The Instigator
Blackyblue
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
funnycn
Pro (for)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,150 times Debate No: 64648
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Blackyblue

Con

Conspiracy theorists have no proof regarding their claims that 9/11 was an inside job.
I would love to give someone the chance to prove to me otherwise.
funnycn

Pro

==Argument==

i. Steel and fire

Many people do not know about the third building that fell during the 9/11 "attacks". Yes, there was a third building that fell. But fell...mysteriously. No plane hit it, and there wasn't an explanation on how it fell. Except for this...it was blown up from the inside. Read this
"The total collapse of WTC 7 in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration (NIST admits 2.25 seconds). Larry Silverstein used the term “Pull it”. Steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER totally collapsed from fire or structural damage. Builidng 7 was not hit by a plane. ‘Building 7′, ‘WTC 7′." (1)

That's right it wasn't hit by a plane. Then what else could it have been hit by?

So what brought down the third building? Many people arguing against theorists say it was fire. However expert architects, engineers, and scientists say it would have been impossible.
"However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. " (2)
"That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire."(2)

Take this into account as well
"tonnes of steel" (2)

So we know two things here. One, it may have fallen due to fire, and two it was made of steel. Let's toss those two together. Steel has a melting point of 2500°F (3) and it supposedly fell due to fire. Fire can only get so hot in one room and to melt steel takes a lot of fire. To simply put it, it would be impossible.

Another factor is how it fell. It went straight DOWN.
"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves" (2)

Building seven was destroyed from the inside, it's the only way it could have happened to fall straight down. Internal demolition is not natural, and internal demolition could cause it to go straight down.

The 2 towers now were also made of steel and fire had also took a big, but not the biggest, role in taking them down. They were supposedly hit by planes and jet fuel burned the steel.
"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F" (4)

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the fuel to melt the steel.

==Sources==

1 http://www.hangthebankers.com...
2 http://news.bbc.co.uk...
3 https://www.google.com...
4 http://www.popularmechanics.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Blackyblue

Con

In actual fact, i think most people are aware that there was more than two buildings that fell that day, so i think this is the first fallacy to be assumptious and assume what others know. However, after many discussions and debates with 9/11 truthers, i can tell you for a fact that many of those truthers are completely unaware that WTC1, 2 and 7, where not the only buildings to fall that day. Such as WTC3, which was virtually cut in half by the fall of the first tower, then almost completely dismantled by the fall of the second tower. Then we had WTC5 which was almost ready to collapse after emmense fire swept through it and we can see pictures on the internet that prove the steel beems were bending and close to breaking. Also emmense damage to WTC6, yet truthers only ever talk about WTC7, and i can assure you that the footage used by the architects of the 9/11 truth movement such as Loose Change, is very fraudulent and deceptive and not honest at-all. For starters, they only ever show the collapse from oneside. The reason they never show the collapse from the otherside is because if they did then the viewer would be able to see the full scale of the fires. Another highly deceptive tactic used when showing the collapse, is that the truthers do not show the full footage, they cut out the beginning of the video, which clearly shows the East Penthouse on the roof of WTC7 collapsing into the building quite a few seconds before the actual building itself collapses. So what actually happens is that the Penthouse falls onto the already severely weakened floors beneath and they are unable to hold the weight of the Penthouse and so the house of cards begins to tumble. And also, the building only hits freefall speed for 2.5 seconds and it clearly begins to slow as it gets nearer to the ground. Also, nobody has ever said that a plane hit WTC7. No plane hit WTC3, 5 or 6 either and they were also engulfed in fires after being hit by debri and were close to suffering the same fate. So yes, there is an explanation to how it fell. It was hit by debree from two falling sky scrapers which did not fall straight down on it's footprint and parts of the building were still standing after 25 seconds, and then fire engulfed WTC7, the sprinkler system was damaged and thus there was little water available to fight the flames which burned all day. Also, Larry Silverstein was completely misquoted. He does admit that he said "Pull it", but he was not referring to the building, but to the fire-fighters that were in there. Basically, he said "we had witnessed enough deaths that day already, and enough was enough, so i instructed the firefighters to get the hell out of there". He was reffering to the firefighting operation. Now, regarding your claims about "Architects, engineers and scientists saying that it was impossible, this has to be one of the most dishonest arguments i have ever heard. It is true, certain architects, engineers and scientists have said this, but nowhere near compaired to how many architects, engineers and scientists saying that it is possible, and happened. The other thing that people seem to forget when saying no steel building of this size has ever collapsed of fire before, is that, also, no steel building has ever had two boeing676's fly into them at over 500mph and then to have the debree from two skyscrapers fall ontop of them, either, before.

