The Instigator
ATHOS
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DeFunkd
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

9/11 was not an "INSIDE JOB"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 7/14/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,383 times Debate No: 24714
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

ATHOS

Pro

=======Resolution=======



'The events of 9/11 was not a conspiracy perpetrated by the United States Government or any of its agencies, including the C.I.A. (Central Intelligence Agency).'


Definitions:


9/11 = The events that occured on september 11 2001. The attacks on the World Trade Center, The Pentagon and flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.


Conspiracy
= Plan to commit illegal act together: a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act.



Perpetrate
= Do something wrong: to commit or be responsible for something, usually something criminal or morally wrong.
United States Government = The executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States.


Rules:


1.)
1st round is for acceptance.


2.)
R2 will be for arguments as to what Pro and Con believes happened to cause the events on 9/11.

3.)
R3 will be for asking questions concerning the arguments presented. Only questions requiring a 'YES' or 'NO' are permitted.



4.)
R4 will be for answering each other's questions, and explaining Yes' and No's.



5.)
R5 will be for conclusion/rebuttals.


6.)
To the best of their ability my opponent has to be specific with the conspiracy theory he/she is arguing.
e.g,... what type of tactics were used, how the United States Government did it, who or what other organizations were involved.

7.)
YouTube videos or any other video links are not permitted.



//Note to voters: Voters are urged to vote according to which 9/11 scenario (Pro's or Con's) was more likely to occur based on the way it was presented.//
DeFunkd

Con

I have accepted your challenge as a warm up for a debating tournament where the cases are moderately one-sided so that close debates go to the side that really should have lost. Your definitions are acceptable. Thank you for the opportunity. I wish you the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
ATHOS

Pro

=======Resolution=======



'The events of 9/11 was not a conspiracy perpetrated by the United States Government or any of its agencies, including the C.I.A. (Central Intelligence Agency).'


Definitions:


9/11 = The events that occured on september 11 2001. The attacks on the World Trade Center, The Pentagon and flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.


Conspiracy
= Plan to commit illegal act



Round 2

I would like to thank Con for accepting.


On september 11 2001, 19 terrorists hi-jacked 4 passenger jets. The hi-jackers flew 2 of the planes, A/A flight 11 and U/A flight 175 into each of the towers of the World Trade Center. The Towers fell within 2 hours. One of the hi-jacked planes A/A flight 77 was also flown into the pentagon. The other hi-jacked plane U/A flight 93 was intended to be flown into the United States Capitol Building, instead it crashed near Shanksville, Pennslyvania.

The hi-jackers were from a militant islamist group known as Al-Qaeda.


Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure. The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. after burning for 56 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175.The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m. after burning for 102 minutes.When the North Tower collapsed, debris fell on the nearby 7 World Trade Center building (7 WTC), damaging it and starting fires. These fires burned for hours, compromising the building's structural integrity, and 7 WTC collapsed at 5:21 p.m.The Pentagon sustained major damage.

Nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks, including 227 civilians aboard the hi-jacked planes, along with the hi-jackers.

http://en.wikipedia.org....

http://en.wikipedia.org...



DeFunkd

Con

*Personally, I take the side of pro for this debate. Also, to anyone who is reading this debate and has lost relatives or friends in any of the events mentioned, my deepest condolences go out to you.*

The majority of conspiracy theories are blatantly misrepresented, factually unsound or simply just scare-mongering. The main reason for this is in the motives behind the actions. In the reports of 911, in which I do not intend to dispute the facts of, there are several occurrences that need explanation.
1. The pilots of an aircraft would have known that the terrorist were going to get them killed anyway. And since the terrorists could not fly the planes themselves, the pilots could have used their position of authority over the terrorists to change the results. Thus, the automatic response would be to save the lives of those in the target buildings, and crash the aircraft elsewhere. When one knows that they are going to die, the natural human instinct is to 'get one back' on the ones who are causing their demise.
2. The best way to divert suspicion is to attack yourself. No one could possibly believe that any party would attack themselves. It sounds ludicrous, however, why is it that the two buildings directly relating to the American government were left in far better condition than the other two?
3. Press releases were controlled by the US government; only what was wanted to be said was said.
4. Four planes attack four buildings and only 3000 people die. Why not more? If the terrorists were truly out for a 'holy war,' then why did they only kill 3000? Why not crash a plane into a large school, or packed stadium, or Time Square? The reasons behind the attack of the terrorists are shady at best. Even shadier than some conspiracy theories? Moreover, since this debate is asking if there is a way to conclusively prove that 9/11 was exactly the way it was reported, if there is the slightest opportunity for the story to be wrong, a good conspiracy theory can be declared just as plausible.

