The Instigator
IslamAhmadiyya
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ATHOS
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

No planes were used on 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 4 votes the winner is...
ATHOS
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,766 times Debate No: 34617
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

IslamAhmadiyya

Pro

In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Ever Merciful.

Hello. I am bringing up a very controversial topic, regarding 9/11. Some think it was a conspiracy, some think it wasn't. But what 'defines' conspiracy is entirely up to what you think it is.

Some think the government did it, some think the Illuminati. That really doesn't matter right NOW, we can come to pointing fingers out later. What matters is, what really happened on that day?

Some people accept that it was an inside-job, but also believe that planes were used to bring the World Trade Centers down, and other catastrophes.

Some do not even think it was an inside job.

But I will provide some logical evidences, as well as undeniable proofs, to whoever wants to debate me, that there were absolutely NO planes used on 9/11.

NO planes were used to bring the WTC's down, NO plane crashed into the Pentagon, and there was no such plane that crashed somewhere in Pennsylvania, I believe that is where it was.

If anyone disagrees, then prepare to refute some hardcore proof.

Understand, that the events of 9/11 were captured on video tapes, and many were aired on the news. So I WILL be providing YouTube videos, because this is the type of proof where you need visual representation.

So, what is my explanation for the attacks on the WTC's?

It is simple.

If you are familiar with 2-D/3-D video editing and animation, then this would be very easy to understand.

What I am trying to say is that:

There were no planes used to crash into the towers, but there were planned explosions and maybe guided missiles that have brought the towers down.

The planes that you saw on the news were not real planes, but fake 3-D animations of planes that were inserted into the videos PURPOSELY, and then later aired on LIVE TV to the WHOLE WORLD.

But in reality, not a single person saw a plane crash into the towers, and the videos are proof of that.

Whoever debates with me, realize that this is no time to play with contradictions, because if you really accept the fact that there were planes used on 9/11, then open your eyes and see the clear contradictions in the video tapes.

Because there were not any 'real' planes, but fake images of planes that were animated to make it LOOK like there were planes, there will be obvious human errors and mistakes, that one can pick up.

These are minor, however, but they add up. Enough to make you see that the planes were inserted. Also, you can see the video clips were tampered with.

Then there is NORAD, a military base that is responsible for protecting American and Canadian airspace for 50 years. It is standard procedure to intercept any plane that goes off course for 1 minute.

On 9/11, NORAD ignored 3 'planes' for a total of 1 hour and 20 minutes, this is a first ever, in the history of NORAD.

There is more proof...LOGICAL proof.

Looking at the video clips, and understanding the structure of the towers and the material the planes were built out of.

The WTC's were built of steel, and these were one of the first towers to use special support beams built within the walls of the towers, which gave the towers extra strength and durability. The towers were designed to withstand multiple plane crashes.

The planes were created of aluminum, very weak compared with the steel towers with the extra support beams from the inside.

Now, looking at the laws of physics...how can an ALUMINUM plane, SWIM into a strong and sturdy STEEL STRUCTURE?

Can you throw a rock into an ocean without creating a splash? No, there will always be a splash.

So looking at the video clips, you can clearly see that the 'planes' swim into the towers, the front of the plane swims into the tower, and it simply 'flies' through it, until about halfway through, then you see the dust and the explosion after the wings enter through it.

This...is against the laws of physics. Many engineers immediately saw the flaw in this massive video trickery that fooled the world. This is impossible. A weak plane cannot just swim into a strong tower, and then make it collapse hours later.

The plane is too weak, and not a single piece of the plane flew off, not a wing was found, not a scrap of metal was found in the inside.

Now these are all mere words until you see actual proof. This is where I will provide the visual representation part of my argument.

This is a video series, compromised of multiple parts. Parts 4-14 specifically deal with 9/11.

Parts 4, 5, and 6, should be ENOUGH and AMPLE evidence to make you accept the fact that there were NO planes used on 9/11.

Here is part 4, the first part discussing this issue.

Part 5.

Part 6.

---Feel free to watch further beyond if you want to know the TRUTH!---

Because the proof of this argument is focused on video clips, you can find many many evidences by dissecting the clips, and still, that is not all.

If anyone wants to debate with me regarding this, then I am ready. Just be sure to open your eyes, literally.

Salam
Peace
ATHOS

Con

Since my opponent already posted what seemed to be most of his argument in R1, and also provided "evidence". I accept and will provide my counter argument here. Pro is defending the claim that planes were not used in the attacks of 9/11. Pro claims:

'The planes that you saw on the news were not real planes, but fake 3-D animations of planes that were inserted into the videos PURPOSELY, and then later aired on LIVE TV to the WHOLE WORLD.'

He even says:

'But in reality, not a single person saw a plane crash into the towers, and the videos are proof of that.'