https://www.youtube.com... (Proof for penthouse collapsing, between 5:45mins & 6mins on the video)
https://www.youtube.com... (Proof that fire can melt steel, in regards to my WTC5 claim)

The rest of my facts can be verified quite easy with a simple google search
funnycn

Pro

==Rebuttal==

"In actual fact, i think most people are aware that there was more than two buildings that fell that day, so i think this is the first fallacy "


Not a fallacy. I didn't say all, every, etc. so it isn't an over generalization. Don't make claims you can't back up nor prove to be true. Also, you didn't capitalize your I's.

"Then we had WTC5 which was almost ready to collapse after emmense fire swept through"

Stop right there. Didn't I just explain that the fire didn't bring the building down nor was it strong enough to make it severely damaged?

"and i can assure you that the footage used by the architects of the 9/11 truth movement such as Loose Change, is very fraudulent"

Can you prove this? You haven't included a single source.

"The reason they never show the collapse from the otherside is because if they did then the viewer would be able to see the full scale of the fires."

Yet again, fire did not destroy nor severely damage the building.

"Another highly deceptive tactic used when showing the collapse, is that the truthers do not show the full footage"

The government and the 9/11 committee didn't show the full footage of the pentagon attack. Actually, the pentagon attack didn't even have a plane in it. Don't believe me? Look for yourself here.



No plane

More evidence?


Expert pilots even claim it would be impossible to hit the pentagon with an airliner. Why?

You'd have to swerve through telephone poles, other buildings, and towers AND STILL hit the pentagon with a HUGE plane


"Also, nobody has ever said that a plane hit WTC7. No plane hit WTC3, 5 or 6"

Then what did? A missile? Or...was it done on the inside?

"So yes, there is an explanation to how it fell"

It can't fall STRAIGHT DOWN. I just proved this.

" (Proof that fire can melt steel, in regards to my WTC5 claim)"

This video only strengthens my argument. The beams didn't melt you fool, they only were bent.

"(Proof for penthouse collapsing, between 5:45mins & 6mins on the video)"

Can this even be called a source for your argument? His argumen only proves mine yet again to be right by showing that buildings can't fall straight down, they lean then fall.

My opponent didn't really read my argument, as shown, and his sources are poor.

PS Truthers isn't a word.
Debate Round No. 2
Blackyblue

Con

Ok, well i am sure you are right to a certain degree, there probably are people that are unaware that other buildings fell that day. At least 3015 people i can prove straight away, as that is how many died that day. Regarding WTC5, WTC5 was not far off collapsing. Structural engineers said they had never saw beams bend & twist like this before and were gobsmacked by the verocity & power of the fire. You can clearly see from the video i produced that the steel is bending and twisting, and it would not be able to withstand an eastern penthouse falling through the roof ontop of them like what happened in WTC7. Clearly, if steel can twist and buckle with heat, then it can break, it is as simple as that. Also you are stating that just because wtc's 3, 5 and 6 did not collapse completely that this proves that it is impossible for WTC7 to collapse completely, this is complete nonsense. You just have to look into Hiroshima and Nagasaki to find out that many of the buildings closest to the epicentre of the Atomic kitty were almost unharmed by the blast, yet buildings right next to those where completely demolished. Not all buildings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered the same fates, so therefor what happens to one building cannot be used to prove what will happen to another. Not every case is the same. As for me talking about some of the fraudulent information regarding loose change, you just have to look at their claims regarding how WTC1 and 2 fell into their own footprints in a manner of a controlled demolition. However they did not fall into their own footprints, as falling debree caused major damage to WTC3, 5, 6 and 7. How many controlled demolitions do you know that take out practically all the other buildings in the area? Also, they state something silly like the towers fell in something like 11 seconds. You just need to watch the video i will produce below, and you will see that well after 25 seconds the towers are still tumbling and that THERE IS ACTUALLY STILL SECTIONS STANDING, and they stand for a good 10 seconds or more before finally falling. How many controlled demolitions do you know that have parts of the building still standing after they have fallen? lets not forget, this was a controlled demolition that 9/11 activists seem to reckon was carried out by the best of the best, especially when according to certain truthers, the technology used is so advanced that among the material used for demolition was a super-nano thermite. So what kind of gadgies are going to make such a botch of it? Anyone that watches the video can clearly see that the fall of the twin towers begins at the top, and then the weight of the top sections falling onto the lower sections has a house of cards effect, and the laws of gravity begin. Yet, usually with controlled demolitions, the building is usually taken out from beneath, not from the top. So, i suggest, that if this was indeed a demolition, taking into account the damage caused to other buildings and the fact they had sections of building still standing and that it did not fall all at the sametime, then, i would suggest it was anything but "controlled". Now, onto your argument regarding The Pentagon. In actual fact, five telephone polls where knocked down. How do you explain this? do you deny that 5 telephone polls where knocked down? where the telephone polls cut in half later on by the illuminati and their still saws? Also, as an avid watcher of aircraft investigation, i know that it is not uncommon for a plane to almost disintegrate when heading headfirst into a hard object at plenty speed. Vaporization is not unknown, although there where still some parts of the plane left on the front lawn.

