when the towers collapsed cant be explained is because its literally never been observed before either before or after 9/11"

Okay, the idea that things unobserved before cannot be explained is not that great. I think you're entirely missing the idea of physics and engineering which maintains that what happened to the twin towers was not physically possible given the maximum heat of jet plane fuel and etc. We've never seen the formation of stars before either but can understand how this comes to be.

"The report focused mostly on the actions of the hijackers"

this point here is actually very close to what i'm saying. given this knowledge the question would be logical why did it focus so much on that and the answer i provide fits soundly it focused on the terrorists so the goverment could blame them and therefore justify a war based on that. "The report doesnt completely explain why the towers collapsed because its focus was assigning blame and detailing teh plot of those behind the attacks. "

"If the government couldn't even handle a response to Hurricane Katrina, or handle the annual budget without shutting themselves down".

I think that the government being in different sectors has areas that are effective and areas that are not. Given the amount of resources the us government has access to i think that they could make this possible entirely this is furthered by the unexpected nature of the hurricane.

"In order to prove that the US government orchestrated the attacks though you need actual proof that they were behind it"

Actually thats not needed to prove it at all. Firstly you have to prove motiff- the government has this as the attacks were used to justify wars. Then opportunity- given their resources they definitely have this.

"Al-Qaeda after a while even admitted that they were the ones behind the attacks"

this seemingly puts a damper on the whole argument until you realize that for a long time the us government and al Qaeda were tight as pees in a pod, they provided arms to them previously and even had them on their bankroll.

"A conspiracy of this size has never even been attempted by a government in history"

their are actually numerous examples no doubt not of the same proportion, for instance the golf of tonkin incident, and the burning of the reichstag by the nazis but blamed on the communists. even if it has never been attempted that doesn't change the plausibility of the event itself and the logic behind your initial statement is akin to "the moon landing was never attempted before it was and therefore was fake"

"A conspiracy of this proportion would involve the government having to pay off"

um no it wouldn't. im sure some of the famiiies believe that the terrorists were behind it however if you research you'll find that many of the people who are most advocative of the conspiracy are fire fighters and family members who were involved in the events.

"and this is the same government that couldnt figure out that Iraq didnt have weapons of mass destruction"

this is based on the premise that the goverment made a mistake in invading iraq which to me just shows lack of research as well. The us government invaded iraq for numerous reasons all relating to oil and how it keeps the us dollar afloat.

please watch this before replying, cheers thanks for the fun.
imabench

Con

"Okay, the idea that things unobserved before cannot be explained is not that great.

Thats not what im saying at all though... My point is that its hard to explain all the qualities and nature of the collapse of the twin towers since an event like flying fully loaded planes into towers that subsequently collapsed has never been seen before, so its difficult to explain why everything happened the way it did.....





"I think you're entirely missing the idea of physics and engineering which maintains that what happened to the twin towers was not physically possible given the maximum heat of jet plane fuel and etc."

The idea of physics and engineering maintains that its more then possible for the towers to collapse the way they did.... Anybody who thinks otherwise has a tremendously idiotic concept of engineering and physics itself.....

For example, some idiots think you have to be able to melt steel in order for it to lose its structural capacity, but that simply isnt the case. All you have to do is bend and make it a little more malleable then it currently is (flaming hot jet fuel and the impact of an airplane will do that) and then steel loses its ability to hold the weight above it (and there was a LOT of weight above it too)




"given this knowledge the question would be logical why did it focus so much on that and the answer i provide fits soundly it focused on the terrorists so the goverment could blame them and therefore justify a war based on that. "

Outlining who was behind the attacks though isnt evidence that the government is behind 9/11 itself though, your leap of faith that it does is based on zero evidence whatsoever and isnt a valid conclusion to make.

By that logic, the official report behind the attack of Pearl Harbor (that primarily outlines how the Japanese were behind the attacks) would be evidence that the government somehow hired the Japanese to attack them so that they could justify a war against Japan and its axis allies....... Which is an idiotic conclusion to reach.




"I think that the government being in different sectors has areas that are effective and areas that are not. "

And keeping secrets is not a sector in which they are effective! I mean for f*cks sake, Edward Snowden managed to leak just about the entire database of the NSA almost entirely by himself. If the government cant even keep THAT a secret then how in the hell do you really believe they are covering up a massive 9/11 conspiracy?




"Actually thats not needed to prove it at all. Firstly you have to prove motiff- the government has this as the attacks were used to justify wars. Then opportunity- given their resources they definitely have this."