I find this especially hard to believe since these events took place in a city with well over a million people. There are scores people who witnessed planes flying into the towers as well as the Pentagon. My evidence is provided here:

(A) These are eye witness accounts taken from this web site which I believe to be a fair and unbiased investigation regarding the events of 9/11.

(A)http://911research.wtc7.net...

Eyewitness accounts describe jetliner approaching and striking Pentagon.

(B) Of the more than 100 eyewitness accounts inEric Bart's compilation, most refer to a jet aircraft approaching the Pentagon in the moments before the explosion. Of the accounts that indicate the type of aircraft observed, the majority describe a large twin-engine jetliner, consistent with a Boeing 757, whichFlight 77was, or a Boeing 737. Far fewer witnesses recalled a small aircraft approaching the Pentagon. Following are accounts organized into two categories.

(B)http://911research.wtc7.net...

(C) This is the eye witness account of flight 93 from the 'St. Petersburg Times,'

(C)http://www.sptimes.com...

(D) Aircraft Remains

(D)http://911research.wtc7.net...

Eyewitness accounts of planes hitting the Trade Towers:

(F)This account is from 'Joseph Pfeifer', Battalion Chief, Battalion 1.'...We were there for a while
checking on the gas leak, and then we heard the loud
roar of the plane come over, and we turned around and
we looked and we saw the plane coming down, heading
south towards the Trade Center, and made a direct hit
on the Trade Center. ...'
(F)http://graphics8.nytimes.com...

(G)This account is from:FIREFIGHTER 'MICHAELSCHROECK' ENGINE 220

(G)http://graph

Since Pro insists on posting youtube videos as evidence, I think I should post one as well.
http://youtu.be...
Debate Round No. 1
IslamAhmadiyya

Pro

Video 1:

Assalamualaykum
That is Arabic for "Peace be upon you."

First, I would like to say, thank you for the reply. This is my first debate on this site, so I put the max number of rounds to be on the safe side.

So, onto the debate.

I see that you have only went forward to one part of the entire issue, which is not enough.

The part that you went forward with was the eye-witness accounts. Now the eye-witness accounts are not enough, for many reasons. And many, if not all, eye-witness accounts, could may as well all be fake. 9/11 was a thing that has been planned, there may as well be 100s, if not thousands of people, behind this terrible incident. The exact numbers, nobody knows.

But clearly, this has been an inside job, and with the proof I am about to give, there will be nothing else left than to accept the facts.

I will first go over what you had stated.

You gave me the first link, and in the first link, it had stated this:

"We all know the official story of September 11th: four jetliners were hijacked by groups of four and five Arabic men armed with box cutters, who proceeded to fly three of the four jets into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Subsequently the World Trade Center Towers, weakened by the impacts and fires, collapsed into piles of rubble. The FBI had compiled a list of hijackers within three days, and it was so obvious that Osama bin Laden had masterminded the operation from caves in Afghanistan, that there was no need to seriously investigate the crime or produce evidence. The "retaliatory" attack on the Taliban would soon commence."

That, I call, the 'official conspiracy'. This is the lie the media wants everybody to know. It makes 9/11 a scapegoat, just to invade the middle east, where Al-Qaeda/Taliban are most active. It states that FOUR jetliners were hijacked, by groups of 4/5 'Arabic' men.

The WTC's, weakened by the impacts and fires, collapsed into piles of rubble. The FBI had compiled a list of the hijackers within THREE days. I am glad you brought this up.

If you take a look at video 1, that I have posted above, skip through the video til you get to 2:15, and watch the video on from there, and see that the 'supposed' hijackers were real or not. The video clearly shows you, and provides you the sources, that these hijackers were not real hijackers, if at least 9 of them were found ALIVE.

I can quote from all 9 of them, but that would waste space, and all of them are on the video, starting from 2:15.

So the FBI are clearly lying here, they have been caught red handed.

And let us not get into Osama, because there are many sources, and evidences, that he had died late December of 2001, around 3 months after 9/11.

So the first link is nothing more than repeated lies if compared with what the truth actually is.

---

So far, I am already seeing many contradictions.

You have given me a pile of supposed 'eye-witness' accounts, that mean no value, because of the hardcore evidence that I am about to provide. The only possible explanation for those eye-witness accounts is that,
1) They are faked.
2) They are made up.
3) The people saw something else, highly unlikely though.

This is the only possible explanation, and I will continue on, and divide my evidence into sections.

---

NUMBER 1:

Go to video 1 that I have posted, and watch the beginning.

NORAD. I have already given you a brief overview about them. What is your statement regarding the failed response of this military base?

NUMBER 2:

Go to the same video, skip to 8:30, and watch til the end.