Let us continue with the theory in question.
The United States' government, in early 2001, learned of the economic problems that the nation would face if the economy were to continue in the same way that it was going. (Interestingly enough, since the war has begun to end, how many times has the stock market crashed?) Therefore, in a desperate attempt to change its future, America made a radical call. America had to go to war. However, as learnt from Vietnam, a war could not be started with the people's consent, if the people couldn't see an obvious threat. The plan was simple: war gives a manufacturing boost, rich people take out bonds, and the entire nation unifies under desperate circumstances. But at least they would still have their money. The difficulty, of course, was that every American had to be hoodwinked into believing that terrorism was a massive threat to homeland security. So, the plot was to destroy the nation's claim to fame: the World's Tallest Buildings. The deaths of some innocent men and women was justified by a better life for all. So, the US sent trained insurgents, dressed as terrorists, allowed them onto four planes, paid off their families, and sent the four planes into different targets. The locations had to be legitimate targets, without destroying the nation. Damaging a government building was a good way to avert suspicion, but the other two targets (The fourth target was never genuinely in question) we're expendable. The Wall Street set up could easily support the full grunt of US trade for an indefinite period of time. Aboard the aircraft, the trained insurgents killed the pilots, and as trained pilots themselves, steered the planes according to their orders.
Debate Round No. 2
ATHOS

Pro

Con has taken the role of "Devil's Advocate" in this debate, and while it isn't necessarily a bad thing, I was hoping for a more passionate (with someone who actually believes it was a conspiracy as stated in the resolution) debate. I should have stated that as a requirement in R1.

Regardless, I'll continue...

Questions:

//Note: questions are to be answered yes/no, and they are stated as such. Clarification can be provided in R4.//


1.) Has the U.S. economy improved due to the events of 9/11?


2.)
Do you believe that there are (some) people in the Middle East that hate America, form terrorist organizations and are motivated to carry out attacks?



3.) Do you believe that (some) people in the Middle East may have-what they would consider- a good reason to hate America?


4.)
Do you believe that (some) people in the Middle East should have no reason at all to hate America?



5.)
Were the 'trained insurgents' members of the U.S military?



6.)
Did employees of United Airlines and American Airlines have knowledge that the U.S. used trained insurgents dressed as terrorists, allowed them onto four planes and sent the four planes into different targets?



7.) Would you accept payment from the U.S. government to keep their involvment in 9/11 a secret and to willingly be a part of a hideous and dispicable endeavor?


8.)
Is there an amount of money that you would consider to be unacceptable as payment from the U.S. government to keep their involvment in 9/11 a secret and to willingly be a part of a hideous and dispicable endeavor?



9.)
Are the people that claim to have had family and friends aboard hi-jacked planes part of the conspiracy as well?



10.)
Are there any other reasons America would attack its own people besides a bad economy?
DeFunkd

Con

{Apologies, ATHOS. I'll steer clear next time.}

1. Has there been a significant increase in terrorist activity in the West since 911?

2. Are there any eye-witness accounts to rule out another possible turn of events?

3. Has America been majorly hurt, directly by the attacks, in any form other than emotionally? (The term 'emotional' extends to National Pride.)

4. Since America has stopped fighting wars actively, has there been any economic down-turns?

5. Is there any remote possibility, even if it requires disregarding the 'goodness' of the US government, that another turn of events occurred?
Debate Round No. 3
ATHOS

Pro

1.) Yes

2.) yes

3.) yes

4.) yes

5.) no
DeFunkd

Con

These are my responses, in order, to con's questions.

Arguably, Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Not necessarily.

No.

No.

Moot by previous statement.

No.

Yes.
Debate Round No. 4
ATHOS

Pro

I ran out out of arguments. I only have more questions. Lets go back to question

5. 'Were the 'trained insurgents' members of the U.S military?' you answered 'Not necessarily.'


What does that mean?- clarify.
DeFunkd

Con

Not necessarily means that the trained insurgents could have come from government and nongovernmental organizations. E.g. Any nation looking to secure ties with a large military force such as the US would happily supply the man-power, for a price.
Now, on with my case. Since my opposition has neglected the opportunity to debate or argue any responses, (Perhaps it is best to fix this for next time) I must neglect the few obvious disputes that demand a response from Pro in order tone debated. Aside from that, the opposition cannot refute that since America has attempted to stop wars, it's economy has crashed on multiple occasions. Additionally, during WW2 and the Cold War, the US prospered under the military development that boosted its economy. That is indisputable. Therefore, the US can utilise wars for economic growth, and after a lack of wars, it isn't impossible to rule out American growth as the motive behind starting a war.
Moreover, America has started a war using misleading evidence before. The Vietnam war was started by the destruction of a boat that didn't exist. When this was found to be a fraud, the US government was forced to start any new wars using real threats. Or at least threats that seemed real enough to the general population. And as for those who can say that the government had no hand in the crime, the only ones who can say that are those who have access to every American file, uncensorred. The only one who has that direct privilege is the President. Interestingly, this new president, perhaps driven by guilt upon blaming another nation for a war that his predecessor began, has all but ended the war in the middle-east.
I'm not asserting that this is the only truth possible, like my opponent. All I'm stating is that, to quote the clich´┐Ż, everything is not as it seems.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ATHOS 4 years ago
ATHOS
This debate is simple. The winner will be chosen by the voters. The voters will decide if the 'official story' is more logically probable, or any one or combination of the 'conspiracy theories' that have been claimed.

//Note: To any possible contenders. If this debate seems unfair concerning the rules or definitions, post a comment and I will make reasonable adjustments. I've always wanted to have a debate on this topic.//
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 4 years ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
In my opinion, regardless of whether the incident was an inside job or not, it is impossible for con to win. No reliable secondary source of information would argue that 911 was an inside job, and primary sources are not accessible since they are the secrets of the United States government and it would be illegal to have access to them.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
The planes came from outside.
No votes have been placed for this debate.