The Instigator
Haasenfeffor
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
TheFreeThinker
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Resolved: The Government Was behind the 9/11 attacks

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
TheFreeThinker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,797 times Debate No: 16974
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Haasenfeffor

Pro

First round we do nothing.......debate starts in second round. Let's have a nice debate whoever accepts this!
TheFreeThinker

Con

I accept this debate.

I expect my opponent to stay away from semantics and assume we are talking about the U.S. government.
Debate Round No. 1
Haasenfeffor

Pro

First off, thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to a riveting rapport with you. Before we begin, I would like to explain what I believe I must accomplish in order to win this debate, and explain what con must accomplish in order to prove this debate. And yes, I am talking about the US government, and no semantics should be used.
Also, I must propose that the government being behind the 9/11 attacks do not include the US government being aware of a potential attack by Osama bin Laden, and allowing it to happen.

In order for pro to win, I must establish the following parameters:
1. That the explanation that the US government offered to explain the 9/11 attacks are illogical, or impossible.
2. That the US government, or people in the Government have a motive to fake the 9/11 attacks(that there is potential gain involved)
3. That the United States is willing to harm their own citizens, or to fake a terrorist attack.

In order for con to win this debate, they must prove that following
1. That the explanation that the US government offered to explain the 9/11 attacks are the best explanation for what happened on September 11th
2. That the US government does not have a motive to fake the attacks
3. That the US government is not willing to harm their own citizens, or to fake a terrorist attack on our nation.

If my opponent agrees to the parameters, he may debate them as such. If there is a point he wishes to discuss, do so in the beginning of your speech.

My arguments will proceed as if my opponent had agreed to these parameters. To begin,

My contentions are as follows,

1. The explanation the government offered to explain 9/11 are impossible
2. The US government, or individuals in the government, had a motive to fake the attacks.
3. That the US government is willing to harm the people of the United States, and to stage terrorist attacks on America.

To go into depth,

1. The explanation the government offered to explain 9/11 are impossible
To begin, I will be talking about the attack on the Twin towers area
Mnay arguements have been presented that the Twin Towers at the world trade center could not have collapsed the way reported in the NIST report, from plane impact and fire. These arguments are based on the "rapidity and symetry of collapse, the adequacy of the steel supports, and the finding of incendiary residues in the dust. It has also been proposed that the primary cause of the fall; the sudden collapse of one story, is impossible, because of the inadequate heat needed to melt or weaken the steel. This argument is based on data from the NIST report. In the government's explanation for this collapse, first, one story, weakened by plane impact and fire, suddenly collapsed, which allowed the above section of the tower to fall freely down and hit the lower section. The momentum was said to be sufficent to collapse the lower section of the tower, resulting in the collapse. "Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage. There are some damaged columns,
some fire, and a claimed lack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor in the building
design, the number of damaged columns is far too few to put the buildings at risk without the
fire. This is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere. We will ignore the fact that
according to the physical evidence data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its
conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume the strongest case for the official
theory: the fire was uniform over the whole area and very hot.
The fire has to heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets hot enough that it
cannot carry the load in the initiating storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no
disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the plane impact, hence most of the
columns are still attached to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up and
down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The length of the columns between
attachments is too short for buckling to occur. Failure must therefore be by compression.
As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as they shorten, will become wider,
which is obvious; and the inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not obvious. It is
well established however that the yield strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion
increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature and is pronounced at the
temperatures required for collapse. For both of these reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input. A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the significant increase in yield strength and the slight increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress.
It is clear therefore that the upper section should only have moved down slowly and only
continued to do so if additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and sagging collapse was
not observed however with either tower. As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the
upper sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate. In the case of the south tower, initially a 2
lean of the upper section developed but within the first second this turned into a rapid collapse
with upper section disintegration, just as was observed with the north tower.
It appears therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse of the upper portion
through the initiation storey, due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature
did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not have happened in the observed manner.
In particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced
the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon which the official story
depends for the second stage of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with
the use of explosives in a timed sequence."
Therefore, I conclude that I have proved my first contention.
Contention 2: The US government, or individuals in the government, had a motive to fake the attacks.
This contention will be quite simple to prove. For one, increased power of government was one effect of the attacks. The Patriot Act, which obviously infringes on our Bill of Rights, was passed becasue of fear of another attack like this happening.
How about the opportunity to invade Iraq? As soon as Bush came to office, the Administration has been talking of invading Iraq. The 9/11 attacka allowed them to do so. And What happens to be in Iraq? Try 18 trillion dollars of oil, oil that we get for a cheaper price than the rest of the world. There's a reason why our cars are smaller than those in Europe, because oil costs less in America! Or how about Dick Chaney, who made all his money through Halliburton, the company that supplied our troops for the last 5 years. I think we must all agree that there is indeed a motive.

