The Instigator
Akhenaten
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AWSM0055
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

911 was an inside job (2)

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 1 vote the winner is...
AWSM0055
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 492 times Debate No: 84130
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Akhenaten

Pro

False flag events are very common in the history books if you know how to read between the lines and research the fine print.

1.The Gulf of of Tonkin attack was a case of American aggression, not Vietnamese aggression. The American destroyer was only 30 kilometres off the coast of Vietnam looking for trouble, so when a few torpedo boats came near to investigate; the destroyer decided to get some target practice. Thus, we had the beginning of the Vietnam War.
2. Pearl harbour - The Japanese navy had radioed Pearl Harbour to advise them that they were going to attack days before hand. The radio message was not passed on. Thousands of civilian lives were lost unnecessarily as a consequence. This gave the American Government an excuse to enter the Second World War.
3. The Lusitania - This ship was loaded with passengers and ammunition at the same time. A German newspaper in New York tried to publish a warning about submarines in the area where the Lusitania was about to cruise. The article was stopped by the American government who needed lots of causalities so that America could have a reason to enter the First World War.
4. 911 - Suspicious circumstances
- Marvin Bush (George's brother) was in charge of security of the World Tower buildings.
- Passports of terrorists found totally intact without any burns or damage. (very convenient)
- George Bush's friendly relationship with the Bin Laden Family.
- Mobile phones working on planes at high altitude (impossible)
- Donald Rumsfeld slip-up about a missile hitting the pentagon.

https://www.youtube.com.........

https://www.youtube.com.........

https://www.youtube.com.........

https://www.youtube.com.........

https://www.youtube.com.........
AWSM0055

Con

The first three points are a demonstration of the "Hasty Generalisation" fallacy and "Poisoning the Well" fallacy. Even if all of the first three points are true, they don't support the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. So they will be disregarded as irrelevant.

Now let's look at point 4:

a) Irrelevant. Why does this make the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job a reasonable conclusion?
b) Irrelevant. There were many other things on the jet that also survived, though we're not likely (cards, wallets etc).
c) Do you have evidence for this besides YouTube videos?
d) It's faulty, but it's not impossible. Also consider the fact that the hijackers were flying into a building, and were therefore much lower than a normal jet would actually be. So phone calls were more probable then normally.
e) Irrelevant. A verbal slip-up is not evidence that the largest terrorist attack in the world was actually a conspiracy. Besides, many MANY other witnesses in the area reported seeing a jet, not a missile. [1]

[1] http://911research.wtc7.net...
Debate Round No. 1
Akhenaten

Pro

Maybe you can answer the unanswered questions that my previous opponent has failed to answer before he suddenly had to leave town on important business. lol

1. President Bush's statements both contradict and mimic some of the evidence.

"Let's roll" Which was a phrase supposedly stated by the passenger Todd Beamer before they attacked the 'so called terrorists' on flight 93. Note - The same phase used by George Bush when he announced that America was going to war with Iraq.

2. "we can't breathe due to mace" This comment by Betty Ong doesn't make sense. If she is talking on a cell phone, she is breathing.
"Cool, where is it?" The reaction of technician Shelly Watson - on hearing about the 'real world' hijacking. This doesn't sound like a qualified and trained military officer to me. It sounds more like a 10 year old on-line gamer who has found a new game to play.

3. How did the hijackers know how to turn off the transponders? Note -They were only trained to operate small propeller planes which don't normally have transponders.

4. Flight 93 - The distribution of plane pieces is inconsistent with the flight recorder information. According to the flight recorder the plane was forced down by the hi-jackers. The evidence contradicts this information. Pieces of the plane were found over an area of 2 kilometres which suggests that the plane was shot down while in the air.

http://stj911.org......

5. The four planes crashes should have resulted in the recovery of 8 black boxes. Note - Black boxes are indestructible. No amount of fire or violence of impact would be enough to destroy a black box. Thus, the missing black boxes must have been purposely removed by the government agents.

http://www.counterpunch.org......

http://www.rense.com......
AWSM0055

Con

"1. President Bush's statements both contradict and mimic some of the evidence."

Keep in mind that not all of the evidence came to light right after the attacks. Clearer evidence may have come later, which would make Bush's claims about what was previously thought contradictory. Besides, again, Bush isn't the whole government. What he says is irrelevant to whether 9/11 was a conspiricy. Even if he said strait up "I planned 9/11", I would still be skeptical. Bush was (and still is) an idiot.

""Let's roll" Which was a phrase supposedly stated by the passenger Todd Beamer before they attacked the 'so called terrorists' on flight 93. Note - The same phase used by George Bush when he announced that America was going to war with Iraq."

Why is this relevant? This is an association fallacy. Bush had an ugly face, and so did the terrorists...COINCIDENCE? I THINK NOT!!1!

