The Instigator
Mr.Simple
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
bballcrook21
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Did the U.S. Cause 9/11?

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 3 votes the winner is...
bballcrook21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 712 times Debate No: 77360
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Mr.Simple

Pro

As in the title, I ask the question, did the U.S. cause 9/11? I am lead to believe that they had, if not at least planned or had let it happen. I would like to thank my opponent and hope for a fruitful debate.
bballcrook21

Con

I accept the challenge. I will be arguing that the U.S. did not case 9/11.
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Simple

Pro

Again, I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

There are many disturbing reasons the government would have let the attacks happen. First, it would help lead a war in Iraq with increased financial support. 2nd, Iraq was the first country to convert the petrodollar from U.S. currency into the European currency, if any other country were to have joined them, it would have caused the U.S. to face a financial decline. Those reasons alone would have been enough of a motive for the U.S. to cause/let 911 happen.

On August 6th 2001, the president was given the warning;"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,", but a reporter had concluded that, "the administration's reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed." That included a warning from the CIA on May 1 that "a group presently in the United States" was planning to strike and one on June 22 that an attack could be "imminent."

And another odd fact is that during the BBC broadcast of 9/11, they had reported a third building collapsing before the actually third building collapsed. The third building known as 'Tower Seven' had collapsed only seven hours after the twin towers fell. Some had suggested that it had been a normal building fire that brought it down, but architects and scientist said that it would've been impossible, leaving the possibility that it was a controlled demolition.

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

http://nymag.com...

http://ftmdaily.com...
bballcrook21

Con

Firstly, George W. Bush, whether you like him or not, is undoubtedly one of the most patriotic Presidents we have ever had. The man loved his country.

"Never forget" remains the national sentiment about the 9/11 attacks. However, to truly never forget, we cannot allow seductive fictions to obscure the reality of that day's events in our collective memory.

There was no controlled demolition
2. Our government had no reason to cause 9/11
3. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives?
4. Our government was not prepared for the attacks does not mean they were involved.

To pull off such a massive attack, many Americans would have had to be involved.

1.The NYC Fire fighters
2.NYPD
3.The NYC port Authority
4.All the people in the Pentagon
5.The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11
6.The media
7.The photographers
8.Everyone in the NIST
9.EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD
10.The CIA-The FBI-FEMA
11.American Airlines (Pentagon)
12.United Airlines (Pentagon)
13.Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes

Scientists investigating the 911 collapse of the WTC towers said, "the WTC towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Simple

Pro

Firstly, I had suggested that 'Building Seven' was a controlled demolition, not the twin towers, and, as I had provided previously, there was plenty motive for them to cause it or to have let it happen even though they had known. Everyone you listed did not necessarily need to have been involved in it, for the government may not be afraid to have sacrificed the lives in the 9/11 attacks to justify the means to go to war with terrorists, as they had already used this tactic to start the Vietnam War (Which would be an entirely different debate)

The NYC Fire Fighters did bring search dogs to find anyone trapped in the debris, but to keep the dogs from quitting, the firefighters would hide in the debris for the dogs to find a 'survivor'.

The U.S. had initiated an investigation into the 9/11 attacks long after they had occurred. The only reason the investigation was held, is because many citizens demanded one. So the U.S. set a group of people to investigate and later on publishing the Commission Report. After interviewing the investigators, they tell us that they government had actually prevented them from investigating and had poorly funded them, paying more for the investigation of administration (sixty two million dollars) rather than the investigation of 9/11 (3 million) . The two co-chairs to the commission had said they had been "Set up to fail." Due to the late establishment, short deadline, insufficient funding, the resistance to work by many politicians, and the denial of access various agencies, documents, and witnesses.

If the government had really wanted us to know the truth, then why set up an investigation just to fail?

(I'm very intrigued in this debate and I thank you for making it interesting)
bballcrook21

Con

I am going to take your argument and the general argument of 9-11 "truthers" and counter it.

#1: 9-11 was done by the government
People who say it was an inside job are split into two camps. There are those who say the US government cooked up and enacted the whole crazy plot, and those who say they let it happen without intervention. In both cases, conspiracy theorists generally claim that the aim was to give the Bush government an excuse to wage war on the Islamic world.
So here's your simple rebuttal. US governments have shown for decades that they will intervene when and where it suits them. The last thing they need to do to justify any foreign policy is kill 3000 of their own citizens.