https://www.youtube.com... (start watching at 3mins. You can clearly see the structure still standing at approx 3;10/3;15) 25 seconds after you can clearly see 40 floors of the right portion of the building still standing.
The building 'did not' collapse all at sametime.
9/11 protestors never use this angle when showing their footage. The whole collapse from start to finish is closer to 35 seconds than 10 seconds.
Also you can clearly see, the final portion of the building did not collapse, it fell over.
The structure stands from between 3:14 & 3:32 before toppling

Is this usual with controlled demos to have portions of building remain standing then fall over?
funnycn

Pro

==Rebuttal==

"Ok, well i am sure you are right to a certain degree"

Yes I am.

"that the steel is bending and twisting"

But your original claim was that it was melting. Don't believe me? "https://www.youtube.com...... (Proof that fire can melt steel, in regards to my WTC5 claim)"

This video was "proof" that fire can melt steel (which it can of course, it DOES have a melting point. My claim was that the fire in the building didn't melt the steel. Read my arguments) but the video was just showing that steel beams were "bending and twisting". Your claim has suddenly shifted and keeps changing.

" if steel can twist and buckle with heat, then it can break, it is as simple as that"

Another claim that is shifting around. I never said that steel can't break nor melt. My claim was that they didn't melt when the fire stormed through.

"stating that just because wtc's 3, 5 and 6 did not collapse completely that this proves that it is impossible for WTC7 to collapse completely"

Never....never did I say that. NEVER.

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered the same fates, so therefor what happens to one building cannot be used to prove what will happen to another"

Where is that argument even going?

"falling debree caused major damage to WTC3, 5, 6 and 7. "

Wait...wasn't fire the leading cause of major damage to the buildings, according to your ORIGINAL CLAIM.

"How many controlled demolitions do you know that take out practically all the other buildings in the area"
Wouldn't it be odd if only ONE building was destroyed? Well in this case 3. But regardless, let me try to explain this...

A plane strikes the tower. It falls. ONLY ONE falls. It doesn't harm anything else. Wouldn't that be odd? It would seem...very strange. Multiple hijackers take a plane, smash it into the tower and it doesn't harm anything else? Ah...see they're not dumb. "Let's take a plane and smash it into the tower and take out multiple buildings and make it look like a massive terrorist attack!"

"How many controlled demolitions do you know that have parts of the building still standing after they have fallen?"

Either two things.

1. A failed demolition. Plan B is authorized.
2. To make it seem "probable".

They're not stupid. They have to make it seem probable...sadly they didn't completely succeed, as they didn't fool many people.

If they staged it where the plane hit the building and it fell instantly, it would be VERY strange. However; if they staged it where the plane hit the building and then it fell an hour later, it wouldn't seem as strange. In a time of crisis like that, time seems to slow down. One hour would be like 3 hours in that situation. You're panicking, you're worried where else the terrorists might attack etc. However after the crisis, people began realizing some things.

"The tower fell in an hour straight down when only part of it was damaged? Wait...was it a controlled demolition?"

Your claim yet again, only proves my argument to be right. If only part of the building was damaged and it suddenly fell down, it wouldn't look natural. That's because...it wasn't.