Now let us stop at 10:50. What you see, the destruction of the Newton laws of physics. We can ALL agree, that ANY plane, most likely made of aluminum, cannot crash into a STEEL tower, with its NOSE emerging from the other side. This is impossible, completely against the natural laws of this world!

In the haste of the moment, the news anchor SAW this fail of a video trickery, and blacked out the scene where the nose 'pops out' from the other side, but he is a few seconds too late, and we can all see, the error in the animation. This again, proves that the plane was an animation, and not a real plane. It possibly could not have been a real plane. If it was a plane, then you have first defied the laws of physics, and I would rather follow the natural laws of this world, than some supposed eye witness accounts. That is not 'tangible' evidence.

When you get to 11:50, the uploader of the video is trying to explain to you, that when the plane CRASHED into the tower, and then 'exited' from the other side, it somehow 'bumped' up a few stories somehow. Why? The helicopter, where the tape was being recorded, was obviously in motion, but the 2-D animation of the plane of course remains consistent the way it was animated, so the animation BUMPED up a few stories as the helicopter moved. The video clearly shows how it happened. Again, this is IMPOSSIBLE in reality, but with 2-D animation, it is not. So whoever eye-witnessed that, did they suddenly see a plane lift up a couple of stories as it crashed into the tower?

Oh, and did they also see that the plane exited from the other side?

Now keep on watching, go to 12:40.

The uploader first shows you the 3 step zooming in process. On the final zoom in, the 3rd zoom in, the plane enters into the picture, and then crashes into the tower. But then you see the uploader reverses the tapes, and you can clearly see, there IS NO PLANE. So the animator clearly started the plane animation at the start of the 3rd zoom in, but the animation was non-existent before that. Again, is this some type of GHOST plane?

This was 6 seconds before impact, and you are telling me there was no plane visible, until the camera zooms in a little bit more towards the tower?

Keep watching the clips over and over, this is straight up visual evidence, aired on local news channels across many parts in America, and possibly outside the USA as well. This is how they have fooled everyone.

I want refutations on ALL of these.

And I am not finished.

At 13:04, a new part starts up, showing the same plane crash from ANOTHER angle. Call this angle B for now. The previous side view angle that the video was showcasing earlier, call that angle A.

Now watch this angle B of the plane crash. See the plane coming towards the tower? This is SIX seconds before impact. See how the plane is making a slight decrease in altitude?

Now compare angle B with angle A.

In angle A, the previous part of the video I was showcasing to you, the plane is going STRAIGHT. There is NO declination. The plane simply goes straight through the towers.

This...does not match together. This simply does not match together.

I do not believe any such person could have eye-witnessed a forgery. No planes existed, especially the one the video was showcasing to you just now. How can someone eye-witness something so fake?

And I am still not done.

I am trying to prove to you that this is all a fraud. This is hardcore evidence that those planes simply could not have been 'real planes.'

---

I have provided you many reasons why.

1) They are first and foremost, AGAINST the physical laws of this world. You cannot defy them.
2) The multiple angles contradict each other.
3) In the video, it shows the stray pixels of the inserted plane image that has been animated into the video.
4) How is it possible that on a SUNNY day, the clips aired on LIVE television were so dull and dark in color? What happened? Clearly, the tapes have been tampered with.
5) The plane bumps several stories when it crashes into the tower.
6) The plane 'exits' the tower, you can see its nose poke out. This again, is against the laws of physics.

I can go on and on, give more evidences, there are MORE videos.

But the burden of proof lies upon the one claiming these video clips have NOT been tampered with.

So refute so far, everything I had written, I am out of space.

Thanks for reading.
ATHOS

Con

This debate is as stated:
"No planes were used on 9/11"

In R1 he goes on to say:

"There were no planes used to crash into the towers, but there were planned explosions and maybe guided missiles that have brought the towers down.'
'The planes that you saw on the news were not real planes, but fake 3-D animations of planes that were inserted into the videos PURPOSELY, and then later aired on LIVE TV to the WHOLE WORLD.'
'But in reality, not a single person saw a plane crash into the towers, and the videos are proof of that.'

He claims that all of this is "undeniable proof". Where is the proof/evidence that the videos you have displayed was subject to editing and 3-D animation?

You assert that: '... not a single person saw a plane crash into the towers, and the videos are proof of that.'
How are the videos proof of that?

My task in this debate is to provide credible evidence that supports my position:

"Planes were used on 9/11'

I don't have to refute anything concerning Norad, structural integrity or the technology of 3-D animation as all of this is completely irrelevant.

If I can prove that people saw planes hit the intended targets I have won the debate. Which is exactly what I provided in R1.

Your response to the links I provided is:

'The part that you went forward with was the eye-witness accounts. Now the eye-witness accounts are not enough, for many reasons...'

