The Instigator
inrainbows
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
KingYosef
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

9/11...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  
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: 1/9/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,455 times Debate No: 1627
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (20)

 

inrainbows

Pro

September 11th 2001, the twin towers were attacked by missiles in the forms of airplanes. The pentagon, the most highly protected building in the United States was also attacked. The supposed terrorist also attempted to attack the white house, but failed due to heroic actions from its passengers. First off i want to say that i understand many Americans died that day, and I'm sorry for that. After saying that, let us begin. So why were we attacked? Well according to what were told, we were attacked because they hate are freedom and prosperity. But do you as an American really believe that? So, why would America attack it's own country and blame it on the middle east?

Before we go into that, lets take a step back into our history. At 21:15 on the night of February 27th, 1933 the German Parliament building was deliberately set on fire. Adolf Hitler was fast to blame it on the Russian communist, arresting over 4,000 communist. The next day Hitler urged the president to pass a law, that basically revoked all citizen rights. It has now been proved that it was Hitler's own party who lit the building on fire to help his movement. Following that event, restrictions were set to the highest level, and soon after world war two began. December 7th, 1941. Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, in return we enter the war. Now we were attacked by Japan, yes. But we spent the few months prior to it egging them on, hoping and waiting for them to attack us, so we could not look like aggressors and enter the war. August second and fourth we are allegedly attacked by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. It has been admitted now that those attacks were falsely created, and that they lied to us to enter the war. So how many Americans died in Vietnam? Those are just a few examples of prior events that were fabricated.

So back to 9/11. Lets start with World Trade Center building number seven. Most people from what I've observed truly don't know of the building falling. No plane hit this one, but it suddenly collapsed. The only explanation is that their was a fire on the first two floors. Now remember that the buildings that fell on 9/11 are the only buildings to ever fall from being on fire. An hour and a half before the WTC 7 fell, BBC announced that it fell. But as the reporter was giving his report you could clearly see it standing in the background, so why would they announce it while it was still standing. They supposedly didn't know that it was gonna fall, but if thats the case, why did they announce its falling? Another interesting fact on WTC 7 is the way it collapsed. Before you respond to this, i want you to watch the video of it falling. Tell me it doesn't look like a controlled demolition, much like the first two towers. It nearly fell at the same speed of the first two towers who were hit by planes. Watch how the building collapses, with it bending in towards the middle, the way they professionally demolish buildings. One more interesting fact on the mysterious collapse of WTC 7 is that in the building was mayor Rudy Giuliani's office, so everything in it was destroyed.

In this opening argument, I'm only going to present one more topic of 9/11. Lets just talk about motives. Why would we do this to our own country? It's quite simple if you think about it. The Bush administration wanted to enter the middle east for the plain reason of taking over it's oil fields. Now your thinking, no way man. We went in to take out Saddam Hussein, because he's an evil dictator. But if thats the truth, then why did we invade even after he offered to step down and go into exile for a sum of money not even close to the cost of the war. Do you know how much this war is costing us? roughly twenty million dollars an hour, thats about six thousand dollars a second, a second! It's now been proven that we were lied to about the true reasons for entering Iraq. Now we want to enter Iran, and who knows about Pakistan. Henry Kissinger recently stated that the true reasons for us wanting to invade Iran is not over nuclear bombs, but for controlling their oil fields.

The image of "terrorism" was created to give the American people something to fear, and to justify are greedy politicians, who are power hungry for their own pockets. Think, from the 40's to the late 80's, what was are excuse for invading countries? The answer is communism, but thats dead now. So they needed a new evil to put fear into the eyes of Americans to justify their unjust actions. I'm not saying communism and terrorism didn't and doesn't exist, I'm simply stating that the U.S. uses them as a image of evil for propaganda.
KingYosef

Con

I would first like to began that every "fact" or observation put forth by 9/11 conspirators saying that 9/11 was an inside job has been thoroughly debunked by experts in the fields of demolition, aviation, government, and any thing else involved..

First off the thing you say about the only building falling from fire, the WTC were built around and supported by specially made metal that would quickly melt at a certain heat. hence, when the buildings reached that heat, they collapsed.

Osama Bin Laden through indirect communication warned the Clinton administration that the United states would be attacked, which Clinton abruptly disregarded.

I am probably the biggest advocate on this site in regards to Oil being the drive behind U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. You argue Iraq, but Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, and yes we did go into Iraq simply for oil. anybody who reads anything important about current affairs knows that.

I am also Syrian, and two years before 9/11, I was in Syria and my family was talking about how the radicalist conversation over there was full blown anti-American, and distinctly remember my aunt telling my mother that soon America would be forced to deal with the radicalism that my family in Syria deals with on a daily basis, and my mother (7 generation American) said that would never happen in disbelief and what today can be viewed as naivness.