"2. "we can't breathe due to mace" This comment by Betty Ong doesn't make sense. If she is talking on a cell phone, she is breathing."

I don't think you have to take what she said LITERALLY. And usually when people talk on phones, they breath OUT! Not IN! Besides, you haven't provided any evidence that this happened anyway. Please provide a source.

"Cool, where is it?" The reaction of technician Shelly Watson - on hearing about the 'real world' hijacking. This doesn't sound like a qualified and trained military officer to me. It sounds more like a 10 year old on-line gamer who has found a new game to play"

Maybe he was trying to calm the woman down? Besides, let's apply occams razor:

Verbal slip up/trying to calm the woman down/whatever OR the whole 9/11 terrorist attack was a conspiracy.

Obviously it's the first one. This is just ridiculous evidence.

"3. How did the hijackers know how to turn off the transponders? Note -They were only trained to operate small propeller planes which don't normally have transponders."

I don't know. Guess? I can't access a picture of the transponder used on the boing 767, but I would assume it had some info printed on it that prompted the terrorists to turn it off.

Also, there is a thing called books. You don't need access to a Boeing 767 to know how they work. There are plenty of books (and even websites) that explain (in detail) how these things work.

Though I have no evidence for this, I think it's a far more reasonable explanation than "The whole of 9/11 was a conspiracy" explanation that your giving.

"4. Flight 93 - The distribution of plane pieces is inconsistent with the flight recorder information. According to the flight recorder the plane was forced down by the hi-jackers. The evidence contradicts this information. Pieces of the plane were found over an area of 2 kilometres which suggests that the plane was shot down while in the air."

Firstly, you give no evidence for this besides the homepage of a website. Please give a SPECIFIC webpage, not the homepage. I'm not going to search high and low for your sources.

But what your saying is absurd anyway. Let me get this strait, the plane that was planned to be slammed into a building (by the government) was shot down (with the fake hi-jackers in it) because...why? Why would they do that if it was they're plan the entire time? What was the point of shooting it down? And even if we assume that all the evidence that the plane was shot down, how does that support your claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Wouldn't someone WANT to shoot down the planes!? Wouldn't that be protecting the buildings!? DUUUH!

"5. The four planes crashes should have resulted in the recovery of 8 black boxes. Note - Black boxes are indestructible. No amount of fire or violence of impact would be enough to destroy a black box. Thus, the missing black boxes must have been purposely removed by the government agents."

Firstly, "missing" is not synonymous with "destroyed". Get a thesaurus some time.

Secondly, you are presenting a false dichotomy: "Either the black boxes were destroyed OR the evil reptilian FBI agents removed them". This is simply FALSE. With the amount of rubble present at at least 3 of the crash sights, it's a no-brainier why they were missing.

Thirdly, you still present no evidence for any of these besides home pages. Like I said, provide SPECIFIC sources for your claims. Not just website home pages. I'm not going to search for evidence of your claims. You provide it.
Debate Round No. 2
Akhenaten

Pro

Akhenaten forfeited this round.
AWSM0055

Con

I will likewise forfeit this round to keep this fair.
Debate Round No. 3
Akhenaten

Pro

Akhenaten forfeited this round.
AWSM0055

Con

If you're going to be a conspiracy nut, at least provide a refutation for my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Akhenaten

Pro

Akhenaten forfeited this round.
AWSM0055

Con

My points remain unrefined
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Voters are allowed to solely award points for conduct if they wish, and this does so validly.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Dpowell// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Being a son of an Air Force service member that was working Air Traffic Control at the time of 9/11 and heard everything that was going on in the plane, I know that 9/11 was a legit terrorist attack. The only way the American government was involved was they knew that the terrorist were going to attack us, they just didn't know when and where. So I'd like to thank Con for taking up this debate. My reasons for voting though, are. 1. Pro relied heavily on Youtube which can't be considered a liable source of information. 2. Pro forfeit. 3. If Pro saw what Con put in the rounds following Pro's forfeits, they refused to refute Con's arguments and failed to respond to the debate entirely.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter does appear to use quite a bit of bias in deciding this debate. While all of the information he has from outside of the debate may be relevant, the voter must restrict their analysis of the debate solely to the arguments given and not to his outside knowledge. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than simply state that Youtube is an invalid source, especially when Pro presented multiple non-Youtube sources.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: retroz// Mod action: Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: FF

[*Reason for removal*] The voter requested that this vote be removed. For future reference, you can just null your vote after the fact.
************************************************************************
Posted by retroz 1 year ago
retroz
Sorry about the vote, I accidentally picked the Pro, I've reported it and am getting it cleared
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
lol I did to stop the message getting out!

DUM DUM DUMMMMMM
Posted by Akhenaten 1 year ago
Akhenaten
Something seems to have gone wrong with my references. It looks like the conspirators have intervened and are playing with my computer.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
AkhenatenAWSM0055Tied
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: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.