None of the 'many reasons' are stated.

It goes on to say:

'.... And many, if not all, eye-witness accounts, could may as well all be fake. 9/11 was a thing that has been planned, there may as well be 100s, if not thousands of people, behind this terrible incident. The exact numbers, nobody knows.'

This is clearly fallacious 'argument from wishful thinking' or 'argument from incredulity"

Here Pro is claiming the evidence I provided is invalid simply because he feels that it is. Pro is also making a claim that the events of 9/11 was a plot in which thousands of people including the general public was involved. A claim that cannot be backed up by sound logic.

The events of 9/11 took place in a major city of more than a million people. People witnessed planes crashing into the buildings, and the evidence I provided for this in the links I displayed is overwhelming. They can't be dismissed by simply saying it's fake.

Back to Pro
Debate Round No. 2
IslamAhmadiyya

Pro

Assalamualaykum

Video 2:

Video 3:

Video 4:

Thanks for the reply. I am going to go straight to the argument.

You are trying to prove that planes WERE used on 9/11 that had brought the world trade centers down. And so far, the only proof you have given me regarding this was that you had provided me several websites with quotes from so called eye-witnesses, that's it.

Let me ask you something. Do you accept the possibility that those eye-witness account could have been made up, faked? Because think about it for a second, if criminals with the power of publicly influencing the world had really staged this event, would they not take the step further and simply create website(s) and make up some fake witness accounts and display them to the public? It is very easy to to that. And this happens to be the only explanation for those eye-witnesses, because I am pretty sure people cannot eye-witness something that never existed.

Those eye-witness accounts are not direct evidence supporting your view that planes were used. I can make a website right now, and make up fake quotes by random/fake personas and state that a meteor crashed somewhere in Texas, for example. Is that proof that a meteor really crashed into Texas? No, not at all.

When I said proper proof is through visual representation, I was not kidding around, because this is exactly what I am providing you. You said this:

"He claims that all of this is "undeniable proof". Where is the proof/evidence that the videos you have displayed was subject to editing and 3-D animation?"

Haven't I spent the last 2 arguments providing the proof for you to investigate? Go over my previous arguments, you so far have not refuted anything whatsoever, but you keep bringing up your eye-witness accounts that have not proven me that planes were used.

And if your question was aimed at attacking the uploader, thinking that he/she was deliberately trying to fool the viewers into thinking that the planes were animations, then the proof for that is pretty simple. The clips that the uploader has used are the SAME international and public clips displayed on YouTube and other sites that everybody already knows about and have seen countless times.

You can verify these clips off any other video clips you find of the same clips. Whether on another YouTube channel, another website, or your very own recording at home! I have these at home as well, many families around America have videotaped the news on the morning of Sept. 11th, and the the clips that the news have aired, ALL of these clips have been distributed and collected and preserved around the world. You can verify this yourself.

All the clips, the uploader is simply dissecting them, and providing the information to whoever views his/her video. They are properly explaining in easy understandable manner, HOW the planes are animations, and HOW the entire attacks were faked.

I spent the last 2 arguments going over some of these clips with you, whether you have looked over them or not, you still have failed to prove me that planes WERE used. Your eye-witnesses have not proven anything.

I have verifiable evidence, you do not, that is the difference. You can verify my evidence through any other source, it doesn't have to be this specific video. The video series that I have provided is just saving us the time, as they have collected the main clips and dissected them in order and have provided the evidence alongside it, proving to you how the planes were animations.

I will continue on with my argument.

---

Now, there is absolutely NO doubt, that there were MULTIPLE angles of the 'planes' crashing into the towers.

You can simply compare two different angles, and see for yourself, how the clips disqualify each other.

Bob is standing outside in the USA, and Joe is standing outside in Canada, and a supposed 'meteor' is approaching the North American continent. Bob decides to film the sky and shoot the comet, and Joe decides to do the same.

The comet arrives, as the news says, and a news station in the USA displays Bob's video tape of the comet. A news station in Canada displays Joe's capture of the comet. Both, Bob and Joe, have filmed the comet at the same time.

However, there is a contradiction. In Bob's clip, the comet is traveling east, and in Joe's clip, the comet is traveling north! Not only is the direction different, but the color of the comet is different as well in both clips.

No live person on the streets saw this comet, except on the news. Then a website was later created, with a bunch of people's quotes, stating they saw the comet, and some minor details (where you can find some more contradictions).

Now how is that logically possible? How can the comet be traveling EAST in one angle, but in another, be traveling NORTH? It isn't possible, and since nobody saw the comet anyway except supposedly on the news, it is obvious that it was a fake. The comet was an animation, and people later found out that these two news nations had a direct link with each other, trying to fool the world, but many refuse to believe because of their lack of knowledge, their ignorance. Believing in whatever the media says.