You are undermining the Intelligence of our government to say that they need an inside job like 9/11 to re-enter the middle east (even though we have had troops stationed over there for over 35 years). all they had to do was ignore the radicalist threats on American soil, and allow it to happen once.

The government will never go that far out of the way to get what it wants, politics is manipulation, not conspiration.
Debate Round No. 1
inrainbows

Pro

First off your claim that the steel of the buildings were made to melt under intense heat is false. The United States Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology performed an investigation which at the end they claimed that the fireproofing on the twin towers infrastructure was "blown off" by the planes initial impact. Now I don't fully support this idea, I simply brought that up to disprove your claim.

Now search youtube for the videos of the plane hitting each building, do tower one and then tower two. The first plane hits the WTC 1 head-on, smashing right into it. Now look how when the second plane hits WTC 2 how most of the jet fuel shoots outwards away from the building. Now what we were told is the towers collapsed from intense heat due to the jet fuel. But if this is the case. Why would the second building which wasn't hit head-on, and with most of the jet fuel shooting away from the tower fall first? Oh and what about the few survivors who claimed they heard explosions before and after the plane hit. "There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. There was another explosion. and another. I didn't know where to run"-Teresa Veliz who worked on the 47th floor of the north tower when flight 11 hit.

And what about...oh yes the hijackers. Who attacked The United States of America, if the named hijackers really attacked us, then how could at least nine of them still be alive?

9/11 had everything to do with entering the middle east. Yes we have been there for a while, but we didn't have control of the regions we truly desired. Lets be honest, oil is running out so there is gonna be wars for it, and this an example of one. I don't understand how you can't see this, you yourself said you understand the war over there is driven on oil. So what propelled us to go in there? what happened that swayed the opinions of millions? "The government will never go that far out of the way to get what it wants, politics is manipulation, not conspiration."-you. How and why did we get into Vietnam? We entered the war not on the pretext of truly stopping communism but for protecting are resources that the French had controlled of, but as you know lost. So how did they manipulate the American people into backing their agenda? They simply faked an attack, by organizing a false-flag operation. After September 11th, Americans hated "Al-qaeda", so with the American people on their side we entered Afghanistan. You are right politics are manipulation, but there also focused on their agenda to fulfill their own personal desires(money), not the desires and wishes of the American people.

Osama Bin Laden did warn Clinton, but he and his family are also very close friends with the Bush family. Months before September 11th, while Bin Laden is still on the most wanted list he is treated in a hospital filled with CIA operatives. So if he was so most wanted by the FBI and CIA, how come he wasn't arrested while he was surrounded by CIA operatives?

Since 9/11 president Bush has had and continues to have the power to say and do what ever he wants, all under the pretext of the 9/11 attacks:
-The Patriot Act(#2 coming)
-The Department of Homeland Security
-Afghanistan
-Iraq
Those who dare to question the official story are harassed and ridiculed from the government and media. The mass media to this day attempts to "debunker" the theories, one popular one is written in the popular mechanics magazine. Where "experts" come in and debunker what everyone is saying.

-Here's a link to a debate between the makers of loose change(9/11 documentary) and so called "experts" from popular mechanics, there's five or six parts to that video, choose to watch however many you can/want.

-http://youtube.com...
KingYosef

Con

KingYosef forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
inrainbows

Pro

hmmm....No argument? This is my last statement, but I'm not going to say anything regarding the topic because several others want to debate the same topic
KingYosef

Con

KingYosef forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Hmmm. I would have approached this debate more from the viewpoint that our government confiscated the nearly 50 different security cameras that had a vantage point of the pentagon. Those cameras still haven't been released today. However even so I can only vote for Pro on lack of refutation, anyone who doesn't is basically just voting on a bias. Lamzorz.
Posted by Acureforthemondays 9 years ago
Acureforthemondays
thank u sheep.

voting for kingyosef seems a bit based on ones opinion on the topic.
he didnt post the last two of his responses. can't win if you dont talk
Posted by stk1990 9 years ago
stk1990
Whenever someone tells me that 9/11 was a conspiracy I rip my balls off and shove them in my ears because it drowns out the sound of the jackass talking to me. Also, the pain keeps me sane.

I can give you an answer in short as to why 9/11 was not a conspiracy:

How can someone believe both of the following?

A) The government is such a well-oiled machine that it can orchestrate the biggest, most publicized mass murder in all human history and keep everyone involved silent including:
- President
- Vice President
- Cabinet
- Military
- Passengers on the four flights who apparently are not dead
- The people who allegedly planted bombs throughout the World Trade Center
- The people who undoubtedly saw men in black hoods going to and fro within the buildings taking out sections of the walls and placing bombs there
- The people who hit the switches to blow up the towers
- Rudy Giuliani
- Bernard Kerik
- NYPD
- The Port Authority
- The Fire Department
- Larry Silverstein
- The "hijackers" who are all apparently still alive
- The news media people who apparently were briefed that this was going to happen and didn't tell anyone
- The people who (OMG!) stole the gold underneath the World Trade Center

B) Now how can you believe the US gov't is capable of that but also routinely...
- Leaks secret information to the press
- Loses tons of explosives in Iraq
- Misplaces weapons
- Can't find billions of dollars appropriated for the Iraq War
- Is incapable of managing the reconstruction of Iraq

Figure that one out and get back to me.

