The Instigator
mommys_little_marxist
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

9/11 was set up

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,633 times Debate No: 1465
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (19)

 

mommys_little_marxist

Pro

I have now seen multiple debates on debate.org on whether or not 9/11 was in fact real or not, their are millions of factors that do not add up in 9/11 as well as the attack on the pentagon. First of all yes planes have crashed into buildings all over the world, and never once has one collapsed on itself, let alone two at the same time, second the temperature that jet fuel burns at WAS NOT hot enough to burn through the reinforced steel that was used to construct the twin towers.

Other facts about 9/11: 3 days before 9/11 all bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the building

flight 72 (which was infact one of the planes that hit the world trade center) was stopped in cleveland and evacuated due to "bomb threats", was never reboarded and then took off to be hi-jacked by whom?

the owner of the world trade center Larry A. silverstein 6 weeks prior to 9/11 signs a $3.2 billion dollar, 99-year lease on the entire World Trade Center complex, six weeks before 9-11.

Included in the lease is a $3.5 billion dollar insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism

not to mention the mysterious calls that were made from cell phones on the plane to family members saying "mom it's me john (or whatever family member) the planes been hi-jacked, you believe me right, you believe me don't you" when it's been scientifically proven that it's impossible to make a cell phone call at 30,000 feet
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Let us begin examining your attempt to defile America with nonsense. In the history of the world, there has never been a plane the size of a Boeing 767-200 that crashed into the Two Towers. The closest after the 767-200 is the 757-200 that crashed into the Pentagon. Next after that is the B-25D bomber that hit the Empire State Building in 1945.

Max Takeoff Weight (767-200) - 315,000 lb
Max Takeoff Weight (757-200) - 255,000 lb
Max Takeoff Weight (B-25D) - 34,044 lb

As one can see - the 757 is 7.49 times as heavy, and the 767 is 9.25 times as heavy! Small wonder they did more damage! An EMPTY 767 is still 5.19 times as heavy as a FULLY LOADED B-25D.

The temperature at which steel melts is completely irrelevant. Jet fuel has a maximum burning temperature of 980 C. Structural steel - in fact, the SAME steel used in the WTC buildings, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology - loses 50% of its structural strength by 600 C. The steel would only need minutes of exposure at 900 C to begin to lose a significant amount of its structural strength. Remember - it has already lost 50% by 600 C... what happens when the temperature is 163% of that 600 C??

The bomb sniffing dogs had been moved to the WTC two weeks before the attacks because of phone threats unrelated to the 911 Attack. Their removal was based on the fact that none of the phone threats had been carried out.

Flight 72... This is my favorite argument of yours. The was no Flight 72 involved on September 11!!!! The four flights are listed below:

AA Flight 11 - Boeing 767-200 - Crashed into WTC North Tower
UA Flight 175 - Boeing 767-200 - Crashed into WTC South Tower
AA Flight 77 - Boeing 757-200 - Crashed into Pentagon
UA Flight 93 - Boeing 757-200 - Crashed in Southwest PA

There was no Flight 72 ever hijacked, and certainly no Flight 72 that ever hit either of the WTC Towers.

This lease you speak of was not a business transaction 6 weeks before 9/11/01. It actually took place on 4/26/01 - more than 4 MONTHS before the attacks. The purchase date of the lease was 4/26/01, and the signing date was in July of 2001. As for the sections on terrorism? Hello?? The WTC was bombed in 1993 by a truck bomb in a parking garage. Only a complete and utter idiot would fail to insure property that had ALREADY BEEN ATTACKED against further terrorist attacks.

Also - the payout from the insurance policy is about $2 BILLION short of the cost to actually rebuild the WTC complex - and Silverstein specifically wanted to develop the property. Doesn't sound like a conspiracy to me - he's LOSING money.

As someone commented below, it's certainly possible to get a signal at 30,000 feet. And also, as he said, the plane wouldn't be at 30,000 feet for the duration of the flight. AA Flight 11 never reached 30,000 feet in any case. At 8:37, the plane began descending from its altitude of 29,000 (it ignored the order from traffic control to rise to 35,000) at a rate of 3,200 feet per minute, giving passengers PLENTY of time to make calls. There are several recorded instances of calls from UA Flight 175.

What we have in Marxist's argument is simply a case of misinformation. It is my duty as an American to debunk this nonsense. I believe I have answered all his objections completely and coherently. I await more.
Debate Round No. 1
mommys_little_marxist

Pro

mommys_little_marxist forfeited this round.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

This round was skipped because the Contender didn't see any more nonsense to respond to. My arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 2
mommys_little_marxist

Pro

mommys_little_marxist forfeited this round.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Well this was a disappointment. I see no need to post anything further - I completely refuted all his points. I think it's clear which argument is better.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mommys_little_marxist 9 years ago
mommys_little_marxist
I still complteley stand with all the arguments i made, and no i didn't chicken out of debating u, i had recently lost my internet and haven't gotten it back until a couple of days ago
Posted by captgeech 9 years ago
captgeech
Missed a round again, I wonder if you convinced him. I doubt it, no matter how obvious it is, he won't see that he was totally wrong. I agree that was disappointing.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
There were no bombs inside the buildings - it was the North tower that was supposedly bombed... It was reported that the "bomb" went off just before the plane hit the tower, although there is some confusion here. The firefighters in Stairway 6 who SURVIVED THE COLLAPSE said there were no bombs. Video and photo images show no damage to the floor of the lobby, like would have occurred from a basement bomb. What was interpreted as possible bomb residue could easily have been made from the components present in the building and airplane when smashed together and burned or smoldered for 8 DAYS until it rained on 11/20/01.