THIS is exactly what happened on 9/11.

I can simply prove this, by showing you two different angles of the 'same plane' that crashed into the tower.

Go to that video I provided at the start of this argument. I titled it, video 2.

Go to 10:25 in the video, and simply watch. In the video, you see two shots (clips) of two different angles.

The first is called, "The Al-Quaeda Shot", and the second is called, "The Divebomber Shot."

Just look at both of the clips and see how they disqualify each other.

You can arrive to MANY questions from this...but let us ask these simple questions.

1) Why is the plane flying straight in angle 1, and descending in angle 2? Why are they flying differently in different ways?
2) If a person was supposedly EYE-WITNESSING this event, what would they be seeing with their eyes? The plane going straight, or the plane descending?
3) In broad daylight, the plane is pitch black, why is that so when the building right next to the plane is reflecting the sun's light, but the plane is not?

---

Now take note at 12:10 in the video.

This is where it talks about Newton's 3rd law of motion.

Watch that 'Roadrunner Plane' shot. This is talking about crash physics.

Realize, that aluminum plane melting into the steel tower is COMPLETELY against the laws of motion. These laws are not optional, your eye-witnesses have NOTHING on the laws of physics! An aluminum plane doesn't swim/melt into a strong and sturdy steel structure!

Don't believe it? Then watch the beginning part of video 3 that I have provided above. All you have to do is press play. That is not tampered footage, all of that is physics. No words can deny physics, my friend. Whoever is reading over this debate, don't you agree, no matter what someone says, the laws of physics are the laws of physics.

If a news reporter claims to have eye-witnesses of people claiming that the giant rock that was thrown into the ocean did not create a splash, they're lying. Because we all know, a giant rock WILL create a splash when landing FULL force into the ocean.

---

Now, I ask the con to give me some real verifiable evidence, as well as to refute these undeniable proofs that I am providing. Because he has not convinced me that planes WERE used.

Is it that hard? If planes WERE used, then simply prove it. If you think these planes actually existed, is it that hard to prove it in ALL ways, including visual representations?

I can provide a news clip of a person claiming on the SCENE that he saw no planes, you want to see it?

Click on vid 4 at the top and skip to 12:54. Here you have a REAL EYE WITNESS claiming that there was NO PLANE. And look at the reaction.

Peace.
ATHOS

Con

First off, I'd like to thank Pro for this lively, interesting and challenging debate.

Pro says here:

//'You are trying to prove that planes WERE used on 9/11 that had brought the world trade centers down. And so far, the only proof you have given me regarding this was that you had provided me several websites with quotes from so called eye-witnesses, that's it.'//

The "eyewitness account" is one of the most reliable forms of proof/evidence there is, especially for an event with the magnitude of 9/11. To claim that the U.S. gov. paid off or created fictional people to be witnesses is highly improbable. With as many people that you're claiming to be involved in this plot it's very unlikely for it to be kept long as a secret.

Pro goes on:

//'Let me ask you something. Do you accept the possibility that those eye-witness account could have been made up, faked?'//

No, because it would require hundreds of people to be involved in such a huge event which it would be impossible to keep it under wraps.

And:

//'Because think about it for a second, if criminals with the power of publicly influencing the world had really staged this event, would they not take the step further and simply create website(s) and make up some fake witness accounts and display them to the public? It is very easy to to that.'//
//'And this happens to be the only explanation for those eye-witnesses, because I am pretty sure people cannot eye-witness something that never existed.'//

Clearly in these two statements here, Pro is begging the question. A part of his conclusion can be found its premises.

Again, my task in this debate is to negate the resolution:

'No planes were used on 9/11'

I have done this by providing eyewitness accounts of real people, firefighters, EMT, and other members of the public. For Pro to arrive at the conclusion of "fake" without proper premises is fallacious.

Here my opponent has a contradiction in his own argument:

//'Do you accept the possibility that those eye-witness account could have been made up, faked? Because think about it for a second, if criminals with the power of publicly influencing the world had really staged this event, would they not take the step further and simply create website(s) and make up some fake witness accounts and display them to the public? It is very easy to to that.'//

Pro claims these criminals (he's not even sure who they are) have 'the power of publicly influencing the world'. In the videos he provided the person talking says that the 3-D animation and editing was poorly done with obvious mistakes.
It stands to reason that criminals with 'the power of publicly influencing the world' would have access to the best possible technology, and mistakes would be difficult to find. Pro's argument doesn't follow.

He also says here:

//'Realize, that aluminum plane melting into the steel tower is COMPLETELY against the laws of motion. These laws are not optional, your eye-witnesses have NOTHING on the laws of physics! An aluminum plane doesn't swim/melt into a strong and sturdy steel structure!'//

It is possible that something travelling with the proper amount of velocity will penetrate and even pass through something of a harder density.

