The Instigator
gkoz23
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
Cloneorder66
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

9/11 was an inside job

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
gkoz23
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,137 times Debate No: 45683
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (5)

 

gkoz23

Pro

I think 9/11 was done by the US government to get us into war in Afghanistan
Cloneorder66

Con

What makes you think this? My aunt DIED in the crash. So by what way, shape, or form does this even come CLOSE to an inside job? What good does that do? This is extremely offensive to just about everyone. Do you think our government just wanders about saying "Let's start a war with this country." No. It's American payback as my best friend says who was in the war "We went there to show them who the hell they were messing with and show them payback. We are not going to let some terrorists mess with mother America."
Debate Round No. 1
gkoz23

Pro

What makes me think this is a majority of the wars American has been in in the past 150 years has been over lies. Usually an event is done before a war is started to sway the public's opinion to support the war. Examples of us lying to go to war are War with Spain in 1898 with the blowing up of the USS Maine, World World One with the sinking of the Lusitania, Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and Iraq with Al Qaeda and WMDs. Many people including myself also think that we let Pearl Harbor happen to get us into World War Two. Our country does say lets start a war with other countries because there is money to be made at war. Many people profit from war including corporations which pretty much run America. We just found a vein of lithium in Afghanistan worth a trillion dollars too. The government clearly played a part in 9/11 to get us to go to war in Afghanistan because of money. Also there are so many things that happened during, before, and after 9/11 that make no sense.
Cloneorder66

Con

Do you guys ACTUALLY believe this? I don't even know what to say... It's so... Stupid. Pearl Harbor an excuse to get into world war 2? I just, can't believe how superstitious you are. I obviously can't talk any sense into you because you are so hell bent on tragestys being lies. If it makes you feel better. They is a group out there that helps people like you. It's called an... Hmmm... Oh yea! Asylum.
Debate Round No. 2
gkoz23

Pro

All those lies I mentioned to get into wars were factual. Robert McNamara who was the Secretary of Defense when the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred admitted that the event was a lie and was done to justify going to war. It is confirmed that the government and/or the media lied about the blowing up of the USS Maine to get us into war with Spain and lied about the sinking of the Lusitania to get us into World War One. The government also told us there were WMDs in Iraq and Al Qaeda was associated with Iraq. This was another confirmed lie. So you cannot argue that the U.S. has gone to war on multiple occasions over lie. The government is willing to kill their own people to go to war too. A plan called operation northwoods was proposed to JFK in 1962 by the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff. This plan was to carry out acts of terrorism on US citizens by the government and make it look like Cuba did it to justify a war with Cuba. JFK, however, rejected this plan. So do not call me crazy for saying the U.S would kill its own people and lie to go to war because operation northwoods proves this wrong. Again this is a fact you cannot dispute. Another fact: the US government received 40 warnings that Bin Laden wanted to fly plains into buildings in New York in 2001 before 9/11 even happened. Another fact: Passports of the terrorists which were on the planes that flew into the WTC were found, but the black boxes of only one of the four planes that crashed that day was in good enough shape for us to supposedly listen too. Black boxes are suppose to withstand the most intense conditions but a passport survived when a majority of the black boxes didn't. That sounds messed up to me Another fact: a skyscraper has never fallen due to fire except with the WTC. According to the 9/11 report the buildings fell because of fire. Jet Fuel burning or a normal fire cannot melt steel and cannot bring a skyscraper down. To take it a step further WTC 7 fell solely because of fire. There are many instances in history where buildings have burned out but their structure remains in tact. My proposal is controlled demolition was used. The way the buildings fell was just liked a building would if it was blown up by controlled demolition. Another Fact: building 7 fell at the rate of gravity according to the 9/11 commission report. According to Jesse Ventura who was part of the navy seals and was part of the underwater demolition team in the navy said this goes against the laws of physics. When the building fell there had to be some resistance there. There is so much more to it by I will leave it at that. If you look into 9/11 and discover the information the government and mainstream media don't want you to see, it becomes very obvious this was a conspiracy.
Cloneorder66