Now the video, the tower was hit an hour before, if I recall correctly. So saying that I believe that the tower got hit and fell instantly is foolish, because well...I just said it wasn't above.

"see that the fall of the twin towers begins at the top, and then the weight of the top sections falling onto the lower sections"

That's why it's not natural. It just falls down all the way. If it were hit from the top, the top would lean to the spot with less resistance and lean and fall, not collapse straight down.

" In actual fact, five telephone polls where knocked down. How do you explain this?"
It was staged. Do you think it was actually natural for an airliner to knock down telephone poles, not hit another building, at hit it's approximate target, coincidentally the spot with the records holding the GIANT debt they owe?

Debate Round No. 3
Blackyblue

Con

Firstly, you may not be aware. I am sure that you think you are genuinely supporting truth, however, behind the scenes regarding the 9/11 conspiracies is a strong stench of anti-semitism. One of the earliest theories was one false allegation that was widely circulated by e-mail and on the Web is that not a single Jew had been killed in the attack and that therefore the attacks must have been the work of the Mossad, not Islamic terrorists. Take the red-pill and search deeper down the rabbit hole and the conspiracy theories do not stop with the US government. Infact, they are just the puppets, and in certain cases, perhaps unknowing and unsuspecting puppets. The real point of blame gets directed towards Zionists, which is a Jewish ideology. The 9/11 Big Lie is supported by far-right extremists and white supremacists that believe that the Aryan race are descended from Reptiles from Draco and are God informed men, according to their sources that include Helena Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine, and The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion which is touted by cult guru, and 9/11 activist, David Icke as bastions for truth and credible historical documentation. Other supporters of The Big Lie include elements within the Arab and Muslim world, that all support the theory of a Jewish conspiracy for world domination. A good example of this anti-semitism which is ages old and is behind almost every conspiracy theory on the go, is Jeff Rense's anti-semitic sensationalized headline on his website, " "American Jews staged the 9/11 terrorist attacks for their own financial gain". You just have to listen to the accounts of Pedro A. Sanjuan, a former United Nations diplomat, and read, The UN Gang. Doubleday, 2005. p. 165, to see that antisemitic 9/11 conspiracy theories were quite common at high levels of the UN following 9/11. Therefor, those conspiracy theories that you think expose elitests and world rulers, are actually coming from quite high up members of society in many cases. And most of those high level members, have political agendas and reasons to spread the propaganda. Now, onto the propaganda regarding the demolition of the twin towers. For starters, the Twin Towers had 110 floors each. The Twin towers were not built to withstand an impact by a boeing 767 traveling at 590mph fully laden with fuel, as, despite 9/11 truthers saying they were, quite simply boeing767's were not around during the time of the construction of the Twin Towers. Now, the point of impact on the North Tower was between the 93rd and 99th floors. And on the South Tower between the 77th and 85th floors. Now when you look at footage of the point the Twin Towers begin to fall, you can see the steel columns bending and twisting at the point of impact, just like the steel columns in WTC5 were bending and twisting, and then, as the weight of 15 floors above the bending and twisting columns on the North Tower, and weight of around 17 floors from above on the South Tower, begin bearing down on the twisting and bending steel columns, suddenly they giveway and snap, and we now have between 17 & 33 floors falling ontop of the floors below. What is going to happen? can you imagine 33 floors of a skyscraper falling down ontop of one floor below? can you imagine the weight and the force? what is going to happen? i will tell you what. The floor is going to giveway. But, it does not fall at freefall speed like 9/11 truthers, architects and engineers say it does on loose-change, as you can clearly see by watching the footage of the fall that falling debree is falling faster than the collapsing towers. Now, rigging up a building with explosives, especially buildings as large as the Twin Towers are major operations. How could a building containing nearly 3000 workers be rigged up on the secret and quiet? absolutely noway. Noway could anyone connected to The Bush Neocons carry out something such as this. Those neos could not even hide a semen stain on a dress.
To quote George Galloway. Would they be bad enough to do something like this? YES. Would they be mad enough? NO!
funnycn

Pro

"however, behind the scenes regarding the 9/11 conspiracies is a strong stench of anti-semitism."

That claim is WAY off topic. We jumped from how it was an inside job to how it's antisemitic.