The tornado effect:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

Parts of the planes were found in the wreckage:

http://911research.wtc7.net...

In closing Pro has not properly proven the resolution:

'No planes were used on 9/11'

All Pro is doing is claiming that the basis of my counter argument is "fake". The b.o.p is on Pro since he is making the claim that no planes were used in the events of 9/11. My opponent has failed to do this. The videos that he presented offers no information as to who did the analysis and if they even have the proper credentials and experience to make such claims.

Again, these events took place in a city with well over a million people. It stands to reason that if there really wasn't any planes there would be more witnesses claiming that there was none as oppose to ones that says there were.

For anyone to make a claim that the U.S gov. or any other criminal organization planned and carried out and paid off and/or hired thousands of Americans to be a part of these events is extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
IslamAhmadiyya

Pro

Assalamualaykum

Video:

In regards to your comment that you had made on the comments section, you asked what the remaining rounds are for. My answer: 'Anything'.

In this 4th round of mine, I will refute some of your arguments that you have brought up, and probably provide some more evidence to prove to you that there were absolutely no planes used on 9/11, but rather, they were animations inserted into video tapes. With several years of experience in graphic softwares, animations, and modelling, and using a bit of common logical sense, I can assure you, the video clips that you are seeing are tampered tapes, and with further research, there are evidences showcasing that the eye-witnesses were actors, some of them may have well been faked, and some completely made up without any news coverage.

On the other hand, there were many eye-witnesses that not once mentioned any 'plane', but there were those that had said that they only saw 'explosions'.

Con said:
"The "eyewitness account" is one of the most reliable forms of proof/evidence there is, especially for an event with the magnitude of 9/11. To claim that the U.S. gov. paid off or created fictional people to be witnesses is highly improbable. With as many people that you're claiming to be involved in this plot it's very unlikely for it to be kept long as a secret."

I say:
So you are saying that the eyewitness accounts are greater forms of evidences versus DIRECT and to the point visual evidence that can be VERIFIABLE? You tell me, what's better evidence, one that you can YOURSELF verify? Or just providing a link to a website full of text, claiming they are pieces of evidence. I'll let the audience decide.

By the way, I never mentioned anything about the Gov. paying off/creating fictional people. It wasn't the government, but it was a large group of people that have planned this event, and this very group has also been responsible for giving us a distorted image on what really happened on 9/11. Tell me, have we, the people, REALLY been told the truth regarding everything that happened on 9/11? If you believe so, then you must be blind or unable to see many of the contradictions that are popping up, you are unable to see any distortions in the media, any cover ups that they don't want you to find out. They are trying to give out a deceived image of the event through their propaganda, and many are falling for it in a state of blindness.

Con said in my response to explaining if he accepts the possibility of the eye-witnesses being made up:
"No, because it would require hundreds of people to be involved in such a huge event which it would be impossible to keep it under wraps."

I say:
Who said anything about needing every person for an eye-witness, is it not easier just to make them up and put them on some newly created public website for everyone to see? Nobody is going to be able to find a made up persona now wouldn't they? This would easily fool the world.

Con says:
"It stands to reason that criminals with 'the power of publicly influencing the world' would have access to the best possible technology, and mistakes would be difficult to find. Pro's argument doesn't follow."

I say:
What I mean by 'publicly influencing the world' is that they have the power over media and propaganda. These people can say WHATEVER they want on the news, and odds are, a good portion of the viewers are going to blindly accept it, there ARE people like this in the world. They abused their power on 9/11.

Con talks about the tornado effect. I refuse to stand down, because one of the big questions when the 'planes' crashed were, "How can a plane fly that fast at such low altitude?" It is near next to impossible.

He also provides some images of plane wreckage. My defense:
http://911review.com...

In that website, you see images of the Pentagon, and you can clearly see how there are NO PLANE debris/wreckage present ANYWHERE. On top of that, a standard Boeing 757 is approximately 140-160 feet in width. The hole in the front of the Pentagon is only around 60 feet. The evidence is as 'plane' as clear.

Another fact. If a plane was able to take the WTC's down, then why was the Pentagon's damage inconsistent with the damage to the WTC's? Shouldn't the damage be the same? The type of damage that has been done onto the Pentagon is clearly not from a plane, but more of that of a targeted missile, a direct impact from the skies. Even the pictures prove it.

This website here has broken down many of the evidences that I have provided and placed them in sections for you to see. http://www.veteranstoday.com...

And here is a quote from that website:
"It was an audacious plan, brilliant in design, and nearly perfect in execution. But those who were working this out did not realize that they were also creating the image of a plane that would turn out to be traveling faster than a Boeing 767, violating Newton"s laws, and passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passed through its own length it air."

