The Instigator
truther1111
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
henryajevans
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

911 was an inside job

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 4 votes the winner is...
henryajevans
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,737 times Debate No: 37004
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (4)

 

truther1111

Pro

I am for the view that 911 was an inside job perpetrated by elements within the us govt.
henryajevans

Con

I am for the view that the 9/11 Attacks were not an inside job.

I assume that the BOP is on Pro, as he is making the assertion that it was.

Best of Luck
Debate Round No. 1
truther1111

Pro

911 had to be an inside job because the buildings were clearly demolished.

WTC7
Enough is said by the video of the building collapse after I saw the video of the tower collapse I knew that it was an inside job.

Collapsed at Free fall acceleration in a classic controlled demolition
Was not hit by a plane
Squibs and Flashes seen if you watch various angles of 'collapse'
Eyewitness see dead bodies and bombs before the collapse of the twin towers and later murdered/disappeared
http://deadlinelive.info...
Massive scientific/media coverup of building 7 (my uncle who has an engineering firm hadn't even heard of the only high rise steel structure known to collapse due to fire ) most engineers/scientists have never seen the collapse or even heard of the building
Evidence of extreme temperatures at base of building 7 and molten steel
http://911blogger.com...

No studies by NIST on the molten steel or explosives or incendiarys and removal and destruction of key evidence ( steel shipped to china) clearly indicate a criminal coverup and conspiracy.
henryajevans

Con

Rebuttals

'Was not hit by a plane'

Do you honestly believe that there would be little to no debris resulting from the collapse of two 110 storey buildings would not be sufficient for the destruction of a third one less than half the size of one of them? There are pictures of fires within the building, and the design of the building accounts for the idea that all of the support columns gave way at once, as the weight was piled onto the foundation, in which nearly a hundred thousand litres of diesel were stored. WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6 were all damaged, having to be demolished eventually; the World Financial Center suffered extensive damage; and the entire surrounding area was devastated, with roads, buildings and parks severely damaged by the blast. It is hardly strange that one of the buildings, which had nearly a hundred thousand litres of diesel near the main foundation supports, collapsed with the shower of debris and shock from the destruction of two of the world's tallest buildings.

You have quoted or mentioned several 9/11 truth professionals in your argument. This issue is like that of climate change. There are three rebuttals. Rebuttal 1 is that it is incredibly easy to gain qualifications that certify a person as a structural engineer, an architect, a metallurgist, pretty much any profession in existence, and therefore the existence of professionals that support the ironically titled 9/11 Truth Movement gives little to no credibility to the 'theory'. The second rebuttal is that although many alleged professionals support the movement, they make up a tiny minority of all the professionals that say that the movement is wrong. There are simply not enough of these professionals supporting the thesis that it can be taken seriously. Perhaps if a considerable share of the total number of professionals supported it, it would have weight, but it is denied by far too many professionals. The third rebuttal is the simple idea that it may be a misapprehension. Whenever a major event takes place, there are always several conspiracy theories surrounding it, and these can be spread, especially with the internet giving a film of credibility to the mimeographed handouts by people wearing tinfoil hats in subway stations, and the easy spread of ideas. Naturally, some professionals may be deceived by them, and they can carry out experiments that suffer from an extreme case of confirmation bias afterwards.

With regards to the links, could you please provide ones from relatively objective sources, rather than an Infowars-esque website, a website called 'www.911blogger.com and someone whose email address begins with 'lawson911' (the website won't let me put in full addresses).

We need to fit in the motives as well; I think this debate was a little short for such an expansive topic.
Debate Round No. 2
truther1111

Pro

With regards to building 7 NIST official explanation of how the tower collapsed was due to the failure of one column 79 . The damage to the corner of the building would not have brought the building down because if it had it would have fallen over rather than self implode. This is why NIST had to come up with a theory in which a central column failed resulting in a hidden collapse of the interior structure of the building before the exterior followed.
The other buildings like you say were also heavily damaged but did not collapse at free fall acceleration through their own footprint. No buildings do .

Does the NIST report explain WTC 7 tower collapse?
According to independent scientists AE911truth.org the answer is no .

The NIST WTC 7 computer animation of the collapse does not even remotely resemble the observations and actual video footage of the destruction in three main ways. A scientifically valid explanation of any phenomenon must account for the key observations. Moreover, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation. It is merely a tool for determining and visualizing what might have happened if various assumptions are true.
NIST has refused to disclose the computer inputs of its mathematical models. This makes it impossible for anyone to check their work.
A more detailed rebuttal is found here.
http://www.ae911truth.org...

You made the argument that more scientists believe that 911 was not an inside job than there are that do .This is true but beliefs have nothing to do with science.
Building 7 for example there is no scientific explanation or evidence provided for the 'collapse' of building 7 so if so many scientists out there accept the official story I would like them to explain how and why.
Like I said most scientists havent even heard of building 7, If all engineers in the world saw the collapse of building 7 then many more would believe it was a controlled demolition.Most scientists that view the evidence and questions asked by ae911truth.org turn truthers the problem is getting them to watch it.
In other words people are so brainwashed its incredibly difficult to get them to be open minded enough to even watch the video or look at the evidence.