Contention 3: The Government is willing to harm the people of America, and to fake terrorist attacks on our country.
To prove this contention, I direct your attention to the following document; http://www.gwu.edu...
This document called for the Central Intelligence Agency to fake acts of terrorism against out country, including " innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked"
The past is the best source. The Heads of State all signed this, and it would have been carried out were it not for JFK spurning the project.
This evidence proves my contentions. In my rebuttal, I will rebut my opponents contentions, as well as go back and present the evidence that shows the government's involvement. Your turn :)
TheFreeThinker

Con

Thank you for clarifying your position.

I would like to start the debate by challenging my opponent's proposal of what I need to prove to win the debate.

My opponent wants me to prove that the US Government doe not have a motive to fake the attacks and that the US Government is not willing to harm its own citizens or to fake a terrorist attack on the US.

These points have nothing to do with the question of weather or not the US Government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Even if the US Government or individuals within the US Government might have had a motive or might have been willing to fake an attack, it does not mean that it actually did.
There are thousands if not millions of people in the US who might have had an interest in an attack happening, from stockholders of defense-companies to real estate investors. This of course does not mean they were responsible for the attacks.


My opponent opens the debate by arguing that the Twin Towers could not have collapsed the way reported in the NIST report, and goes on speculating on how the structural integrity of the towers which got hit by two planes, weighing some 18,000 pounds each, carrying an estimated 18,000 gallons of fuel and flying at a speed of over 500 Mph could have not been compromised.

All of these point make absolutely no sense and show my opponent's lack of basic understanding of the laws of physics and of structural engineering.

Arguments such as "as the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as they shorten, will become wider,
which is obvious; and the inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not obvious" are just plain wrong and apparently the intellectual property of somebody who lacks the rudimentary skills to properly analyze the impact of the planes on a complex structure such as the World Trade Center.

My opponent also just copied and pasted most of his talking points from the "journalof911studies.com", which apart from being an unreliable source, is bad conduct, as we are supposed to articulate our own lines of argumentation.

All of those conspiracy theories have been closely scrutinized and debunked in the past. There is no doubt whatsoever that the damage inflicted to the towers was enough to cause their collapse. [1]

It is also interesting to notice, that the second tower to get hit was the first one to fall, because the second plane hit the tower at a lower point that the first, which caused bigger structural damages.

My opponent speculates on a variety of things but clearly fails to provide an alternative for what caused the towers to fall, because if it wasn't the two big planes filled with fuel and flying at 500 Mph it must have been something else, and in his last point argues that "all observations are in accord with the use of explosives in a timed sequence".

Now the idea that the collapse of the Towers has been caused by a controlled demolition has been a favorite hypothesis of conspiracy theorist for years. It has of course been debunked as well, but the interesting fact is that a controlled demolition actually looks nothing like the collapse of the twin towers.



Most of the times when the conspiracy theorists show a video of a controlled demolition, they take the sound out because the amount of noise that the explosions create, as heard in the video I posted, have not been heard during the collapse of the twin towers. So as long as there is no evidence that the US government created a new type of dynamite that explodes silently, this argument remains a myth.

By examining the footage of the controlled demolition further, it is also clear to see that while in the controlled demolition the base of the building is the first one to fall, followed by the top, in the case of the Twin Towers the top of the buildings collapsed first, and dragged the rest of the structure to the ground.

In his next point my opponent went on speculating about the reasons that the US government might have had in organizing the attacks and mentions the Patriot Act.

Even though I am against the Patriot Act and wish that the 112th Congress would repealed it a few weeks ago, arguing that the Patriot Act was the reason why the US Government attacked itself is ridiculous. The PAtriot Act was a consequence of the attacks, not a cause.

Furthermore, Dick Cheney, who was Vice President during the attacks, did indeed make money at Halliburton, however he left the company years before 9/11 and Halliburton was not the only company that ended up working as a contractor in Iraq.

By this logic, every Executive of a company that got a contract in Iraq following the US led invasion might have had something to do with 9/11 because they gained from it.

It makes a nice conspiracy theory, but it is a bad argument.

My opponent also speculates that the motive to attack Iraq was '18 trillion dollars of oil, oil that we get for a cheaper price than the rest of the world. There's a reason why our cars are smaller than those in Europe, because oil costs less in America!"

Apart the fact that even after the war Iraqi oil is still Iraqi oil and that we are actually not taking it from them for free, oil is bought on the international market. Buying oil in the US is NOT cheaper than buying it in Germany, Switzerland, Thailand or China.
The difference is the price of Gasoline, mostly because European countries have high taxes, in some cases around 70% on gasoline, while the US has just a standard sales tax.