Oh and remember Shanksville, where the 4th plane allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania?
Even the MAYOR confirmed there was no plane.
http://www.infowars.com...

Scroll up and watch that video. It shows you how 'fake' the eye-witnesses are, and it shows how the entire plane crash was a fake! It is too clear + the previous evidences that I have provided in my previous arguments. I still await these refutations, you are beating around the bush....

My friend, even if the whole world said that the big rock fell into the water but there was clearly no splash, I will not believe the people. Unless there was some magical unknown force that moved the water away, but by using common sense, a rock cannot fall into an ocean WITHOUT making a splash. The bigger the rock, and the greater the velocity, the bigger the splash!

Con said:
"The b.o.p is on Pro since he is making the claim that no planes were used in the events of 9/11."

My reply:
Again I am repeating myself, refer back to my previous arguments, I have not yet received any proper refutations, but you keep bringing up your so called eyewitnesses which I have proven to be false with simple logic. I have provided my proof already, you have only stuck to one part of the proof, which I have refuted already.

"My opponent has failed to do this."

Again, that is your opinion, you still haven't convinced me planes WERE used, because I am seeing the flaws within your own proof, but you cannot detect flaws in mine?

He states:
"It stands to reason that if there really wasn't any planes there would be more witnesses claiming that there was none as oppose to ones that says there were."

There were many witnesses claiming that there was no plane, some didn't even know a plane existed until they saw the news, and many people were claiming they saw explosions. Bottom line is, the media made sure the witnesses that were speaking the TRUTH, were not presented to the public. It is always the media that get the final say my friend.

You are basing your entire argument over the official conspiracy of the US and the media.

An old man and his students living on the other side of a planet, in a cave, planned one of the deadliest and most sophisticated attacks ever on the most protected airspace on the globe. This is the story that the media is trying to make you believe. I have provided many evidences proving that this 'official conspiracy' is complete bogwash, and the image that we are receiving regarding 9/11 has clearly been distorted and tampered with by the media.

The proof is all there, all you need is to open your eyes and see.

Not a single person saw a plane, this was an act, practiced many times before, and we have seen things like this countless times in history. 9/11 is no different.

Refute my arguments, all of them.

Peace.
ATHOS

Con

Pro continues to claim that the you tube links are undeniable proof. He insists on debating with videos. For every video he finds supporting the "no-planes" theory I can find one that debunks it.

With the amount of attention that the Pentagon no-plane theories have received, it shouldn't be surprising
that some would also make the bizarre claim that no 767s hit the World Trade Center, despite voluminous
video and photographic evidence to the contrary.

There have been two no-plane hypotheses put forward:

The first, that small planes or missiles hit the
towers and these were covered over in the videos and photos of the impact by synthetic 3D graphic
images of 767s (including real-time superimposition of these images on all live TV footage as it was
broadcast). The no-planers have labeled this scenario "TV Fakery." The second argument holds that the
planes (at least the second plane) was in fact a hologram generated by classified technology. This
hypothesis has since been abandoned. The proponents argue that anomalies in the visual record indicate
the fraudulent nature of the computer generated second plane and show that the plane in the Naudet
video of the first hit was not the size or shape of a 767.

The over-arching weakness of the TV fakery argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured
control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one unmodified image
posted to the web would have exposed the operation. New York is a media capital of the world, with
national networks, local network affiliates and independent TV stations, international media bureaus, and
many independent video companies like the kinds I've worked for, and professional photographers.
Professionals would have been rushing out to document whatever they could, through professional pride
or the hope for making a buck off it. Evan Fairbanks and war photographer James Nachtway are some
examples. And then there are also cameras in the possession of ordinary citizens and the thousands of
New York's ever-present tourists. In addition, one should consider the possibility of foreign intelligence
assets acquiring their own images of the attack (which so many knew was coming) which could be used
for blackmail.

What we have of images of flight 175 from 9/11 is exactly what we would expect: a great variety of still
and moving images from a variety of angles from near and far and from mainstream media down to
amateurs. There are absolutely no images of missiles or small planes. So, were these photographers and
videographers all agents? There has been no research into their backgrounds. If they weren't, then what
was the chain of custody of the tape before being aired? Was the allegedly modified footage the original
or a duplicate of the original (as one would expect) supplied by the videographer? Who now has the
original? If the photographer has the original, then are we to believe he or she does not care that their
image showed something different than was on TV? None of these questions are answered. The default
explanation, and the only answer possible, is the bug-eyed assertion that somehow the perps of 9/11
controlled all the cameras in NY on 9/11.

In reality, the perpetrators would have found out about each image that they didn't control only after the
image appeared on the web or in the media. And then it would have been too late to alter the image. The
TV fakery hypothesis, therefore, is utterly absurd.