" and the conspiracy theories do not stop with the US government. Infact, they are just the puppets, and in certain cases, perhaps unknowing and unsuspecting puppets. The real point of blame gets directed towards Zionists, which is a Jewish ideology"

Wow...this has no relation to how your argument is valid.

" The 9/11 Big Lie is supported by far-right extremists and white supremacists that believe that the Aryan race are descended from Reptiles from Draco and are God informed men"

Where is this even heading!? The rest of your argument is how antisemitic 9/11 is, which is not related to how it's an inside or not.

"conspiracy theories that you think expose elitests and world rulers, are actually coming from quite high up members of society in many cases."

When did I even try to "expose" elitists?


I'd like to state my opponent's argument has gone off topic and therefore is invalid.T he rest of his argument claims that the 9/11 big lie is all about white supremacy and antisemitism.
Debate Round No. 4
Blackyblue

Con

I deny that i have gone off topic in the slightest. I was trying to explain to you how many of the arguments coming from the truth movement, suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job, mostly the work of Israel, according to the vast majority of truthers, is infact far right propaganda. I think this is extremely valid, if you do not mind me saying so.
Anyway, as this is my last post on the subject, my opponent has not given me much to work with in the way of debate. Therefor, i can only assume that he is keeping his ace card up his sleeve to hit me with it in round5, when i will not be able to reply. So, i am going to try and predict what his argument could be. Perhaps, he might try and use one of the more common arguments from 9/11 truthers, which is regarding the mainstream newspaper reports straight after 9/11, suggesting that some of the hijackers named by the FBI on September 14, 2001., where actually still alive. 9/11 truthers like to use this debate. However, what they never mention, and never use in their debates was the public apologies from those mainstream newspapers, that after the FBI released photographs four days after the cited reports on September 27, the mistaken identities were quickly resolved, and the newspapers wrote articles correcting their mistakes. It is true, that one Saudi airline pilot of the same name as one of the 9/11 bombers, had walked into a Police station in Saudi, and asked to know why he had been accused of flying a plane into the twin towers. However, the man in question was not him, as photographic evidence proved, it was simply a pilot with the same name, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain.".
Another argument my opponent might use, is to try and say Al qaeda do not exist and therefor could not have been behind the 9/11 bombings. However, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, which is the forerunner of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, commonly known as Al-qaeda, do exist, and are very real, as are mujahideen, which is based on a Jihadist notion dating back to the prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an in the 600's AD, long before Cristobal Colon had even founded the Americas, and just because the CIA had a database called Al-qaeda back during the Soviet invasion of 1974, is no more proof that the Mujahideen network does not exist any more than Milwall football hooligans not existing just because Scotland yard may have a database called "Milwall football hooligans".
Also it is debatable the amount of influence the CIA had over Mujahideen during the Soviet uprising, as despite claims by the likes of Robin Cook, and the BBC documentary of 2004 named "Al-Qaeda's origins and links", the facts are, with a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land
with several hundred million dollars a year in funding from non-American, Muslim sources, Arab Afghans themselves would have no need for American funds
Americans could not train mujahideen because Pakistani officials would not allow more than a handful of U.S. agents to operate in Pakistan and none in Afghanistan
the Afghan Arabs were militant Islamists, reflexively hostile to Westerners, and prone to threaten or attack Westerners even though they knew the Westerners were helping the mujahideen.
Also, regarding the claims that Osama Bin Laden once supported USA, made popular by Bandar bin Sultan, Bin Laden himself once said "the collapse of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan ... the US had no mentionable role," but "collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant."
There is one thing about 9/11 i find genuinely concerning regarding 9/11, and that is the affair with the Carlyle group, and i think these are sincere and genuine concerns, in that the Bin Laden family did have a small percentage of shares in the Carlyle group. However, The Bin Ladens had always mentained that Osama Bin Laden, had been disowned by the family back in 1990, and that the family had nothing to do with him. The Carlyle group did used to hire George Bush as a buisness advisor, however after 2001, the bin ladens were asked to relinquish their shares in the company amid concerns that they may inadvertently profit from the contracts of services, to which they agreed. And this is really the most credible worry i can see, and as much as it is a genuine concern having multi billion dollar industries employing some of the most powerful men in the world, and thus creating a conflict of interests, those genuine concerns are made a complete mockery of by the more bizarre claims and theories of 9/11 truthers, many of which, would try have you believe that no planes went into the twin towers at-all.
Anyway, i apologise if this argument was not in line with my opponents, but my opponent really did not give me much to work with in terms of debate, or questions to answer, so i kind of just had to predict what his next debate might be.
Ok, over and out, thank you for the debate.
funnycn

Pro

"I deny that i have gone off topic in the slightest. I was trying to explain to you how many of the arguments coming from the truth movement,"

I'm not in the truth movement, I'm not arguing for the truth movement, and I am personally not the truth movement. OFF TOPIC.