Con

Cloneorder66 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cloneorder66 2 years ago
Cloneorder66
Ok gusy, im sorry, I know I did a garbage job, school the next day and rounds were like an hour so I had to forfiet, I know it sucked, can you stop harassing me now??? Not you Gkoz, I never got to do a good debate with you.
Posted by gkoz23 2 years ago
gkoz23
I'm not saying that we didn't have good intentions with Somalia. I haven't done to much research on it either. I think we did have good intentions with Somalia but the majority of the times we intervene it's not for the reasons they tell us. And about Rwanda I'm just saying if we intervene in all these other places why not there. Some else should step up and start intervening. We have been the police men of the world for too long. We used tear gas on the occupy protesters with tear gas. And if we got out of all these useless wars and giving all this foreign aid we have more than enough money to intervene in certain countries.
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
Ok I went to your debate with imabench and found your link to that website about the US using chemical weapons and I gotta say I was not impressed whatsoever. Intact at least 8 of those 10 claims I can easily shoot down.
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
And you still haven't answered what you meant by the US using chemical weapons on its own people.
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
We're talking about the 1991 US involvement in Somalia when General Mohamed Farrah Aidid started his civil war in order to take over the country killing over 300,000 people. Piracy was not an issue during this time and only started becoming one about 2-3 years back, and even then it is an issue that could be solved with a single US destroyer and a team of snipers. So the reason you gave as to why the US was involved with the 1991 Somalia over money is logically incorrect

"I don't have a problem with intervention but other nations need to be getting involved. Were 17 trillion dollars in debt we can't afford to be fighting all these wars and giving out all this foreign aid. It is someone elses turn to pitch in."

Then why do you keep asking over and over like a broken record why we didn't get involved in Rwanada? You literally for a second time just made it clear that you don't expect the US to get involved every single time. So what is your question? What is your deal?
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
We're talking about the 1991 US involvement in Somalia when General Mohamed Farrah Aidid started his civil war in order to take over the country killing over 300,000 people. Piracy was not an issue during this time and only started becoming one about 2-3 years back, and even then it is an issue that could be solved with a single US destroyer and a team of snipers. So the reason you gave as to why the US was involved with the 1991 Somalia over money is logically incorrect

"I don't have a problem with intervention but other nations need to be getting involved. Were 17 trillion dollars in debt we can't afford to be fighting all these wars and giving out all this foreign aid. It is someone elses turn to pitch in."
Posted by gkoz23 2 years ago
gkoz23
In Somalia pirates cause our ships to not be able to go through that area and it cost it money. I'm sure there are some cases where we actually wanted to help people too, Somilia does seem like one of those cases. But times and the people in charge change. Just remeber there are always people who profit from war. I don't have a problem with intervention but other nations need to be getting involved. Were 17 trillion dollars in debt we can't afford to be fighting all these wars and giving out all this foreign aid. It is someone elses turn to pitch in. And for that post i sent you before this one that was just a part of an argument I sent to someone else it was just quicker for me and was related to our discussion
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
We even try to stop the all? We would certainly lose everything. So what would we gain? Anyway to answer more specifically about Rwanda I said earlier that I didn't know that much about it so just for you I've done some research over the last few days and found some interesting stuff . For instance what happened just a few years prior to Rwanda? Somalia. We're the US was doing almost exactly what the would have done in Rwanda. Fighting another countries civil war and preventing the genocide of hundreds of thousands. And 300,000 were already dead when we started getting involved. We had just a few years ago spent millions of dollars I'm Somalia with military aid and humanitarian aid and food ect, lost a good number of young American soldiers lives, angered many of our allies in the international community, and most importantly, went through one of the worst military ops we've ever conducted (black hawk down). So you tell me. Should we have gotten involved in Rwanda. As I said we just got done dealing with Somalia. Would it have been practice? And what did we have to gain in Somalia? Nothing I could find, but we still did it. If all we are interested in is self interest then what we're we doing there? Perhaps if we had not involved our selves in Somalia we would have gotten involved in Rwanda? And then there was this bit that the Clinton administration said right after Somalia that I found interesting.

"We vow never to return to a conflict we can't understand, between clans and tribes we don't know, in a country where the US had no national interests."