Motive and opportunity isnt enough to prove their guilt though idiot..... You need ACTUAL evidence like authorizations to pay off people, evidence of intentions to cover up studies and operations that suggest the government isnt behind it, and evidence that the actual story that Al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks is somehow false and fabricated, and how all these other angles of the story are somehow related to this conspiracy which is something you have utterly failed to prove.




"for a long time the us government and al Qaeda were tight as pees in a pod, they provided arms to them previously and even had them on their bankroll."

Yeah, IN THE 80's..... In the 20 years after that Al-Qaeda routinely waged holy war against the US, bombed US embassies, attacked US warships, denounced American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.

To imply that Al-Qaeda and the US are decent allies is utterly idiotic and ignores over 20 years of history when Al-Qaeda waged war against the US.




"for instance the golf of tonkin incident, and the burning of the reichstag by the nazis but blamed on the communists"

Which as you admitted arent even close to as big as the proposed conspiracy behind 9/11 would be, so your argument is invalid.




"even if it has never been attempted that doesn't change the plausibility of the event itself"

It kinda does since it is outlandishly impossible for it to actually be carried out.




" the logic behind your initial statement is akin to "the moon landing was never attempted before it was and therefore was fake"

It isnt because prior to the moon landings the US had made several leaps and bounds in the exploration of space.... We put people into orbit, we've sent satellites to explore other planets, telecommunications and spy satellites were routinely launched into orbit...... The US had more then enough means to feasibly put a man on the moon, the same cannot be said of pulling off a conspiracy as massive as this one.

What examples of the government trying to stage domestic attacks and blame it on Islamist extremists existed prior to 9/11? The answer is ABSOLUTELY ZERO. The government never once tried to stage a false flag operation and blame it on Middle Easterners with the intent of using the event to justify going to war with them. Therefore its outlandish to claim that a 9/11 conspiracy is feasible since the US literally never attempted to stage any kind of event to intervene in the Middle East like this prior to 9/11, or even after 9/11



"im sure some of the famiiies believe that the terrorists were behind it however if you research you'll find that many of the people who are most advocative of the conspiracy are fire fighters and family members who were involved in the events."

Thats not even close to being true. Many of the people who advocate the conspiracy are conspiracy retards who have no basic concept of reality or physics......




"this is based on the premise that the government made a mistake in invading iraq which to me just shows lack of research as well. The us government invaded iraq for numerous reasons all relating to oil and how it keeps the us dollar afloat."

Using one idiotic conspiracy theory to reinforce another idiotic conspiracy theory doesnt justify your original conspiracy theory, it only doubles down on how stupid you are when it comes to understanding the nature of both events in question.....



=================================================================================


The simple truth is that there simply isnt enough tangible evidence that comes even close to proving that the US government is behind 9/11...... Most conspiracy theories are based entirely on discrepancies in official accounts, combine that with something only a science-fiction writer could come up with, produce one or two idiotic arguments that act as evidence for the conspiracy, and then pass it off as fact.

It simply doesnt work that way though...... There is overwhelmingly more evidence that Al-Qaeda, who waged war against the US for 20 years before 9/11 even happened, who later even admitted they were the ones who planned and carried out the attack, were the ones behind 9/11, not the US government.

Al-Qaeda has the clear motive and intention to carry out the attack, they had admission of guilt that they were the ones who carried it out, and they had the means of hijacking planes and fly them into targets in the US which all evidence suggests they did.....

The US government on the other hand has a much more clouded alleged motive, they do not have the capacity to carry out a cover-up of 9/11 which would be infinitely times harder to carry out then the attack itself, and they do not have the capacity to pull something off as elaborate as this since the government has shown to be incompetent when it comes to keeping secrets from people.......

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Someguy224 3 years ago
Someguy224
Imabench, first of all, your attitude is terrible. Secondly, no need to be insulting people via comments about their intelligence when your understanding of the English language is so Subpar.
Posted by Someguy224 3 years ago
Someguy224
Imabench, first of all, your attitude is terrible. Secondly, no need to be insulting people via comments about their intelligence when your understanding of the English language is so Subpar.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Typical for truther to spam his crap on every 9/11 debate he can find and only cement why truthers are all asinine retards who can't accept reality for what it is

Who did you claim was behind 9/11 again? Some corporation based out of Texas or something?

