The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 712 times Debate No: 43787
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




1st round is for acceptance and presenting your first argument.


I accept this challenge and use the simple argument of: Why?
Debate Round No. 1


Why is a very difficult thing to determine since the crime was committed under the vale of secrecy and misdirection though there are some rather compelling theories as to why.

1. OIL
The attacks of 911 were the cause of a pre-emptive strike on Iraq under the false claim that they were harboring terrorist and yet they had never made any such claim. Bush had also claimed that we were invading to seize WMD's and yet there were zero found. (war was fought for oil) (Bush laughs about finding no WMD) (Retired ARMY General)

2. Control over the middle east and American citizens
As stated in the above sources the American government has had its sights set on the middle east for some time. Controlling that part of the world would yield huge strategic advantages to America over every other country. It would drastically increase our power in other words.
After 911 Bush enacted the PATRIOT ACT which is a blatant violation of our constitutional rights. Then Obama brings into power the NDAA bill which gives the government the ok to indefinitely detain any American citizen without any proof of a crime being committed. These are supposed to be used to help defend American citizens but we have been warned throughout history not to sacrifice liberty for security. Our freedom is being chipped away in the name of national security. (Patriot act video)

Al Qaeda is being sold as a dangerous terrorist group that's soul aim is to wipe out America but is that true? Most people don't know how they came into existence. The group was originally created by the CIA to commit guerilla warfare against the Soviets when they tried to invade Afghanistan in the 80's. (Tim Osman)

Next round ill present my argument for the 2 towers


While I've always agreed with people who say that 9/11 did benefit certain people, I've never agreed that it meant they did it. In my opinion, there were certain people who wanted all of these things, 9/11 happened and they took advantage of it. But if they had that sort of power, the kind of power to bomb multiple buildings with multiple planes (remember it wasn't just the twin towers that were attacked that day), and then have absolutely f all in terms of evidence, one would think they wouldn't be in a sort of situation in which blowing up buildings and killing people was necessary. For the sake of argument, let's say it was necessary. What about after? If the government and corporations were doing stuff like this, why would the US be in such awful financial debt right now? Couldn't they just do something like that again and save themselves?
Debate Round No. 2


As you stated it benefited certain people, much like politicians that swing their vote one way that would benefit large corporations but that's for another debate. Im here to show that the evidence presented to us on the events of 911 paint a drastically different picture than the official report given.

The two towers

We were told that 19 terrorists hijack two commercial grade jets and slammed them into the twin towers and their passports fell through the explosion and fire and landed on the sidewalk to be picked up with almost no damage. We are to believe it went from inside the plane, through all the chaos to land unharmed.

Explosions were heard by rescue workers and civilians in the basements of the towers.

NIST reported that there were no fires hot enough to cause molten steel and yet rescue workers witnessed molten metal flowing through channels where they were working.

All 3 towers were in freefall. This could only be possible if there were no obstacles to obstruct the top of the towers fall. Explosions can be seen the length of the towers.

The president knew the attacks were going to happen, the previous administration had issued a report on the possibility that a terrorist group were planning to hijack American aircraft and use them as weapons.

Couldn't find this video in round 2 so ill throw it in here (who benefits) (relevant to every category)


Considering the first thing, about the terrorists, this is a subject I myself have also puzzled over. There is a lot of coincidence surrounding 9/11, and it leads to a lot of speculation. While I don't 100% believe the official report, this doesn't mean I think it was the US government. I think it was a taliban group, but the means by which the US government supposedly got around to telling us I guess I'll never know.

In my opinion, all the scientific evidence suggesting more was going on in 9/11 than just planes is legit. I don't think this exactly means it was the government, I just think there's more than the media was telling us. Which is usually the case, I'm no stranger to the news doing that.

But I still remain on the stance that I'm not convinced. To both sides. The media still hasn't convinced me it was 100% truthful to what happened, and nobody has convinced me the US government did it. It's an event with a lot of mystery and unanswered questions, but I like where you're going with this. Maybe you can convince me it was in fact an inside job, but for now I'd like to think the US government has a shred of a soul.
Debate Round No. 3


I too share that sentiment "a shred of a soul" but I fear that those that do have one are not the ones that get to make the changes. JFK is a prime example. I will do my best to show you what evidence can be mustered in the time frame and characters allotted for this debate but in order for such a skeptic to be convinced they must give the evidence serious attention.

The collapse of building 7
This building was not struck by a plane and the official story from NIST was that it feel into its own foot print because of office fires cause by debris from the twin towers. Videos taken of the building do show office fires but nothing on the scale of some major skyscrapers in the past which did not fall despite being ablaze for over 12 hours in some cases. Throughout history there have been only 3 buildings to collapse into their own footprint because of "fires" and they all fell on 911 in one city. Anyone that wishes to check the validity of that fact can easily do so online.
Building 7 showed even more clear evidence of a controlled demolition than the previous two towers. The center of the building has been caught on camera giving out before the sides which is a textbook controlled demolition hence all the experts signing a petition calling for the truth. Larry Silverstein himself used the term "pull" which is a demolition term but the problem is it takes weeks for a demolition like that to be planned.