Now I have to ask you "ROdr1duez" - "do u have any brains?" The American dollar FELL after 9/11. If the dollar was "super low" we'd want to STRENGTHEN our economy? Oh... and the price of oil went UP immediately after 9/11 and oil prices are still higher now than before 9/11. So the oil avenue makes no sense at all...

So after your blatant lack of economic education and poorly researched bomb claims... no , I don't "got the point." Perhaps you'd like to challenge me to a debate on this. I welcome more Un-American nonsense.
Posted by Mr.ROdr1duez 9 years ago
Mr.ROdr1duez
ohh and there were bombs inside the trade centers i dont remember wich one but wen the plane crashed it took to long to fall so...u got the point
Posted by Mr.ROdr1duez 9 years ago
Mr.ROdr1duez
it was a inside job for the oil...do u have any brains the american dollar is super low we need a excuse...
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
all you 9/11 nutcases and BDS sufferers need professional help

and PLEASE ! do NOT vote!
Posted by captgeech 9 years ago
captgeech
thats too bad that he forfeited a round. I like that every one of his "facts" were completely wrong. I would encourage being curious, but if you don't think for yourself and just accept things blindly, then there is really no point. Mommys little marxist's "theory" has absolutely no basis in fact, so it can't even be considered a theory, more like a myth, or a fairy tale.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Sigh... I feel I must break with my earlier conviction to respond to this new brand of illogic...

Flight 77 didn't begin it's flight toward the Pentagon till it was on the West side of West Virginia!!! The pilot had the plane down to 2000 ft. by about 4 miles from the Pentagon. 4 miles is 21120 feet. So the pilot could have descended a foot for every 8 feet he flew forward and been at ground level a full mile from the Pentagon.

Conclusion? It would be simple to execute a dive from 2000 feet into the side of a building over 4 miles. I could probably do it, and I've never even flown an RC plane. Not luck - careful planning and a steady hand on the controls. A dive from 30,000 ft would have been hard to do over 4 miles. but from 2000? Simple.
Posted by sheepgotoheaven 9 years ago
sheepgotoheaven
No plane debris found at the pentagon...but of course there was still "evidence" found that identified all the bodies...please. That "terrorist" must have been a damn good pilot to perform a dive from 30,000 feet straight into the side of the pentagon, but wait... His flight school instructor said he could hardly fly a cesna. Luck?
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Z28 - please stop with the mini-debate in the comment field here. Form a real debate and challenge me. I will respond to any and all of your objections as best I can. I would challenge you, but I don't know what objections you have...

This is the last time I'm going to respond to this debate in the comment field.

WTC 7 was built OVER an existing power transfer station. As such, there are cantilever beams in the structure about 5 stories up that transfer the weight of the building to the outer sections. This is why the beginning of the collapse was at the bottom of the building - these support structures failed.

WTC 7's internal structure was comprised of fireproofed support beams. While video and photos show the relatively intact exterior of the building, the interior was destroyed. WTC 7 was hit by falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Nearly all the pictures of WTC 7 are of the North side of the building - the side AWAY from the towers. On the South side of WTC 7, nearly 10 stories of the building was destroyed by falling debris. WTC 7 also burned out of control from the collapse of the towers to around 5:20 in the afternoon - more than 7 hours. The damage to the support beams from falling debris weakened or destroyed the fireproofing. After burning for 7 hours, it's no wonder that the damaged cantilever beams, holding unusually large loads would give way and cause the sort of vertical collapse we saw in WTC 7.

Why did it "kink" and come straight down? Easy - the ends of the building were more sturdily constructed than the middle. And the middle was hit by debris, open on the south side, and had been burning away for 7 hours.

Your video "evidence" is laughable - all from the north side, showing none of the lower stories or the damaged south side. You can't see the length of the collapse because of the debris cloud either.

http://pubs.usgs.gov... - no mention of 1341 F in the USGS report.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
mommys_little_marxistJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeiture
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
mommys_little_marxistJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
mommys_little_marxistJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: JCMT clearly disproved each of mommy's_little_marxist's contentions and did not forfeit the debate.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
mommys_little_marxistJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by mommys_little_marxist 9 years ago
mommys_little_marxist
mommys_little_marxistJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by GeoffG 9 years ago
GeoffG
mommys_little_marxistJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by SirJDCroix 9 years ago
SirJDCroix
mommys_little_marxistJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
mommys_little_marxistJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
mommys_little_marxistJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
mommys_little_marxistJustCallMeTarzanTied
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