The Instigator
RUN4ACES
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tombing
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Pentagon strike on 9-11-2001

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 625 times Debate No: 49880
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

RUN4ACES

Con

Why won't the U.S. Government release a video from 1 of the over 80 surveillance cameras located on and around the Pentagon proving. This would certainly end all doubt it was a 767 striking the building. Specifically the video the FBI confiscated from the Citgo gas station, Which had the area in it's view and would clearly show what struck the Pentagon?

I contend it is because it was not a plane.
tombing

Pro

It is a plane that hit the pentagon. For more http://www.cassiopaea.org...
Debate Round No. 1
RUN4ACES

Con

Why won't the U.S. Government release a video from 1 of the over 80 surveillance cameras located on and around the Pentagon proving. This would certainly end all doubt it was a 767 striking the building. Specifically the video the FBI confiscated from the Citgo gas station, Which had the area in it's view and would clearly show what struck the Pentagon?

I contend it is because it was not a plane.

Your claiming impossible speeds and maneuvers were accomplished along with a claim "It was a plane" is undeniable evidence. In order to do this you will have to prove how a 767 can be flown 500 mph in level flight at sea level, how the plane managed to fly below 20 ft. with a pocket of compressed gas under the wings which makes it impossible. You link claims the plane skidded into the Pentagon yet the lawn is in pristine condition, not one blade of grass was displaced from the turbulence and plane hitting the ground proving this was impossible. How a plane continued to fly after striking light standards when in the past a plane hitting one light standard ripped off the wing and causing it to burst into flames and immediately fall to the ground and explode. It is impossible for a wings made from light weight composites to knock down several light standards without causing any damage or parts of the wings to be ripped from the plane. If 8,600 gallons of jet fuel was spilled on the ground federal laws would have considered it a hazardous waste site and would have been closed to remove all the soil and grass. This was not done. Plus, my question was why a video has not been released showing a plane was ignored completely by claiming it was a plane. This is ridiculous all of it. Try again, and remember you cannot ignore fundamental laws of motion because they don't support your theory. It doesn't work this way.
tombing

Pro

If it isn't a Plane what is it,an UFO??your hilarious Dude.
Debate Round No. 2
RUN4ACES

Con

RUN4ACES forfeited this round.
tombing

Pro

As my opponent has forfeited the last round,I think I won this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nato1111 2 years ago
nato1111
I think I have footage of the plane crash will look for it
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
So... Your saying there were no planes ?
Posted by RUN4ACES 2 years ago
RUN4ACES
I don't support the plane theory although the text doesn't clearly state this it is evident in the last sentence.
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
I got you Ragnar.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Someone please send me a message when this debate is done, so that I may vote on it (email notifications got broken by some piece of filth spammer).
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
Let me guess. Death beams from outer space?
Posted by Ginlunmang 2 years ago
Ginlunmang
What is this debate about?
Posted by digitalbeachbum 2 years ago
digitalbeachbum
I'm confused. You say it was a plane but you are CON.
Your subject is open ended.
"Pentagon Strike on 9-11-2001" should say also, "was not a plane" or along that lines to signify your true position on the subject.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
That video in question was released, like back in 2006.

Anyway http://www.911myths.com...
Posted by LittleBallofHATE 2 years ago
LittleBallofHATE
I might debate this one with you, but I have to do some research first, if I have time. I find it interesting that the videos we DID see showed no wreckage from the plane. just debris from the pentagon.
No votes have been placed for this debate.