"I too share that sentiment "a shred of a soul" but I fear that those that do have one are not the ones that get to make the changes"
Yeah I can agree to this.

When it comes to more technical things, while I too think that it seems odd and fairly false, I also know two things to be true about people who could do this sort of thing.
1. If people had enough power to murder 3000 people, pin it on someone else and nobody bat an eye for 3 years, and those who do bat an eye are a small amount of people, none of whom are political figures or celebrities, so the batting of eyes doesn't get traction in the media.
2. If this was true, I think (just my opinion, of the two of us you're probably older and thus more educated) that the evidence of this would be brought to public eye within a decade or so. Or discovered by an international anti-terrorism system of some sort. And that the people who conspired to make 9/11 a thing would face justice for their crimes of killing 3000 people, as well as all the deaths that have happened since & because of 9/11. The fact that they're political figures can only take them so far.

One crucial thing I think is missing (or at least I haven't heard of one) is whistleblowers. In every other situation where the US government has done something against America's interest, a whistleblower or a hacker group will find it and release it to the public. However, I don't think this was the case with 9/11, and haven't heard of anything like it since. All the people that would be needed to do something like 9/11, you'd think one would come forward. I mean all the cover-ups, all the bombs, all the fake identities, all the false evidence that would be needed, so many people would be involved. I have no doubt that 1% of those people would have guilt enough to come forward.
Debate Round No. 4


When it comes to such a high risk secret such as this people are not going to be so willing to come forth and blow the whistle if they have anything to lose. Think about it like this, if they were so willing to have 3000 people murdered for whatever the reason might be what would they do to someone that blows the whistle? What would they do to that persons loved ones? There are some people that don't even think the government could pull off such a massive secret but that's just it they were caught on many different occasions and many people do call them on it such as Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, and the men and women that were at the scenes.
There are primarily two reasons people don't believe it was an inside job.
1. People don't want to believe their own government could do such a thing so they automatically dismiss any claim that they are responsible.
2. They don't believe that such a secret could be kept.

The government has had a long history of being caught in wrongdoings but how do you punish those that are in power? Those that are the ones handing out punishment and making all the rules? Could a group of civilians march up to the white house and demand Bush be punished? No they cant.
People generally cant accept that they could be deceived on such a massive scale but take Chris Angel for example. He pulls off the most amazing deceptions possible right in front of a person and its called magic. Now we know that magic isn't real but somehow this man can perform acts that are typically impossible such as levitation. He is a master at deception so my point is if one man with limited resources could pull off such tricks wouldn't it stand to reason that the government could too with their unlimited amount of resources?
This is just an example but it proves that the impossible can be done.


I understand there would be a lot to lose with such a risk, but look at Edward Snowden. An actual rare patriot, a man who is devoted to his country and the people of his country that he sacrifices his 1st world lifestyle, his ease, his high payment, having a hot girlfriend, for the sake of the truth. And this was one man involved in a smaller thing than how big 9/11 would have to be if it were an inside job.

Honestly, I don't know how to punish people in power. When hitler, stalin, and tojo rose to power and killed millions, we went to war. So what I've pondered is that is it just that as a world we're that cold hearted? We let it go because it was only thousands? Or because it was the government attacking their own soil? This situation has always puzzled me, and I always end up in a state of indecision, because in the end none of it ends up making sense. Nothing seems to tie together just right. And by that, I don't mean facts, I mean morality. I guess as a moral person I hate the idea a government would kill 3000 people for oil, and as you said I just refuse any evidence otherwise. And it's true. There's way too many coincidences, way too many lies and secrets, but I just can't accept that something like this would happen, and that nobody would discover it in it's fullest, bring it to light, and have somebody go to war with america because of it.

I guess I'm just not the kind of person who can accept something like that, but I can say for sure there are a lot of fair and agreeable points towards there being a conspiracy of some sort.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Josh_b 4 years ago
My personal belief on this matter, stems from the day in which the event occurred. 9/11 represents the skipping of the 10th degree and moving into enlightenment in satanic religions. An Abramic religion would avoid such a satanic association.
Posted by ararmer1919 4 years ago
Although that's a good opinion or poll question.
Posted by ararmer1919 4 years ago
Dang. Was hoping you'd say Pepsi :(
Posted by kbub 4 years ago
Now THAT is a matter worthy of debate. Coke would be my answer, without a doubt.
Posted by ararmer1919 4 years ago
I'll get the butter. You want a coke or Pepsi with that?
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 4 years ago
( starting the popcorn now )
Posted by ararmer1919 4 years ago
And there's another one. 3 within the same 2 days?
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 4 years ago
May I use sarcasm?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 4 years ago
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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not sure at first how to judge this debate. Con seems very intelligent and reasonable, but as Pro points out, the probability for an in inside job is evident. Con's rebuttal to the evidence, is only concerning in the aspect that somany people share the same belief. "The media told us the story we want to hear, and anything beyond that goes against my self bias's." As both sides are able to agree to Pro's case based on his evidence(RS), the final decision is on CA. proving the government's involvement must rely on events that took place before the event and not after. Con's argument of preparations made is week, but it is enough for me to vote in his favor for CA. GC & SG to con for complete participation, and extreme candor.