My opponent has shown no new, credible, not-already-debunked argument in favor of his conspiracy theory and has shown a lack of understanding of several subjects that are relevant to this debate, including basic physics and geo-politics.

None of the sources he cited are credible and some documents don't even support his theory but are just posted because their content has not been clearly understood by my opponent and other conspiracy theorists.


[1]http://www.popularmechanics.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Haasenfeffor

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for responding so efficiently and concisely. I accept his changes as to what he needs to accomplish in order to win, as it is logical that merely in order to win, he merely has to prove that the official explanation is true. Also, in reference to my opponent's statement about my quote from the journal of 9/11 studies, i merely posted the excerpt from the article, as the opinion of a mechanical engineer, and a man with a PhD in chemistry evidence of learned men supporting this conclusion. However, as my opponent wishes, I will keep the rest of my quotes short and concise.
I had planned to spend this round negating my opponent's contentions.... but unfortunately he neglected to state them, preferring instead to attempt to negate my own contentions, and aim in which he fell far short. Therefore, in this round, I will negate his arguments about my own contentions, then go back and support them. I trust that the readers of this debate will keep my opponent's lack of a case in mind when they make their decision regarding the conclusion of this debate. To begin,

My opponent says that "There is no doubt whatsoever that the damage inflicted to the towers was enough to cause their collapse" To prove this point, he cites the magazine I mentioned in my previous arguement of supporting the government's story. This is very important to my case, because if I can prove that the official story is impossible, it proves that the government lied to us, causing us to wonder why they would do so, if not to hide their own involvment. And yes, while I don't have a PhD in mechanics, one does not need one to see the obvious truth, when it is supported by my own observations and the observations of learned professionals.
My opponent says that the evidence I presented is just plain wrong, but he prevents no evidence of his own for why it is so, merely offering his opinion, that they are just "plain wrong." Obviously, opinion is not fact, and I hope the readers are able to make the distinction while judging this debate. However, I will treat his arguments as if they were supported by evidence, and negate his claims with evidence of my own.
First off, I draw my opponent's attention to the fact that the 9/11 site was sealed off, and people were arrested for merely taking photos of the site. In the clean-up, the officials implemented an operation by Controlled Demolition, Inc. The steel remaining was shipped to places like China and India, for "recycling" despite never having been seen by investigators, for example, FEMA's Building Assessment Performance Team, who weren't even allowed to access the wreckage. "Nor can the public verify details about the buildings' design crucial to FEMA's theory, since the blueprints have not been released. The description of the towers' structure in their official report leaves over 20% of the steel known to have been used in their construction unaccounted for. By the time FEMA's report was published, Ground Zero had been scrubbed" Also, my opponent states that the creators of the buildings had not anticipated plane collisions, on this point he is wrong. They were both designed to survive the impact and fire from a 707-340 carrying 23,000 gallons of fuel. The planes that hit the towers were about the same size, and they only had 10,000 gallons of fuel. The towers were supported by collumns in the outer wall, and 47 huge steel collumns in the core structure. Like all large engineered structures, the engineers overcompensated to ensure that the towers would stand against anything. The crashes destroyed 33 perimeter columns in one tower, and only 24 in the other. In one of the towers(the south) the core structure was barely damaged. Each of these towers could have stood with even the majority of it's columns broken, and were designed to withstand bombs and fires. And yet, both towers collapsed.

Also, my opponent fails to note the low temperature of jet fuel, as it boils easily, and ignites easily. The fuel burned off rapidly. FEMA even said the fuel must have been used up in minutes. All that would have remained would have been the fires burned fuel, similar to that of regular office fires. The smoke darkened over time, showing evidence of oxygen deprivation. And beyond that, even at the maximum heat of the fire, when it first struck the towers, it burned nowhere close to the 700 degrees C required to soften steel. Furthermore, there's no evidence that suggests the core structure was ever damaged by flames.

In addition, there have only been two examples of steel-frame skyscrapers totally collapsing because of fires, or any other cause other than controlled demolition. And both of those occurred on September 11th, at the world trade center. Also, the towers collapsed almost perfectly vertically, falling down on itself. "It is impossible that the aircraft impacts and fires could result in damage so perfectly synchronized and symmetrical as to cause the simultaneous and balanced failures in the structure required for such vertical collapses" Also, neglected by the official explanation, the dense core of the building would have made the buildings' top fall like a tree, not stright down as it did. If it was truly gravity that drove the collapse, the walls would crash down withing the outer wall, and the walls collumns might buckle. Even if the outer wall fell, the inner core would still remain standing. But on the film that my opponent posted, you can see it looks nothing like that, with thick clouds of debris and smoke billowing from the towers, even when the tops were falling slowly. The remains were scraps of metals, paper, and fine dust; "The concrete, glass, gypsum, and other nonmetallic building constituents were thoroughly pulverized to microscopic particles." The towers fell at close to the speed of a object falling with no resistance, but unless the towers were demolished before the falling portion encountered it, it would have been greatly slowed, or even halted the fall. This evidence presented clearly shows how the explanation offered by the government is false.

