The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Did the government plan 9/11

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  
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: 1/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,029 times Debate No: 68273
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




There is to much reasonable doubt surrounding 9/11. The real target was not the world trade center but the pentagon. They were trying to destroy important documents which would have incriminated George Bush or someone high up in the government. There was not a thorough investigation by the U.S. government because they knew that they planned it. The only reason that they killed Bin Laden is so people would have "Closure" and would stop questioning who planned it, but in reality the govenrment just needed a fall guy to divege attention away from them


my opponent claims someone in the government wanted to destroy documents.
There are far better and more efficient ways to do a "cover up."
Just like emails, documents have back up copies often stored securely off site, but certainly a fire, "accidental shredding" or other destruction methods would be far superior than what transpired on 9/11.
No documents where destroyed and nothing came to light to incriminate George Bush as my opponent had claimed, therefore no documents ever existed, thus none needed to be destroyed.
If someone in authority planned the hijacking of the airplanes, it would be reasonable to believe they would have conceived a plan where the terrorist would have had better weapons than box cutters.
Why would hijackers kill themselves to destroy documents that could incriminate the President?
Incriminate how? in what?
Debate Round No. 1


Consider just a few more of the other unanswered questions from among the thousands of unexplained loose ends that all point to 9/11 being an inside job.

Who benefited from the suspiciously high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options? And what was the role of the new executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, who handled these transactions?
Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?
Why does the government refuse to release any transcripts of communications or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?
Why did so many people, from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to many employees of companies in the World Trade Center who failed to come to work that day, know in advance that something bad was going to happen on Sept. 11, 2001?
Why do all the major U.S. media continue to act as if none of these questions is legitimate or relevant?
Today, millions of people around the world are protesting the criminal destruction of the nation of Iraq. But these protests won't change the number of minds necessary to stop America's criminal madmen from continuing with their genocidal aim of enslaving the entire world.

What WILL stop them is spreading the realization that President George W. Bush and his billionaire accomplices in the oil industry perpetrated 9/11 as an excuse to begin the militarization of America for the purpose of world conquest.

History has shown all too clearly the deceived American people WILL support the destruction of faraway countries on phony pretexts of defending so-called freedom.

Thus the needless wars continue. Right now we watch high-tech weapons slaughter the defenseless people of Iraq. Soon it will be Iran, Syria, Colombia, Venezuela, North Korea, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and who knows where else. All these misguided atrocities will be possible because of the hoax known as 9/11.

But the American people will not " and cannot " tolerate leaders who kill our own people merely to invent a pretext " the war on terror " to go around killing anyone they like.


While I will agree there are many unanswered questions this does not prove a conspiracy. The other questions raise a left to speculation with many possible reasons and outcomes. The aftermath of 9/11 has not proven any benefit from the allegations mentioned, to the people listed. If anything the government is guilty of not being more vigilant as the Israeli airplanes had reinforced and secured cockpits in the 70's. Hijackings aren't new and why it took the U.S. to mandate more security on airplanes is a different discussion. Is the government incompetent and allowed 9/11 to happen? Yes. Could and should have steps to make 9/11 more difficult for the terrorist if not impossible? they sure could have, but again no conspiracy.
Debate Round No. 2


9/11 was a hoax. This is no longer a wild conspiracy assertion; it is a fact, supported by thousands of other verifiable facts, foremost of which are:

The attacks of 9/11 COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED without the willful failure of the American defense system. In Washington, Air Force pilots demanded to fly but were ordered to stand down. Yet instead of prosecuting the president and military leaders for this unprecedented dereliction of duty, military leaders were promoted and the president was praised for presiding over a defense system that suspiciously failed the most crucial test in its history. None of the deaths would have happened without the deliberate unplugging of America's air defenses.
Planes that lose contact with control towers are usually intercepted by fighter jets inside of ten minutes, as the incident with the golfer's plane a few months earlier so clearly demonstrated. Yet on 9/11, the jetliners that struck New York were allowed to proceed unmolested for more than a half-hour, and the plane that supposedly crashed in Washington was not intercepted for more than an hour and forty minutes after it was widely known that four planes had been hijacked.

The twin towers could not have collapsed as a result of burning jet fuel. Most of that fuel was consumed on impact. In the south tower, most of the fuel was spilled outside the building. Heat caused by burning jet fuel does not reach temperatures needed to melt steel. What does stand out as particularly suspicious and still unexplained is that fires raged out of control beneath THREE of the collapsed towers for ONE HUNDRED DAYS, clearly indicating the presence of some kind of substance utilized in the demolition of the structures.
The Twin Towers did not fall because of plane impacts or fires. Most likely explosives were placed on structural supports in the towers (as was done in Oklahoma City), and these controlled implosions snuffed out the lives of three thousand people.

FBI Director Robert Mueller insisted officials had no idea this kind of attack could happen when in fact the FBI had been investigating the possibility of EXACTLY this kind of attack for almost TEN YEARS. Numerous previous attempts at using planes as weapons, intimate knowledge of terror plans called Project Bojinka, and knowledge of suspicious characters attending flight schools who were being monitored by the FBI make his utterance a clear lie on its face.
In the weeks before 9/11, the U.S. received warnings from all over the world that an event just like this was about to happen, but FBI investigations into suspected terrorists were suppressed and those warnings were deliberately disregarded.

