The Instigator
GlennBeck
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ThelemicKnight
Con (against)
Winning
8 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 3 votes the winner is...
ThelemicKnight
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 368 times Debate No: 76301
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

GlennBeck

Pro

R1 is for acceptance, R2 for arguments, R3 for rebuttals and closings.
ThelemicKnight

Con

I accept the challenge to debate this topic.
Debate Round No. 1
GlennBeck

Pro

How did building 7 fall at the speed of free fall even though it wasn't hit by a plane? How did fire melt steel? This is scientifically impossible.

http://www1.ae911truth.org...

This link has several more reasons that 9/11 was a conspiracy theory

http://newsone.com...

1. Inside traders knew about attacks before they happened
2. Air defense was told to stand down
3. Planes didn't make Twin Towers collapse, bombs did
4. The Pentagon Attack doesn't scientifically hold up
5. Flight 93 was completely staged
6. Hijackers are still alive. How did their passports survive explosion?
7. Cell phone calls made from plane were faked
8. Jewish people knew attack was going to happen, took off work on September 11th
9. Black boxes found by search crew kept secret
10. The Bin Laden tapes are faked
11. Aluminum planes can't penetrate steel structure of world trade center

9/11 was staged no matter what sheeple say.
ThelemicKnight

Con

Building 7 wasn't struck by any planes, however it was struck by significant amounts of falling debris which resulted in key structural failures. That factor along with the co-factor of the fire damage that Building 7 sustained ultimately materialized as a global structural collapse [ you can review that scientific/engineering report here: http://www.structuremag.org... ].

Fire doesn't melt steel and nobody claims that it does. But fire does WEAKEN steel. The Twin Towers fell as rapidly as they did because they were simple steel frame structures and the majority of inner spaces within such structures are composed of air.

Argument against your list of points:

1. What insider traders, whom? What is your evidence/sources? The likelihood of such a conspiracy is BEYOND remote. WTC was the financial HQ of such business and the events led to catastrophic losses for them, not gains. What would motivate them to commit such an act? It is doubt such a motive exists and I insist that you must prove out such a motive as the burden of proof is on you.

2. Whom told air defense to stand down? How do you know this? What is your evidence/sources? There are very extraordinary military/government protocols in place by countries when such events occur and in such circumstances there is tremendous confusion among air traffic controllers who are unprepared/poorly trained and inexperienced in such unprecedented historical events. A wrong move by the government/military could trigger an accidental thermal nuclear war with foreign powers. The exact details of such events usually remain classified but the ones we know of led to the famous Red Phone which connects the President of the United States to the leader of Russia so the one may call the other to ask if either has made a preemptive strike [upon finding out that a preemptive strike has not been made there would then be a 'stand down' order to prevent war]. These protocols prior to 9/11 did not anticipate a strike on our soil by stateless terrorists and so the command/communication structure was inadequate for such an event. The burden of proof is on you to explain what happened exactly in the military/government command structure. It it unlikely you're privy to such sensitive information.

3. Controlled demolitions don't take down buildings from the top and down. Controlled demolitions take place at ground level. We can clearly see the planes hit the buildings and clearly see the buildings topple downward from above. That is contrary to how a controlled demolition happens and to do it in reverse is ridiculous.

4. You have not provided evidence/argument for this. If you mean the Pentagon was hit by missiles then that is truly idiotic. What kind of missiles then? If the US fired missiles upon their own military HQ then the destruction would've been total instead of a small section. You must prove what kinds of missiles and you must prove that the damages created by those missiles were consistent with the destructive capabilities of such missiles. You have not provided due proof of any of this which is substantial/credible and part of a vetted academic/scientific peer reviewed journal. You must also establish motive and the US military has no motive for attacking itself at its own HQ where the Secretary of Defense was located at during the attack.

5. Silly and baseless. What proof?

6. Nutty/mentally ill delusions. Your evidence?

7. How so?

8. Anti-Semitic hysteria that has already been debunked time and time again [the last time we destroyed such myths was when we destroyed Hitler]. What is your evidence of this anyway? Or is it just a claim to omniscience?

9. Proof?

10. Evidence? And even if they were faked . . . how would it be relevant to all of the above?

11. Jet airliners are not simply 'aluminum'. You are attempting at oversimplifying how durable and devastating such constructions are when hurled into simple steel frame buildings (buildings composed of lots of glass and air) --- when hurled into them at such a velocity while they explode. Since you said planes didn't hit the buildings but rather demolition crews blew them up then why are you submitting into your argument all this stuff about planes? This is contradictory/oxymoron. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. It is either one or the other but not both. Which one is it? Did the insider traders do the act or was it the Jews or was it the military or was it the government? Which one? What are the motives? You have to pick one or the other. You have to be consistent.

If you do not meet the demands I've asked of you in this argument then you have lost the debate and the votes must be CON.

You must provide consistent evidence and you must stick to one theory rather than a confused mud puddle of various self-contradictory theories. You must also establish motive. Failure to do any of this is a vote of CON and you must concede to me on all points in such a case.
Debate Round No. 2
GlennBeck

Pro

GlennBeck forfeited this round.
ThelemicKnight

Con

ThelemicKnight forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
It wasn't well done plagiarism, but he's still not the true author of his own post.
Posted by ThelemicKnight 1 year ago
ThelemicKnight
Speaking of which.

I'm surprised his account doesn't get removed. I don't think The Blaze would appreciate anyone confusing this user with the REAL conspiracy dude [who plagiarizes Alex Jones].
Posted by ThelemicKnight 1 year ago
ThelemicKnight
Whose plagiarism?

Certainly not me.

You mean "Glenn Beck?"

I don't think what he did quite constitutes plagiarism but it was certain unoriginal-derivative-lazy.

I don't think he's going to respond back. I think I embarrassed him.
Posted by hect 1 year ago
hect
'weeeeeiiiiiiiioooooooooooooooo weeeeeiiiiiiiioooooooooooooooo weeeeeiiiiiiiioooooooooooooooo'
here come the plagiarism police
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
PLAGIARISM. Even with a link provided, it remains the same crime. Same when turned into a Gish Gallop.

That conspiracy nuts either have no original thought, or thoughts with no basis in reality (e.g. that Jews are really shape-changing space lizards), really weakens their credibility.
Posted by ThelemicKnight 1 year ago
ThelemicKnight
I hope I've redeemed myself as a new member within this community through this second debate. I took it seriously and worked very hard to argue this one. It took some time to write this.

I am not a troll . . . always.

Anyway. The results of this debate are a foregone conclusion.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
TheOpinionist
GlennBeckThelemicKnightTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro rebutted none of Cons arguments and then forfeited
Vote Placed by FlatEarthSociety 1 year ago
FlatEarthSociety
GlennBeckThelemicKnightTied
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 made random claims with no evidence to back any of it up. Con made very good rebuttals to show this. Since there was no argument that was substantial I give most convincing arguments to con.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
GlennBeckThelemicKnightTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used a word ("sheeple") that is not a proper word.