Now back to the defense! My opponent offers evidence that Dick Cheney left his company long ago, and therefore would care nothing for it's revenue. I regret to inform my opponent that Cheney does own substantial stock in the company, more money that some of us may ever see. Also, I would like to inform my opponent that prices on Europe's gas are almost double what we pay. Of course, they aren't in possession of a country in the middle east, now are they. My opponent also neglects to say anything about my comment about how the Bush Administration has been fighting to invade Iraq since they took office. This false flag operation allowed them to do so. He also does not negate anything I said about whether or not the United States is willing to commit acts of terrorism against it's own citizens, saying nothing about my evidence about Operation Northwoods. therefore, I assume that he is going to allow my third contention to stand. Judges, I ask you to note this lapse, and wonder if it is because he is not able to refute it. My opponent, on everyone of my contentions, has either offered nothing, offered insufficient evidence, or offered no evidence at all, simply offering his own personal opinion. I hope that my opponent will state his case in the next round. And remember judges, just because my opponent says that I am offering debunked arguements does not make it true. I am not, as he stated, "someone who lacks rudimentary skills" and I had hoped we would be able to keep insults out of this debate. I now invite my opponent to state his case.
TheFreeThinker

Con

Thank you for responding in a timely matter.

First of all I would like to dispute your notion that you posted arguments from the journal of 9/11 studies to show "evidence of learned men supporting this conclusion".

As you yourself said, the man has a PhD in Chemistry, and unless you want to argue that the attacks were carried out using potassium hydroxide I don't see how his speculations have any academic value whatsoever.

Furthermore, I did not state any contentions because I agreed to defend the findings of the 9/11 commission, which are publicly available and which you yourself mentioned in your opening statement:

"My contentions are as follows,

1. The explanation the government offered to explain 9/11 are impossible"

I clearly do not lack a case. My case is the official explanation of the attacks as provided by the US Government, which states that the attacks were carried out by members of Al-Qaeda and that the towers collapsed as a result of the structural damages inflicted to the buildings by the collision of the airplanes.

My opponent acknowledges that he is not an expert, and therefore lacks the rudimentary skills needed to compose an educated analysis of the attacks. Saying that he lacks the skills is by the way no insult, but just a statement based on my opponent's own acknowledgment of his lack of training in the subject matter.

My opponent also states that I have not shown any evidence for my points.

This could of course not be further away from the truth. If my opponent had taken his time to look up the sources that I have posted during the last round, he would have noticed that all the points that he has made have already been debunked by professionals and experts in the field. Those people by the way are not hobby-conspiracy-theorist but professionals.

It is obvious that my opponent does not want to get the facts on the story and rather decided to ignore the evidence provided by those experts because it does not fit his narrative.

I shall post the source again and hope that my opponent will analyze it. [1]

I also challenge my opponent to show a credible source that backs up his statement that people were arrested at the 9/11 site for taking pictures.

I would also like him to explain how employing an company that is specialized in the field of cleaning up demolition sites is a hint that the World Trade Center was blown up by the US Government.

My opponent also writes that I have stated that "the creators of the buildings had not anticipated plane collisions" and that "on this point he is wrong."

I never made the above mentioned statement.

My opponent goes on a rant about amount of temperature and oxygen depravation and other concepts, which are all explained and debunked in the source that I provided him with in the first round, and writes that "there's no evidence that suggests the core structure was ever damaged by flames."



In this video it is clearly visible how upon impact parts of the plane came out from the opposite side of the building that got hit.
If that is not proof enough for my opponent that the core structure of the building had indeed been compromised than I will have to rest my case.

My opponent also writes that "here have only been two examples of steel-frame skyscrapers totally collapsing because of fires, or any other cause other than controlled demolition. And both of those occurred on September 11th, at the world trade center."

Here again my opponent fails to recognize that not only the fires caused the collapse, but a combination of the fires and the damage caused to the structure by the impact of two planes flying at 500 miles an hour!