AE911truth.org has 2000 engineers and scientists many who are very well qualified and experienced they have provided scientific arguments and debates while none of the professionals you mention have provided any rebuttal or explanations to counter them.
henryajevans

Con

Since you have largely repeated your previous argument, there is precious little point for a rebuttal

You still have failed to elaborate as to why the government would do such a thing. For my final argument, I shall refute the most common motive - the Iraq War motive, and that through the jingoism that followed it, the government could initiate a state of war between it and another sovereign state with the support of the population.

With this motive, I agree that this was what the US wanted, though I sincerely doubt that it would perpetrate the 9/11 attacks to obtain a casus belli. As an event with a prelude and an aftermath, I consider 9/11 to be in the fashion of Pearl Harbor. The government wanted war, but the population didn't, so in order to create a state of war, the government aggravated an attack on its soil. Newspapers in the lead up to December 1941 were full of anti-Japanese sentiments, the government increased the size of the Pacific Fleet and sent more troops to the Philippines. Naturally, Japan felt threatened, and launched the raid on Pearl Harbor. This led to a population rallying behind the government, which wanted war, and against the foreigners that perpetrated an attack on US soil. There were similar casualty levels in the two events, given the magnitude, though there is no doubt that the raid on Pearl Harbor was perpetrated by the Imperial Japanese Navy acting on direct orders from High Command. Before 9/11, the US stepped up several operations in the Middle East, namely the number of soldiers stationed in bases at Islamic holy sites across the region, especially in Saudi Arabia. The reason given by Al Qaeda for the attack was the positioning of US soldiers at the Islamic Holy Sites and we have no reason to doubt this. I am not saying that elements of the government orchestrated the attacks, I am merely saying that the attack was not unprovoked and therefore the government is partially to blame for the attacks taking place. With regards to the government having prior knowledge of the attacks, it is likely that in the CIA database, there was evidence that an attack of that sort could take place. This is not, however, evidence that the CIA knew it would take place, and made the informed decision to allow it to take place. The CIA is the world's largest intelligence agency, and gets reports of the level of detail contained in the pre-9/11 reports on an almost hourly basis, and the vast majority, vast meaning 99.99%, of the reports do not come to fruition. Every terrorist attack that has happened in the last fifty years has been known about before by the intelligence services; they just did not afford it the attention they afforded some that did not occur, either because they were red herrings or they were averted by the CIA. Al Qaeda, a term I use broadly to refer to all militant Islamist terrorist organisations, has consistently told the truth about the reasons for their operations. The attacks against Soviet civilians between 1979 and 1989 were motivated by a desire to remove all Soviet forces from Afghanistan, and once their forces pulled out of the region, the attacks ceased except for those related to the Chechen Independence Movement, not all of which were perpetrated by Islamist groups. Al Qaeda still despise the Russians as much as the Americans; they just have no reason to launch attacks against them. Contrary to belief and their policies with regards to religion, Al Qaeda are mostly rational. They will not launch an attack arbitrarily, neither would they attack a target that they did not think would accomplish anything. So there is evidence that the US has a history of provoking preemptive strikes from its enemies to use as an excuse for war, and it has been established that Al Qaeda had a motive for the attacks as well.

The practicality of staging the attack is another thing that crumbles under scrutiny. In order to plan, prepare and execute attacks of the magnitude that 9/11 was, it would require hundreds, if not thousands, of staff to coordinate. They would need to procure the demolition charges, covertly place them at the scene, find planes that could be taken over easily, align the cruise missile or the UAV to fire at the Pentagon, have people to flawlessly detonate the explosives and reroute the planes into the buildings at the precise moment of impact, not to mention covering up the aftermath and spinning it to the government's agenda. All it would require was one leak from this huge operation and the government would be exposed, the scheme would fail, the War on Terror would have never taken place, the Bush Administration would be impeached, and when it collapsed, would bring the rest of the Republican party down with it, the CIA and the DOD would be purged of people who could be implicated, and the US would be completely discredited permanently on the world stage as the country that murdered three thousand of its own people. Since none of this has happened, it is safe to assume that the government did not orchestrate the attacks. Also, why demolish Building Seven, when the iconic image of the Twin Towers collapsing was more than enough to have the effect? As you said, very few people have heard of Building Seven, which therefore makes its demolition completely unnecessary, as the support already existed from WTC 1 and 2.

The result of the attacks also calls into question the inside job theory, or rather statement, given the lack of credible evidence. Let's amuse the thought of pro being correct, just for a moment. The official report stated that the terrorists were a mixture of Saudi Arabians and Egyptians that were trained in Pakistan and sent to perpetrate the attacks because they have a loathing for western democracy. The general consensus surrounding the official report is that they then used this as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, thus beginning the War on Terror that has lasted to this day.