The rest of your argument is what I'll say. You want to know what I have to say?

==conclusion==

i. Steel and fire

Many people do not know about the third building that fell during the 9/11 "attacks". Yes, there was a third building that fell. But fell...mysteriously. No plane hit it, and there wasn't an explanation on how it fell. Except for this...it was blown up from the inside. Read this
"The total collapse of WTC 7 in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration (NIST admits 2.25 seconds). Larry Silverstein used the term “Pull it”. Steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER totally collapsed from fire or structural damage. Builidng 7 was not hit by a plane. ‘Building 7′, ‘WTC 7′." (1)

That's right it wasn't hit by a plane. Then what else could it have been hit by?

So what brought down the third building? Many people arguing against theorists say it was fire. However expert architects, engineers, and scientists say it would have been impossible.
"However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. " (2)
"That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire."(2)

Take this into account as well
"tonnes of steel" (2)

So we know two things here. One, it may have fallen due to fire, and two it was made of steel. Let's toss those two together. Steel has a melting point of 2500°F (3) and it supposedly fell due to fire. Fire can only get so hot in one room and to melt steel takes a lot of fire. To simply put it, it would be impossible.

Another factor is how it fell. It went straight DOWN.
"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves" (2)

Building seven was destroyed from the inside, it's the only way it could have happened to fall straight down. Internal demolition is not natural, and internal demolition could cause it to go straight down.

The 2 towers now were also made of steel and fire had also took a big, but not the biggest, role in taking them down. They were supposedly hit by planes and jet fuel burned the steel.
"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F" (4)

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the fuel to melt the steel.

There was no plane that hit the pentagon and a video further explaining how, why etc.

http://www.youtube.com...

Expert pilots even claim it would be impossible to hit the pentagon with an airliner. Why?

You'd have to swerve through telephone poles, other buildings, and towers AND STILL hit the pentagon with a HUGE plane



"How many controlled demolitions do you know that take out practically all the other buildings in the area"
Wouldn't it be odd if only ONE building was destroyed? Well in this case 3. But regardless, let me try to explain this...

A plane strikes the tower. It falls. ONLY ONE falls. It doesn't harm anything else. Wouldn't that be odd? It would seem...very strange. Multiple hijackers take a plane, smash it into the tower and it doesn't harm anything else? Ah...see they're not dumb. "Let's take a plane and smash it into the tower and take out multiple buildings and make it look like a massive terrorist attack!"

"How many controlled demolitions do you know that have parts of the building still standing after they have fallen?"

Either two things.

1. A failed demolition. Plan B is authorized.
2. To make it seem "probable".

They're not stupid. They have to make it seem probable...sadly they didn't completely succeed, as they didn't fool many people.

THIS IS A SUMMARY OF MY MAIN ARGUMENTS AND CLAIMS

==Sources==

1 http://www.hangthebankers.com......
2 http://news.bbc.co.uk......
3 https://www.google.com......
4 http://www.popularmechanics.com......
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
I accept, I will post my argument later however. Prepare to be shocked...and most of all...prepare to enter....

THE TWILIGHT ZONE!
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
sheeple the wake!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
7/11 was an inside job!!!!!
Posted by welliott 2 years ago
welliott
I hate to agree but I do believe it was an inside job, even Putin daid he will reveal classified information of 9/11 unless America stops putting a large amount of sanctions on Russia (for the Ukraine crisis).
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Even thebestpageintheuniverse.com easily proved the retardation required.
Posted by Blackyblue 2 years ago
Blackyblue
Well, i challenge anyone to see if they can avoid becoming a Charlie Vietch, and debate me.
Posted by Mr.Chorlton 2 years ago
Mr.Chorlton
I'm with you all the way blackyblue. They annoy me so much.
No votes have been placed for this debate.