My opponent then asserts that if it wasn't a controlled demolition, it is impossible that the towers fell down vertically and should have collapsed "like a tree"

Again, he provides no credible source or explanation for this hypothesis. My opponent has acknowledged that he is not an engineer nor an architect and I am unable to understand why he believes that he might be able to explain the most scrutinizes event in the history of the world better than thousands of experts in the field on the basis of misleading information and conspiracy theories that he found on the internet.

I have posted a video of an actual controlled demolition for my opponent to examine, showing that it has nothing in common with what happened at the World Trade Center. He of course ignored that evidence completely because it does not fit his narrative.

My opponent mentions Dick Cheney's ownership of Halliburton stock as "evidence" of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Well first of all the war in Iraq was started on the base of the alleged presence of WMDs, not because of 9/11.
The US went to war in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, who had connections with Al Qaeda. It wasn't Iraq.

Furthermore, the vice-president does not have any say on matters of war or other state affairs. His job is to be on stand by in case the president is killed or unable to perform is duty, and can break a tie-vote in the senate, but has no other powers.
His duties are described in the Constitution.

He might serve as an advisor to the president, but is the President who makes the decisions. Furthermore, contracts to contractors such as Halliburton are awarded by Congress, not by the President or Vice-President, therefore your entire argument about Cheney doesn't make sense at all.

My opponent also re-presents the point of low gas prices in the US -even though I have already explained this point to him-, writing "Also, I would like to inform my opponent that prices on Europe's gas are almost double what we pay. Of course, they aren't in possession of a country in the middle east, now are they".

We pay less for gasoline - not oil -, because in the US there are lower taxes on gasoline and diesel than in Europe.
It has been this way for decades, even before the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Oil is bought on the international market and has the same price everywhere. Gas has different prices because of taxes [2]
Please compare the Gas tax in Germany - €0.6545 per liter plus Value Added Tax (19%), with a US tax of $0.18 per GALLON!
A gallon is 3.8 liters.

I did comment on the "evidence" you provided for the willingness of the US Government to attack its own citizens.

The document you provided, which is widely known as Operation Northwoods, was a proposal drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the height of the cold war. It was not drafted by Congress or any other branch of the US Government, but by individuals within the military, it was not approved by any branch of Government and it has never been implemented.
There is no doubt that it is a shameful document, but it is not proof that the US Government has ever used or had planned to use force against it's own civilian population through false-flag attacks.

One last point that I need to make is of course Osama bin Laden.

He was recognized by every intelligence service in the world as the mastermind of the 911 attacks, had been responsible for the attacks on the USS Cole, on US Embassies around the world, on a bombing in the basement of the WTC years before 911 and claimed responsibility for the attacks, both per video and letter. [3]




My opponent has again in this round provided no evidence or points that have not already been in the blogosphere for years and that have been debunked by experts in the fields several times.

He argues I have not provided an alternative to the narrative even though I clearly stated that I share the findings of the 9-11 commission.

My opponent is engaged in pseudo-speculative-investigation, is not an expert in the field and has not provided legitimate sources for his speculation on the attacks!

VOTE CON

[1] http://www.popularmechanics.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
Haasenfeffor

Pro

Thank you, con, for finally stating your case! So your one contention is that the official story is true, so if I prove that wrong, then I guess I win this debate! And excuse me for sounding a little bit cocky, but the evidence I've presented thus far negates the official story, and proves it wrong. In this round, I will do a point by point refutation of all of my opponent's claims, as well as show all of my arguements that he has not been able to respond to, because he is unable to respond to.

First off, just because I am not an expert on this subject does not mean I cannot compose an argument to prove the official story false. While only 16, I have read reports from some of the brightest minds of our time, claiming that the official story is bogus! Calling me unqualified does not automatically make the official story true.

"My opponent also states that I have not shown any evidence for my points." Well, you really have not. All you did was give me the link to the Popular mechanics magazine that I mentioned in my previous argument, a magazine's whose theories have been proved wrong on countless occasions. And I do acknowledge that they are professionals, but there are numerous other professionals who claim that the 9/11 official story is a fake, people who are not "hobby-conspiracy-theorists" as you so eloquently put it.

"Here again my opponent fails to recognize that not only the fires caused the collapse, but a combination of the fires and the damage caused to the structure by the impact of two planes flying at 500 miles an hour!" Like I already mentioned, both of these towers had been built to be safeproof against planes, and argument that you yourself validated! The buildings were supposed to be safe against bigger planes, which had more oil. If those planes would have been unable to do it, how could these smaller planes with less fuel knock it down?