Rebuttal 1 - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan were, at that time at least, the USA's biggest allies in the region. This would discredit US allies in the region, damaging diplomatic relations between the countries and the USA, at a time when allies in the Middle East were in short supply and incredibly valuable.

Rebuttal 2 - Al Qaeda could not care less about western democracy. They are an incredibly blinkered, narrow-minded set of individuals who care about nothing outside the Middle East. Every attack they have perpetrated has been against imperial powers having an unwanted presence in the region. The motivation for the attacks was perfectly explainable, as they were tired of US imperialism in the region.

Rebuttal 3 - Iraq was a relatively secular country. What business did Saddam Hussein have with Al Qaeda. The answer is nothing. In fact, up until the Gulf War, he was the USA's golden boy in the Middle East, with all of his atrocities being perpetrated under US supervision with American and Israeli weapons. Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until the invasion, when they flocked into the country to rally the population and drive out the occupiers. Not only this, but 9/11 did not even give the USA and the UK a casus belli to invade Iraq; they had to use the WMDs for that to happen, which does somewhat devalidate the idea that they would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the prelude to a casus belli. As for Afghanistan, the cause for that was that they refused to turn over suspected terrorists without evidence provided. Pakistan was a more viable target for the 9/11 aftermath invasion, as that was where the terrorists were harboured and trained, and it was where Osama Bin Laden himself was found, in the middle of a city.

Since Pro has failed to provide any arguments extending beyond factoids and cliches, vote con for logic and reason over Alex Jones-esque fearmongering and paranoia.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
for example when i see building 7 and the other two towers literally explode exactly like a controlled demolition im seeing it through a truthers lens.I have to really try hard to convince myself with the debunkers arguments that the building wasnt a classic 100 percent identical controlled demolition but rather a collapse due to fire . It really stretches the imagination .
Debunkers resort to a severe case of denialism bias and cannot objectively analyse the situation. Imagine if all police investigators thought like debunkers, any circumstancial evidence or witness reports would be disregarded as coincidence, no leads would be followed and nobody would get caught.
For example if theres witnesses that hear explosions and see dead people in the towers ,debunkers would say witness reports are not reliable. Debunkers feel good about themselves after ,thinking that this somehow added weight to their argument against the truthers , meanwhile the witnesses live with the memories of seeing people blown up by bombs (willy rodriguez) or even dissapearing and probally being murdered ( barry jennings) .
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
Of course it's obvious to YOU, because you suffer from a severe case of confirmation bias, as every piece of evidence you find you look at through the truther lens, and therefore cannot objectively analyse the situation.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
Destruction of SEC documents , Enron documents etc destroyed. Largest cia base outside of the pentagon,destroy evidence of their operations there. Witnesses report stepping over dead bodies in building 7 before the collapse of the towers they were murdered for whatever reason and they blew up the building and all the evidence. Also the insurance for the building could be a reason.
Seems really obvious to me.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
*have
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
I hav, and none of it was substantial or plausible in the slightest.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
why dont you google reason for blowing up building 7 and find a mountain of evidence...
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
But why would the government blow up WTC 7? Even if they were behind the attacks, why would they, after having blown up two of the most significant buildings in the country, blow up a building across the street that nobody had even heard of until it collapsed? They would have already had the image needed, so it would have just been unnecessary exta work and planning, with more potential leaks. You are deluding yourself.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
But why would the government blow up WTC 7? Even if they were behind the attacks, why would they, after having blown up two of the most significant buildings in the country, blow up a building across the street that nobody had even heard of until it collapsed? They would have already had the image needed, so it would have just been unnecessary exta work and planning, with more potential leaks. You are deluding yourself.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
But why would the government blow up WTC 7? Even if they were behind the attacks, why would they, after having blown up two of the most significant buildings in the country, blow up a building across the street that nobody had even heard of until it collapsed? They would have already had the image needed, so it would have just been unnecessary exta work and planning, with more potential leaks. You are deluding yourself.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
because building 7 proves the government version is a lie and the rest of the official story is based on conjecture and no real evidence. Just because the government has a story doesn't mean that we should believe their lies. If we look at the rest of what the government said and did at the time it would be reasonable to believe they could be lying considering everything else they said at the time was a lie.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 3 years ago
Mrparkers
truther1111henryajevansTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Pro simply did not offer enough evidence to justify such a claim.
Vote Placed by davidjohn1994 3 years ago
davidjohn1994
truther1111henryajevansTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used increadibly bias sources for his argument, and repeated the same thing after being rebutted.
Vote Placed by dj21 3 years ago
dj21
truther1111henryajevansTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I am sympathetic to Pro's side of argument as a speculative possibility, but the case presented was simply too shallow. Well rebutted by Con, I thought.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
truther1111henryajevansTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro simply listed a few curious details about the events of 9/11 and then immediately jumped to the conclusion that there must be a conspiracy afoot, but con showed how such details the pro pointed out could be explained and that an inside job would be so intricate its unfeasible that it could have been carried out. Arguments go to the con