Do Anomalies Constitute Proof of No-767 Hypotheses?

The possibility that anomalies that defy easy explanation might exist in the visual record must be
considered when analyzing the no-plane hypothesis. It may very well be that the explanation of some
alleged anomalies might require a level of technical capacity far beyond any researchers in the 9/11
movement now dealing with this issue. For example, a professional 3D modeling of the plane's approach
to the WTC with photo-realistic lighting combined with simulation of physics properties such as
momentum or aerodynamics and using research into the exact location and lens type of the camera in
question might be needed. But even if a confirmed anomaly in the visual record were someday found, it
would not constitute proof that no 767s hit the towers: It would prove only that that particular video was
faked, and the perpetrators of 9/11 could have distributed faked videos to encourage the no-plane
hypothesis. Given that the perps couldn't have controlled all the cameras in New York on 9/11, and that
absolutely no images showing something other than 767 impacts have surfaced, it is arguable that
anomalous videos shouldn't even be considered compelling evidence, let alone proof, of no-767 claims.

Conclusion:

There are many solid pieces of visual evidence"video recordings and photos"that show 767's impacting
the World Trade Center towers. If only one of these images is authentic, the entire no-plane hypothesis is
invalidated. There are absolutely no images of anything else hitting the towers despite the attention the
burning WTC1 tower was receiving from a city of millions. The attempts by the no-planers to create
credibility for their hypothesis by citing purported anomalies in the visual record have been characterized
by a high degree of technical incompetence and illogical thinking. Because an authentic visual anomaly
would only prove that that particular image was faked, and would not prove that something besides 767s
hit the towers, it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane
hypothesis
Debate Round No. 4
IslamAhmadiyya

Pro

IslamAhmadiyya forfeited this round.
ATHOS

Con

I'll just restate my conclusion.

There are many solid pieces of visual evidence"video recordings and photos"that show 767's impacting
the World Trade Center towers. If only one of these images is authentic, the entire no-plane hypothesis is
invalidated. There are absolutely no images of anything else hitting the towers despite the attention the
burning WTC1 tower was receiving from a city of millions. The attempts by the no-planers to create
credibility for their hypothesis by citing purported anomalies in the visual record have been characterized
by a high degree of technical incompetence and illogical thinking. Because an authentic visual anomaly
would only prove that that particular image was faked, and would not prove that something besides 767s
hit the towers, it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane
hypothesis.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Unfortunately I'm not allowed to vote as I have not yet completed 3 debates yet but I can't help but say this.

As CON said all he had to do was prove that planes did in fact hit the WTCs and the Pentagon. I believe he did this extensively well. All of PROs arguments seemed to be based more off of what he wanted to have happened and he basically said the same thing over and over completely disregarding CONs arguments as simple lies or being incorrect or even laughably saying they could be part of the conspiracy as well. This was grossly incompetent. And his entire rebuttal can be turned on him as we'll. what proof did he provide that HIS sources weren't the lies are false information? What proof did he provide that his sources were credible? None whatsoever. CON won this one hands down.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 3 years ago
IslamAhmadiyya
I apologize for the forfeit on the last round, ran out of time, was busy 'offline'.

Good luck.
Posted by ATHOS 3 years ago
ATHOS
hey, Pro interesting debate. What is to take place in R4 and R5?
Posted by ATHOS 3 years ago
ATHOS
Why so many rounds?
Posted by ATHOS 3 years ago
ATHOS
Pro, this is the link to (G) in R1 the eyewitness account from FIREFIGHTER MICHAEL SCHROECK.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com...
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 3 years ago
IslamAhmadiyya
Oh I see, R1 is round 1, sorry I'm new here haha.

I am ready, do whatever you wish for R1.

Let it be known though, I am on the side that there were NO planes used on 9/11. Thanks.

Remember, I will bring my evidence and proof from visual representations.
Posted by ATHOS 3 years ago
ATHOS
Pro, is R1 for acceptance?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Guy_D 3 years ago
Guy_D
IslamAhmadiyyaATHOSTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: c'mon. Do I really need to explain?
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
IslamAhmadiyyaATHOSTied
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: What Rational_Thinker9119 said
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
IslamAhmadiyyaATHOSTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Not voting due to strong bias. My ex-girlfriend was in the pentagon parking lot when the plane collided there.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
IslamAhmadiyyaATHOSTied
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: There were way too many people in New York that saw what happened, and confirmed planes hit the towers. The odds of the planes being faked are so low, it is next to impossible. Con showed this to be the case by using sources, but Pro just hand-waved the evidence away as if it was part of the conspiracy. That is not convincing, and it is intellectually lazy. Clear win for Con.