"My opponent then asserts that if it wasn't a controlled demolition, it is impossible that the towers fell down vertically and should have collapsed "like a tree"Again, he provides no credible source or explanation for this hypothesis. My opponent has acknowledged that he is not an engineer nor an architect and I am unable to understand why he believes that he might be able to explain the most scrutinizes event in the history of the world better than thousands of experts in the field on the basis of misleading information and conspiracy theories that he found on the internet." My opponent fails to note that just because I am not an engineer does not entitle me to an opinion, an opinion that I also share with thousands of experts. The facts just don't add up! In my previous argument, I talked about the scientific explanation for how the official story had to be false, which my opponent dismisses merely because I lack a degree in this topic. I'm willing to bet neither does he. But what he fails to see is that this is not only my view. There are thousands of experts in the United States, and the World, that share the belief that what happened on 9/11 was impossible!

"Here again my opponent fails to recognize that not only the fires caused the collapse, but a combination of the fires and the damage caused to the structure by the impact of two planes flying at 500 miles an hour!"
Which these towers were supposed to be foolproof as I stated numerous times....

"Well first of all the war in Iraq was started on the base of the alleged presence of WMDs, not because of 9/11.
The US went to war in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, who had connections with Al Qaeda. It wasn't Iraq"
I can't tell if my opponent is jesting when he claims this. Any child knows that as a result of the 9/11 attacks, we declared a war on terror. The invasion on Iraq was a part of that war on terror! Bush, and other Government officials have stated this numerous times. Without 9/11, there would have been no invasion of Iraq.

"I did comment on the "evidence" you provided for the willingness of the US Government to attack its own citizens."
You most certainly did not! Nowhere in the previous round was there a mention of the evidence I presented....

"The document you provided, which is widely known as Operation Northwoods, was a proposal drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the height of the cold war. It was not drafted by Congress or any other branch of the US Government, but by individuals within the military, it was not approved by any branch of Government and it has never been implemented.
There is no doubt that it is a shameful document, but it is not proof that the US Government has ever used or had planned to use force against it's own civilian population through false-flag attacks."
Yes, it was drafted by the Joint chiefs of Staff, a group that " consists of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), and the Military Service Chiefs from the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Marine Corps, all appointed by the President following Senate confirmation.[1] Each of the individual Military Service Chiefs, outside of their Joint Chiefs of Staff obligations, works directly for the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, i.e. Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force"
Let me see... leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, who all work side by side with the secretary of the army, navy, and air force. This group answers directly to the president, and contrary to what you said, it was approved by all of these representatives! An operation that would have caused terror onto americans, destroying bases, hijacking planes, all of the above. So yes, it does show the Government has planned to use force against it's own civilian population through false flag attacks.

Osama bin laden....
"Vice President Cheney says, 'We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11"
"The FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorists" web page does not state that Bin Laden is wanted for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."
When asked why it does not say this, a representative said that "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
The only evidence that you have is that he claimed responsibility, years after the event. But you forget that at the beginning, he claimed that he was not responsible. It was only years later, when the entire world was convinced of his guilt, that he claimed responsibility, apparently affirming what everyone else already believed. That he is a terrorist I have no doubt, and in no way believe is is innocent of crimes against the US, and the world. But he is not responsible for this particular attack. He claimed responsibility because no matter what he did, he would not be able to take blame off of him, and he was already being targetted as the orchestrator. He did it simply for the pr, though there are some who say that he never actually did it, that the confession was faked by the US government. Osama bin laden was just the scarecrow that we could aim our accusations at.

My opponent also fails to mention how the metal from the towers were "recycled"
He presents no scientific proof at how his explanation is more plausible, simply saying "look at this source" In a debate, you can't just say, "look at this source" You have to argue your side, and simply claiming that my arguments are false do not make it so.

I think it's clear that everyone of my contentions still stand, and that I have proved that the official story given to us by the government is implausible, which, as my opponent stated, is his entire case. And with that, ladies and gentlemen,

VOTE PRO!!!
TheFreeThinker

Con

I would like to remind to my opponent that we cannot have a debate by just making an assumption on the structural capabilities of the world trade center, or making ridiculous claims regarding people being arrested for taking pictures at ground zero or of some apparently supernatural characteristic of steel that softens but fore some miraculous reason becomes stronger and should have therefore been able to keep the towers up, without providing credible sources.

This debate is turning into a "yes it is, no it's not" conversation because my opponent does not provide anything to back up his ridiculous assumptions.

All my opponent has done so far is regurgitating bad arguments that have been disproved thousands of times and for which I have provided a source that goes through all of them.

Furthermore, my opponent's inability to provide sources correctly and instead pasting them in the comments is making it time consuming for me to analyze the "evidence" that he brings forward.

Learning to quote your opponent correctly is also important when having a debate.