P.S. And also, what the balls does the title "Loose Change" even mean? What moron came up with that one?
Posted by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
"Now what we were told is the towers collapsed from intense heat due to the jet fuel. But if this is the case. Why would the second building which wasn't hit head-on, and with most of the jet fuel shooting away from the tower fall first?"

Because the second tower was hit lower, so the weaker area where it was hit had to support more weight.

"There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. There was another explosion. and another. I didn't know where to run"-Teresa Veliz who worked on the 47th floor of the north tower when flight 11 hit.

Just because there were sounds of explosions doesn't mean the things exploding were bombs. There were several electrical boxes inside the building. Watch a video of one of those exploding. Most likely what was being heard there.
Posted by NragedX312 9 years ago
NragedX312
I feel as tho debating this subject is a waste of time.Both for and agaist the 911 situation, both sides have so many points. But at the end of the day, and this is for the con side if indeed this was a solo act of terror, can you at least state that the lack of answers in the commision report might tend to lead someone asking "why, if this is a act of terror,is our govt leaving so many unanswered questions"? Show us the video footage from the pentagon, showing us a few stills just dosent cut it.And for the people sending me im calling me anti-american please save it for those who care
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
What is up with the Con? This debate would be so easy to win.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Challenge me to this rainbows. Your entire argument is based on a theory that assumes culpability in the first place.

In the immortal words of G. Gordon Liddy: "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead"

You might dismiss this out of hand based on who said it, but upon reflection you'll have to admit he has a point.

Now. How many folks would have HAD to be involved in the conspiracy you claim?
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Regardless of your belief as to why we invaded Iraq (and don't forget it was CLINTON who made removing Saddam Hussein the official policy of the United States, and it was CLINTON who attacked Iraq not once, but twice BEFORE 9/11) you make a clearly wrong statement when you claim Bush "ditched" Afghanistan. No such thing occurred. In fact, we are STILL fighting there. It's not nearly as simple as just killing Bin Laden, as he's almost certainly hiding in Pakistan, a sovereign nation we are NOT at war with, hence we have no jurisdiction to enter.
Posted by Acureforthemondays 9 years ago
Acureforthemondays
For all those nay sayers to the 9/11 conspiracy, ask yourself this; did the bush administration get everything they wanted from the alleged attack? Little Bush Jr. has finally completed what his Daddy could not in the middle east. He said he was going after terrorist in Afghanistan, then ditched that and went for the oil in Iraq, using Hussein as plausible cause. Going after Iraq would have never been acceptable if we weren't already on a witch hunt in Afghanistan. So while Osama bin-Ladin lives on, American corporations such as Haliburton and Exxon have once again nestled themselves safely in the middle east.
Personally, I can't say whether or not I think 9/11 was an inside job, all I know is, things didn't work out so bad for the men in charge.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"Loose change" was originally filmed as a work of FICTION by an aspiring film writer. It was then financed by a conspiracy theorist who believed it to be FACTUAL and wanted it released as such.

Once it hit the net, millions of people such as yourself were duped into believing a completely IMPOSSIBLE conspiracy was pulled off by the U.S. Government.

As for your "what about the people who heard explosions?". These were huge, structurally unsound buildings that were ON FIRE. Everything from a severed elevator shaft to large chunks of falling debris will *sound* like an explosion, while other actual explosions would be expected from severed gas lines and the several thousand electrical boxes in the building.

Finally the sheer size of the conspiracy that would have been necessary to pull off such a massive operation makes it impossible. That's the thing about conspiracies, the more people required, the less likely they are to work. This one would have required thousands of people with a working knowledge of -at least- a portion of the operation who would have easily been able to put it all together after the fact.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 9 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
inrainbowsKingYosefTied
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 education4earth 9 years ago
education4earth
inrainbowsKingYosefTied
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 Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
inrainbowsKingYosefTied
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 willhenry20 9 years ago
willhenry20
inrainbowsKingYosefTied
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 goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
inrainbowsKingYosefTied
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 Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
inrainbowsKingYosefTied
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 KingYosef 9 years ago
KingYosef
inrainbowsKingYosefTied
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 mattresses 9 years ago
mattresses
inrainbowsKingYosefTied
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 mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
inrainbowsKingYosefTied
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 DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
inrainbowsKingYosefTied
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