F*ckng idiot.....
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
911debunking.com is not a source, its not even written by scientists just debunker nerds from jref, how did steel melt ? imabench says its not important as the steel didnt need to melt for the building to collapse but finding molten steel at the crime scene is a massive piece of evidence for an inside job as its only explanation is the use of incendiary devices . Pathetic history channel tried the same trick to fool people .
Posted by devin.cooper64 3 years ago
devin.cooper64
Pro couldve done so much better with this debate, showing evidence for reasons, motives, who pulled it off, how, and how the planes didnt make the tower collapse, instead no sources and terrible arguments and rebuttals.

He didnt even mention building number 7
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/2:

To begin with:

The short version of the RFD is that "They could have!" is not sufficient to justify "they did". And though there were a dearth of sources in this debate, Wikipedia is far more reliable than "9/11 - Echos of Darkness".

The longer version is this:

In order for Pro to win his case, it wouldn't have been enough even to show that the entire 9/11 story as generally presented was untrue. Even KNOWINGLY untrue. That would not necessarily make it an "inside job", as there are OTHER explanations which would need to be addressed--in other words, you'd STILL have to show it was an "inside job", you STILL have all your work cut out for you; all you've done is shown that the "official story" isn't true, and that's not the resolution.

You don't do establish it was an inside job that merely by questioning the official report. You do it by showing HOW the government did it (since you assume they DID do it, and you're telling me they did). That they might have had a motive doesn't hurt your case, but it doesn't particularly help it either. Canada might have had a motive, too. Remember that the government could have just as easily done it exactly as described in the report, with the exception of the operatives being government operatives rather than Al-Qaeda ones. It can be used to support your case, iff (if and only if) you have a competing theory for which you have evidence, in which case the problems in the official report would be EXTRA support, but wouldn't stand on their own. It's neither necessary nor sufficient UNLESS its used to support an alternative series of events for which you have evidence.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/2:

Even ignoring that, simply asserting that "physics and engineering ... maintains that what happened to the twin towers was not physically possible given the maximum heat of jet plane fuel and etc." isn't going to fly. In point of fact, rather a lot of research has been done on this--I wish bench had put a little more effort into his refutation of it, but it wasn't really necessary since that which is proposed without evidence may be disposed without evidence, and he did rebut it sufficiently. Even contemporary reports, prior to all information being in, showed how it was physically possible: http://www.tms.org.... Years later, we have even more information on the exact stresses that caused the collapse. http://www.debunking911.com...

Now, again, those sources weren't referenced by bench, so they don't really factor into my vote (except, perhaps, when I dismiss the reliability of that "documentary"). His rebuttal by assertion was sufficient for the argument by assertion that was presented. It's more for Pro's benefit.

So arguments to Con, as Pro never came close to sufficiently addressing his burden prima facie (and those arguments which were presented were rebutted). Sources for the reasons noted. Conduct and S&G were close enough for government work.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
PeeDubimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: This little back and forth segment really summed up the debate quite nicely: Con: "In order to prove that the US government orchestrated the attacks though you need actual proof that they were behind it" Pro: Actually thats not needed to prove it at all. Firstly you have to prove motiff- the government has this as the attacks were used to justify wars. Then opportunity- given their resources they definitely have this. Pro (s instigator) has BOP, which he didn't really support. Con's response, "Motive and opportunity isnt enough to prove their guilt though idiot...", while perhaps understandable, loses the conduct point for calling the opponent an idiot rather than what calling what was said idiotic. S&G wasn't perfect on either side, Con's was a bit better, but both were comprehensible. There were no reliable sources used.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
PeeDubimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy win. Then again I've never seen conspiracy theorists as rational in anyway. Pro's argument were easily refuted by Con. Pro seemed confused at different times and even conceded one if his own arguments on governments in conspiracies. Con has better spelling and grammar.
Vote Placed by Hirakula 3 years ago
Hirakula
PeeDubimabenchTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to give real reasons to suspect that 9/11 was an inside job - merely made vague references to potential flaws, and spent much time simply giving retorts to Con, when Pro in fact held BoP. Pro only really attempted to establish that MAYBE there's a possibility that one could construe a conspiracy theory to not be impossible. Also, Con had much better form, spelling, grammar, and structural and cohesive responses. Sources was tied, as Pro only gave a weak video, with no real usage or support, and Con only gave a Wikipedia article.
Vote Placed by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
PeeDubimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, your conduct was horrendous. I know it's hard to deal with these idiots and keep a straight face, but cussing is absolutely out of bounds when it comes to debate.org. Neither party used sources, no matter the fact that there were several places to show factual sources when regarding physics or you could have shown an article on the reviews of the Katrina disaster. Finally, good job on spelling and grammar and good job on the arguments and rebuttals. Always could use sources.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
PeeDubimabenchTied
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: RFD in comments.