The names of the alleged hijackers, all ostensibly Muslims, were released to the public only hours after the attacks, despite Mueller saying we had no knowledge this would happen. This is an impossible twist of logic. If he didn't know of a plan to strike buildings with planes, how would he know the names of the hijackers? Various artifacts were discovered in strategic places to try to confirm the government's story, but these have all been dismissed as suspicious planting of evidence. Since that time several names on that list have turned up alive and well, living in Arab countries. Yet no attempt has ever been made to update the list. And why were none of these names on the airlines' passenger lists?
Much like the invasion of Iraq, the anthrax attacks were designed to deflect attention from unanswered 9/11 questions in the patriotic pandemonium that followed the tragedy. In addition to making large amounts of money for the president's father and his friends from the hasty sale of inefficient drugs to a panicked populace, the investigation into these killings was abruptly halted when the trail of evidence led straight to the government's door, and has not been reopened. The anthrax attacks also amped up the climate of fear and deflected attention from the passage of the government's repressive Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act was presented in the days after the tragedy supposedly as a response to it, yet it was clear that this heinous act, drafted to nullify provisions for freedom in the U.S. Constitution, was put together long before 9/11. In addition, testimony by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) revealed that most members of Congress were compelled to vote for the bill without even reading it. This was a vote to eliminate the Constitutional Bill of Rights, which has defined American freedom for 200 years, and it was accomplished when legislators voted for the bill without even reading it.
The invasion of Afghanistan was presented as an attempt to pursue the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, yet it had been discussed for years prior to the tragedy and actually planned in the months before the attacks on New York and Washington. Statements by Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Republican-written Project for a New American Century have stressed that America needed a formidable enemy to accomplish its aggressive geopolitical aims. The supposed enemy we attacked in Afghanistan was a diverse group of men from all over the world who were initially recruited, encouraged and supported by the American CIA.
The hole in the Pentagon was not made by a jumbo jet. Damage to the building was simply not consistent with the size of the hole nor the absence of debris. At the supposed point of impact, a whole bank of windows remained unbroken and there were no marks on the lawn. No airplane debris (except what was planted on the lawn) nor remains of passengers were ever found.
The president has admitted that he continued to read a story to schoolchildren in a Florida school for 30 minutes after being informed that two planes had struck New York and that the nation was under attack. He has never explained this puzzling behavior, nor how he saw the first plane hit. It was never televised, only recorded by a French crew filming firemen in New York. In that film, the plane in question does not appear to be a passenger airliner.
The plane in Pennsylvania was shot down and broke apart in midair. No other explanation can account for the wreckage, which was spread over a six-mile area, or the eyewitness accounts that describe debris falling from the sky.
Cellphone calls cannot be made from airliners in flight that are not close to the ground. As research by Professor A. K. Dewdney has shown, the emotional conversations between hijacked passengers and others would not have been possible under conditions that existed at that moment. These calls were cynical fabrications, exploiting the distraught emotions of those who lost loved ones.
Radio communications from firefighters on the upper floors of the Trade Center towers clearly indicate that fires were under control and the structure was in no danger of collapsing.
These are merely a few of the deliberately false statements made by U.S. officials about 9/11. They provide crystal clear evidence that our president, his staff, and many legislators should be indicted on charges of treason, obstruction of justice and mass murder. Above all, these evil men should be removed from their positions of authority before they implement more of their moneymaking murder schemes like the one they are now perpetrating on the innocent people of Iraq.


Despite there are unanswered questions, very strange oddities and inconsistencies that still does not tie in any governmental people. There is no hard proof of any kind of governmental knowledge or precipitation. I would like answers to many of your questions myself, but the conspiracy fails the who, what, where and why test. The conjecture isn't solid enough that most people would reach the same conclusion. There are way too many and too varied opinions of what transpired, why it occurred, who all was involved and where it actually originated and took place.
Debate Round No. 3


In saying that you are admitting that our government is corrupted the constitution. By saying there are many possible outcomes to these questions you are saying that bin laden was not given a fair trial which he is entitled to in the constitution. If given a fair trial the jury obviously would have found reasonable doubt (that you admitted existed), his name would have been cleared and the investigation would have continued. And why wouldn't the government give him a trial, because they knew he wouldn't be convicted and they knew the investigation would eventually point towards them.


we have reached a point of going round in circles in this debate. Again theory and opinion is not evidence, nor is conjecture which is all there is. There is no circumstantial evidence linking anyone in the government. No one is able to link a specific name/person to specific events to prove any involvement. There is no proof of government involvement based on regularly accepted terms of what evidence is.
Debate Round No. 4


You stated that we had been going in circles implying that information had been repeated, when in fact i had not repeated any information, your argument every time was exactly the same just worded differently, i gave justification for all of my reasons yet you would not justify anything you said. Also you have not acknowledged any of my information that i stated, you are dancing around the facts in your arrogant state you are just trying to avoid the truth so that you can be right, but in reality everyone gets fooled at on point or another and you my friend have been fooled. you have avoided everything i said so you can be right, but your wrong, you cannot always be right and now is the time to admit defeat you arrogant sore loser.


Resorting to insults and name calling is not done by the victor. You have stated the same arguments in different ways all of which are simple conjecture with not substance. I don't have to rebut what you have said because you haven't said anything that contained any substance. You didn't site one reference where you got any of your facts from. You asked a lot of questions and yet didn't follow up with answers that had any credible proof. If you really believed you are correct you wouldn't have resorted to childish antics. You own words did a better job of discrediting you than mine.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago

(I think what they say about The Bible is far fetched, but all the pictures are accurate)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: The BOP rests on Pro to prove his assertion. He failed to do so--his arguments were unsourced, unwarranted ramblings. Args to Con. Pro was also rude at several points during this exchange, so conduct to Con. Pro's grammar and formatting were at times superior to Con's, so he does earn the S/G point.