Kinda bout sums it up huh? Way I see it. Somalia fed it over for Rwanda.
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
First off let me say that I have NEVER said that the Iraq war was for oil and it is my opinion that anyone who does think that Iraq was for oil is a moron. Now to be fair I believe that oil was a factor, 1 single factor, out of literally over a hundred factors that would take far to long to write on this post to explain. But no. Oil wasn't even in the top ten. And when I say oil being a factor I don't mean the common low information American who thinks of US troops sucking oil out of Iraqi soil and shipping it off to America. What I mean by it being a factor was our interest in ensuring the security of the Middle East oil market for the globe, not for the US, which would ensure the global market would remain stable. Not the US. Bit other nations, which in turn would keep the US economy stable since we depend on international trade to make our big bucks.

As for the western oil companies moving in I think that of you look into it around 70-75% of Iraqi oil is pulled up by eastern oil companies, primarily China. Prior to the Iraq war the US received about 3.2% of its oil from Iraq. For the last few years now however that number has dropped to an average of 2.7%. So I don't know where your going with this. Did western oil companies over into Iraq after we secured it? Of course. Why the hell wouldn't they? Does this indisputably mean that the war was some conspiracy for oil? Hardly.

Your link for the US using chemical weapons just took me to some random news letter with a cartoon about Jesus or something so could you describe what you mean?

As for rawanda I think you answered your own question in your first paragraph so why still ask? Not only is it ridicules to assume the US will even attempt to deal with each and ever crisis such as this to arise, but it's impossible to boot. We would be bankrupt in no time and the number if lives we would lose in soldiers would match that of those in the crisis we are trying to prevent. So why the hell would
Posted by gkoz23 2 years ago
gkoz23
Here is a portion of my post on another argument I think this will be good for the scenario. It is about the war in Iraq
If we went to war with every country that violated human rights we would be in a ton of wars. All over the world human rights are violated and the U.S. does little or nothing to stop this. If the U.S. wants to intervene in a place where there are human rights being violated I don't have a big problem with that. More countries should start being the policemen of the world though. We have been the policemen of the world for too long now and are too far in debt to keep spending all this money on foreign defense and aid. More countries need to pitch in and start helping. Back to the issue of the US intervening when human rights are violated. Why didn't we intervene in Rwanda where there has been 500,000 to 1,000,000 people killed? It's because there is nothing to gain economically there. You even said it yourself a reason we invaded Iraq was because of oil. We get most of our imported oil from Canada actually. In 2012 the US produced 39% of its own oil, got 20% from Latin America, 15% from Canada, and only 13% from the Persian Gulf. So as you see we are not really that dependent on the middle east for oil. Before Iraq Western oil companies could not get oil out of Iraq but after the war the big oil companies were in there. By the way we use chemical weapons on our own people and enemies too. Just read this article- http://www.policymic.com......
So as you can see we do the things Hussein did, we just hardly hear about because it is covered up by the media, which is basically the government's propaganda machine. We also lied about the WMDs to make it seem like Iraq was a threat to America where in reality it posed little threat if any. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told us we know that Iraq has WMDs which was a complete lie.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by TN05 2 years ago
TN05
gkoz23Cloneorder66Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Con did an embarrassing job in what should be an easy debate to win.
Vote Placed by jdtroughton 2 years ago
jdtroughton
gkoz23Cloneorder66Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Your aunt dying is not a point against US complicity, LOL. The US government DOES go around starting wars, that's their hallmark. They've planned for decades to systematically pick apart and take over the middle east, most likely due to being a puppet of Israeli shadow government. Pro knows his history, and the cognitive dissonance so evident in con inability to even face the facts of his government's duplicity is where the term "sheeple" comes from. The best case of it I've every seen demonstrated. With simple objective analysis of all that happened that day, and Pro's arguments on top, no quality thinker, unobstructed by emotional pain and cognitive dissonance, could deny there is a case for US national complicity, in some way, at some level (including -likely- those not officially recognized) in the attack on 9/11.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
gkoz23Cloneorder66Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro for forfeit. Pro was also the only one to make any arguments con just got emotional and took things personally.
Vote Placed by codemeister13 2 years ago
codemeister13
gkoz23Cloneorder66Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con resorted to Ad Hominem attacks and forfeited the final round, costing them conduct points. Pro did provide convincing arguments by citing operations in the past designed to do what 9/11 would appear to have done in today's world. S&G goes to Pro due to Con's use of caps and periods.
Vote Placed by Grandbudda 2 years ago
Grandbudda
gkoz23Cloneorder66Tied
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