#2: The Twin Towers didn't collapse, but they were actually demolished.
Theorists like to rope in an expert to tell you that no office fire ever made a building topple. Well, that'd be because no office fire was ever as big as these two, with as much jet fuel to help it along.
But the real reason the twin towers collapsed was structural. Most buildings have their core structural supports at the center. The towers had some major central steel columns, but that elegant exterior steel shell was also crucial in providing perimeter support. Also, the perimeter columns supported massive steel trusses which supported each floor.
So basically, when the exterior of the building was penetrated so devastatingly by the planes, the structure's ability to hold itself up was threatened. So when one floor went, the combined weight meant they all went.

#3: WTC 7 did not collapse, it was demolished.
The world's tallest tower collapses on its neighbor less than 200 meters across the road. You've got 110 stories of rubble pummeling a 47-story building, setting it on fire, covering it in untold extra weight and inflicted untold stresses. Also, if you were to google any of the buildings architects, you will learn that they are all unemployed. Also, that building was on fire for 7 hours.

#4: The military did nothing
A stand down order is an order from the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to scramble fighter jets. This didn't happen until too late on September 11, prompting conspiracy theorists to say the government deliberately held off to let the carnage unfold. NORAD didn't actually track flights within America prior to 9/11. Also, the hijackers turned off the transponders on their planes, which meant Air Traffic Control couldn't track them, and NORAD needed an alert from Air Traffic Control to act.
Debate Round No. 3
Mr.Simple

Pro

#1 They would do it to gain the support of citizens. And another thing that came out of the 9/11 attacks was the Patriot Acts, which granted more power to the government more power. Yet another reason the government would've let it happen. It gave the government the opportunity to gain even more power while the citizens were more focused and distracted on something else.

#2 And once again, I apologize if you miss took what I had said previously. I had never said the twin towers were demolished, I had only meant that Building Seven was demolished.

#3 "Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11. A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.
"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves." - Richard Gage, A founder of the group that consist of architects, engineers, and scientists that argue that building seven had indeed been a controlled demolition.

#4 The government had ignored the warning, so the fact that the military did nothing is because the government had ignored the warning. The high jackers that had removed the transponders has nothing to do with why the government ha ignored warnings.

Again I beg this question, why would the government make an investigation just for it to fail if they wanted its citizens to know the truth?

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

http://nymag.com...
bballcrook21

Con

Firstly, I find the Patriot Act to be stupid. I will never give up liberty for security. However, the reason why it was passed was so that the NSA could have surveillance on people. It was done out of spite of 9/11. If the government wanted more power, they could just pass the Patriot Act and say they did it so we could be more safe, so things such as 9/11 would not happen in the first place. They could have passed it without 9/11 occurring, they just never needed to since we had not suffered such a terrorist attack in the past.

Building Seven was never demolished. Firstly, I want you to know that these buildings are not government owned. They are privately owned. The WTC was sold to Larry Silverstein, who spent $3.2 billion on the building itself, and another 200 million on renovations, most of which were removing and replacing health hazards. WTC 7 was untouched by the airplanes itself, but it was hit hard by falling debris. A large chunk of the tower fell upon WTC 7. So yes, it was demolished, but not by the government, but by the debris that was falling.

Government never ignored the warning, it never got a warning in the first place. Like I said, NORAD could not get to the airplane because it had its tracking turned off. The nation had never experienced something like this before, so there was no reason to have NORAD on standby all the time.

I end my argument here. This was an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Mmmmmm.
Posted by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
The US certainly didn't let it happen. They did not know about it in advance, nor did they do it themselves.
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
Have you been playing Oiligarchy??
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
Of course they let it happen. They mightn't've known about it, but they did surely let it happen. So, they were a very indirect cause.

You will get a very stupid person or a crazy smart person with that very general resolution. What is the resolution anyway?

PS. To all grammer Nazi's, "mightn't've" is a real contraction.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by cathaystewie 1 year ago
cathaystewie
Mr.Simplebballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: All of PRO's arguments were rebutted by CON. PRO was the only one to use sources. PRO's arguments were a bit lacking in the sense that he/she failed to bridge certain gaps such as "a lack of funding = government instituted", but overall a good debate on both sides.
Vote Placed by travis18352 1 year ago
travis18352
Mr.Simplebballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: pro was the only one to post sources. but con had better arguments.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Mr.Simplebballcrook21Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Pro because he's the only one who used sources. This was a interesting debate. Both sides never actually had a argument so to say. They stated their opinions and went on. The reason as to why Con gets more convincing arguments is because he's the only one who rebutted in this debate. He rebutted the why 9/11 wasn't done by the government and why the military did nothing with 9/11. By rebutting these, he makes his case stronger using logical statements that prove his point, even though he didn't use sources. Pro never rebutted much of anything other than repeating what he had already said in previous rounds. He never rebutted any of Con's cases, leaving them untouched.