If you make a claim such as "But he is not responsible for this particular attack. He claimed responsibility because no matter what he did, he would not be able to take blame off of him, and he was already being targetted as the orchestrator. He did it simply for the pr, though there are some who say that he never actually did it, that the confession was faked by the US government."

you need to be able to back it up, because otherwise it is not an argument it's just you making stupid stuff up.

You have not provided any peer-reviewed evidence for the structural ability that you say the WTC had.
You have not provided proof of people being arrested for taking pictures at Ground Zero.
You have not provided any kind of evidence whatsoever for the use of dynamite or any other explosive in the WTC.
You have not provided any proof that the WTC had been built to resist the damage caused by the two planes.



My opponent wrote "My opponent fails to note that just because I am not an engineer does not entitle me to an opinion, an opinion that I also share with thousands of experts."

While you are certainly entitled to your personal opinion, because you are not an engineer and not an expert but somebody who gets his information from very dubious websites, your personal opinion on the structural capability of a building is irrelevant.

I have no idea to what happened to the metal of the WTC and how it got recycled. How does this have anything to do with the government of the United States being behind 9/11?

This is the official 911 commission report: http://www.9-11commission.gov...

Every issue that you have brought up is clearly indicated in the report, and since you are doubting the official story, I recommend you read the official story first.

Just because there are thousands of people doubting the official story it does not mean it is not true.

Before we go forward with anything else, I ask my opponent to explain why, since he has expressed the view that the towers fell as a result of a controlled demolition, there is no hearable sound to be heard and no visible explosions to be seen on the WTC site as compared to the controlled demolition videos that I have provided him with in the previous rounds.


Debates are argued with Facts and Arguments, not with speculative pseudo-evidence.
Debate Round No. 4
Haasenfeffor

Pro

In my final speech, I will tell you why Pro, myself, has won this debate. First, so set one fact straight!

"Here again my opponent fails to recognize that not only the fires caused the collapse, but a combination of the fires and the damage caused to the structure by the impact of two planes flying at 500 miles an hour!"

It's stuff like this that causes me to wonder at the intelligence of debators on this site, and I use that word loosely. One felt I must set straight, ONE TOWER WAS NOT HIT BY TWO PLANES!!!!!! There were two towers that day, and two planes. One plane hit one tower, the other plane hit the remaining tower. THE TWIN TOWERS WAS NOT ONE STRUCTURE!!!!!! They were two buildings, with two seperate plane crashes. Genius arguemnts like my opponent's causes me to worry about the state of our youth.

And maybe you should take your own advice, and look at the Official report. While it is full of evidence that I have negated numerous times, with both my sources, and my statements written based on these sources, even the magazine understands that each tower was hit by ONE PLANE!!

I'll tell you why I have won this debate ladies and Gentlemen. All of my contentions still stand, and I have proven that the official story is bogus, which my opponent stated was his entire case.

I have proven that the official story is a hoax, with both scientific evidence, common sense, and my sources. And I promise you sir, everyone in the world who disagrees with your opinion is not an "idiot" Because that's all you're offering here! Your opinion! You are not presenting proof to support your case! You cite one source, and simply say everything in it is infallible, even though I have proven that the towers could not possibly have fallen according to the official story.

Also, my opponent has not remarked on my statements of how the towers were designed to be foolproof against bigger planes, traveling at higher speeds, with much more fuel with it!

My opponent has let my remaining contentions stand as well.

He has not remarked on the evidence I posted about how the bush administration has been wanting to go in iraq since they took office, stating that "9/11 and the invasion into iraq are not linked"

I guess my opponent is not familiar with the term "War on Terror"

My opponent has also let my last contention stand as well, providing no evidence about Operation northwoods, negating nothing.

He has not addressed my statements of the NANOTHERMITE remains found ON THE SCENE!

Here's a link, if you want it: http://www.globalresearch.ca...

I hope this one is "suitable for you"

He has not addressed by quoted by the leaders of government, stating that there is NO LINK BETWEEN 9/11 AND OSAMA BIN LADEN THAT WE CAN FIND!!!!

Look, I know I am asking a lot from you judges. I understand I am challenging some beliefs you might hold dear to you. But you must set aside your personal beliefs, and look at the arguments. My case is superior to cons, because he has none. I have negated EVERY statement he has made. As judges, it is your obligation to choose a winner based on who has proven their point more persuasively. In this debate, that person was me.

Vote pro.
TheFreeThinker

Con

The Twin Towers were built using a tube-frame structural system, the foundation of the buildings was connected and intertwined, so you can indeed speak about one structure, especially because the damage caused to one Tower directly affected the structural integrity of the other tower.

Of course my opponent does not understand this point because he has no knowledge of architecture and structural engineering, which transpires into his absurd statements and ridiculous claims on what caused the towers to collapse.

