The Instigator
darryshan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Free_Th1nker
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

9/11 was not 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 1 vote the winner is...
Free_Th1nker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2014 Category: News
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,000 times Debate No: 59429
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

darryshan

Pro

The evidence for 9/11 being an inside job is factually deceiving, and requires many assumptions. For example, claims that the buildings fell at freefall speeds ignore the obvious debris that fell faster than the collapse, seen in this image:

http://i.imgur.com...

Also, claims that WTC 7 was destroyed in a controlled demolition do not take into account any of the information from the NIST report which explored WHY the buildings fell. The investigation showed that the load bearing side of the building fell in, then the rest collapsed. This left a shell which fell much faster than it would have done if the inside was still intact.

Many other claims use totally incorrect facts, such as that no debris from the planes were found at the Pentagon or the Flight 93 crash site. A simple Google search can prove this to be untrue.

In general, all arguments in support of 9/11 being an inside job assume that the US government is almost flawless, and can keep a secret that thousands know for 13 years. In fact, the US government are not very good at keeping secrets, as shown with the NSA leak and the 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman' incident.

If someone who believes it was an inside job could provide some arguments, that would be great.
Free_Th1nker

Con

I am accepting this debate on the grounds that I, and no one else, can really know for sure if 9/11 was an inside job. As I understand it, you have BoP to show it was definitely not an inside job; where I have BoP to show how we cannot be certain. It is a far stretch to say there is definitive evidence one way or the other.

I agree that some of the evidence is deceiving and requires many assumptions, but some of it isn't.

Regarding Building 7: There are many issues when considering the official story of Building 7.

First, the BBC reported the collapse 20 minutes before it even happened. (https://www.youtube.com...)
No assumptions necessary here.

There are a lot of problems with the NIST report on Building 7. Since this is the first round, I'll give you a link:
http://www.911truth.org...

A few issues covered here are:
  • NIST ignored all invitations from independent investigators to discuss or debate its findings or the alternative theory.
  • NIST’s previous reports show no evidence that NIST considered alternative theories at all. Only one small disclaimer was made in the final report for the towers, and only after public criticism that no mention of alternative theories was made in the draft report for the towers.
  • 9/11 family members and independent investigators have had to pursue legal avenues to seek the truth from NIST, including a request for correction that has ultimately been ignored by NIST.
  • Those citizens who have successfully criticized NIST in public have lost their jobs for doing so.
  • NIST makes no mention of the mainstream scientific articles published in support of the alternative theory.

We can discuss specific issues in later rounds if you'd like.

NIST did actually say that Building 7 fell at free fall speed. The 9/11 Commission makes no mention to the collapse of Building 7.

There is no video evidence proving that a plane hit the Pentagon. People at the scene admitted there was no sign a plane hit the building. Some eye-witnesses said they saw a plane, others said they did not; however, unless we have conclusive video evidence, we cannot rule out a JASSM. The Pentagon surveillance video is missing the critical frame that would allow us to see what hit the building.

The government is excellent at keeping secrets. Research Gulf of Tonkin and Operation Northwoods.

For me, I get very suspicious when I read about foreknowledge of 9/11.

Specifically this document, a President's daily brief: http://en.wikipedia.org...;

The 9/11 Commission is also suspect at best. Less initial government funding was given to it than the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation. It took 441 days to begin; compared to 7 days for the JFK assassination
Henry Kissinger was originally supposed to head the commission. Kissinger is the principal creator of the US-instigated coup in Chile. Kissinger also had a critical role in extending the Vietnam War among many others. http://www.globalresearch.ca...

I know my response is fairly vague and goes off in quite a few tangets, so give me some bullet points and I'll attempt to address them. I'm not saying I have all the answers or that it was certainly an inside job, but I do believe there is plenty of doubt surrounding the official story.
Debate Round No. 1
darryshan

Pro

darryshan forfeited this round.
Free_Th1nker

Con

I maintain my position.
Debate Round No. 2
darryshan

Pro

darryshan forfeited this round.
Free_Th1nker

Con

I maintain my position
Debate Round No. 3
darryshan

Pro

darryshan forfeited this round.
Free_Th1nker

Con

I maintain my argument.
Debate Round No. 4
darryshan

Pro

darryshan forfeited this round.
Free_Th1nker

Con

I maintain my position.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by darryshan 2 years ago
darryshan
Hey, could we restart the debate? I've been unable to post a reply due to internet which did not stay connected for at least 5 minutes and the website going weird without internet access. As a result, when I tried to post my response the morning after you posted yours, I got kinda pissed and ended up forgetting. If we could copy and paste our first responses then continue from there that would be great.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
I also wish pro did not forfeit; I think first round was a rather lazy effort on my part.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
It's not so much that I think I have all the answers, but there are so many unanswered questions that I cannot help but doubt the official story. I certainly don't associate with the lunatics who think no planes ever hit buildings or that somehow nuclear weapons were involved. The three biggest issues I have with 9/11 are:
1. The buildings falling symmetrically at free fall speeds under the stated conditions of the attacks.
2. No visual evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon; overall lack of evidence a commercial plane hit the Pentagon
3. The admitted failure of United States intelligence agencies who had all the information to prevent the attacks.
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 2 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
I'm actually very impressed with con. I've always refuted the idea of 9/11 being an inside job, but con has managed to make me doubt myself in one round. That may be due to the weak arguments emitting from pro, however. And why would you forfeit a round on a debate you started? At least go down fighting.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
darryshanFree_Th1nkerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.