I think it's funny that a 16-years old with no education in the field he is trying to debate using misinformation and bogus arguments that take an IQ of 2 to take apart is worried about the "state of our youth".

My opponent has failed to prove even one single argument that he has brought forward and has not cited one single reliable source during this entire argument, and instead made nonsensical claims such as s "as the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not obvious" and that Osama bin Laden "claimed that he was not responsible. It was only years later, when the entire world was convinced of his guilt, that he claimed responsibility, apparently affirming what everyone else already believed."

I have provided my opponent with the 9 11 commission report and with the article compiled by popular mechanics, which explained in detail why all of my opponent's claims are non-sensical and non-scientific.

I have provided my opponent with a video of a real control demolition which shows the difference between what happened to the twin towers and what happens to a building that is filled with explosives.
My opponent has of course ignored all the real, scientific, peer-reviewed evidence.

My opponent has infringed every rule of proper debating, including not providing sources, posting links and arguments in the comments after submitting a round, and misquoting me, for example as he writes "9/11 and the invasion into iraq are not linked" even though I have never written that passage and posting a new argument, the alleged presence of nanothermaite, which is of course false, in the last round of the debate.
I'm just going to post this link for my opponent so he can get an idea of what kind of non-sense he has been writing in this forum: http://www.debunking911.com...


My opponent does not only lack a basic understanding of structural engineering and physics, he lacks humility.

The collapse of the World Trade Center is the most-researched architectural failure in the history of mankind.
Real experts have analyzed the accidents dozens of times and came to the conclusion that the structural damages caused by the impact of the planes and by the burning fuel are the reason the towers collapsed.

He however believes that his high school chemistry classes and a few dubious websites he found on the internet provide him with a better insight of the accidents than the US Government and the American Civil Engineers Association.

I invite my opponent to check out this video interview with Dylan Avery, one of the biggest 9 11 conspiracy theorist in the US, who went head to head with the chief editor of popular mechanics on the events of 9 11.




The 9/11 attacks were an act of cowardliness and terrorism, and a national and personal tragedy for thousands of people.

Trying to implying the complicity of the US Government by posting non-sensical misinformation and pseudo-scientific arguments is not only as stupid as beating a dead horse, but highly offensive as well.

My opponent has failed to provide one single intelligent argument.

VOTE CON!
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Tempered steel is brittle. When heated it starts to lose strength because it is losing its temper. It then fails by fracture because it is not strong enough. The idea that it turns into taffy is wrong. The steel was coated with an insulating material to hold off heating until the fire department arrives, figured to be an hour or two. The insulating material was stripped off in the collision, and the fire was not suppressed, so the building collapsed.

Truthers never read the NIST report. Avoiding that is required by their faith. It keeps them free to refute things that are not in he report.

Con erred in attacking Pro personally. Con should have stayed with attacking the arguments as false and unfounded, which, of course they are. Pro offered no references whatsoever, and had a strong burden of proof to overcome the NIST report. The NIST report was written by a large team of experts. Con needed to say very little to win, since Pro only offered fanciful stories about engineering, with no support. Pro did not come close to meeting the burden of proof.
Posted by Haasenfeffor 5 years ago
Haasenfeffor
uh.... you do realize that one "structure" was not hit by two planes..... each of the towers was hit by one plane.... this kind of causes me some concern that you really are not familiar with the official story of what happened on 9/11.....
Posted by Haasenfeffor 5 years ago
Haasenfeffor
whether :)
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
I'm jealous. I have been trying to get someone to have a real debate with me about this since I joined. Instead I got one yoyo who tried to say he was behind it, and another one who wouldn't argue the resolution. Hey Haasenfeffor, if something goes wrong here challenge me!
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
if he's talking about the u.s. governemnt ill gladly accept....
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Which government?
Posted by maria12245 5 years ago
maria12245
My question is "Where do you stand on the subject?" That they are behind it, or that they are not?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jason77 5 years ago
Jason77
HaasenfefforTheFreeThinkerTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: 9 11 was NOT an inside job
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
HaasenfefforTheFreeThinkerTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has a great burden of proof, since the NIST report was written by a large team of qualified structural engineers from government, industry, and academia. Pro did not offer a single reference in support of his contentions. Pro lapsed into wall-of text" mode. Con is quite right that Pro does not understand the basics of structural engineering. However, it is a conduct violation to argue that in a debate. Pro's arguments must be attacked as unsound, not Pro himself.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
HaasenfefforTheFreeThinkerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument against Hassen was focused on his age and lack of education as if these refuted the argument, this is a fallacy. The argument itself has to be addressed and if absurd then shown to be absurd and not simply by links but by a counter argument. Conduct was disappointing on both sides but poorly instigated by Con.