The Instigator
peacebone
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
jevan
Con (against)
Winning
57 Points

September 11 was an inside job. (my first debate)

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,693 times Debate No: 1353
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (21)

 

peacebone

Pro

The official story, never properly investigated, doesn't make sense. building 7? steel building collapse? bush reactions, insurance policies, ghooooliani....
jevan

Con

The United States government identified 19 hijackers as being responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks, and linked the attacks to Osama bin Laden.

The FBI investigation into the September 11, 2001 attacks, code named operation PENTTBOM, was the largest and most complex investigation in the history of the FBI, involving over 7,000 special agents. Within 72 hours of the attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to identify the 19 deceased hijackers.

Al-Qaeda's spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, said in a video sent to al Jazeera and broadcast in October 2001 the following:

The Americans should know that the storm of plane attacks will not abate, with God's permission. There are thousands of the Islamic nation's youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live.

Truly you never make an arguement to debate.
But anyways i await your rebuttal.

(source:9/11 Commission Report Executive Summary, p2, p6, p8)
Debate Round No. 1
peacebone

Pro

The US government spent more money investigating Bill Clintonn and Monica Lewinski than it did 9/11. The 9/11 Commission report took about a year to complete and originally, Henry Kissinger was assigned to write the file. (Look into HK's history...a history of cover-ups). Explain the collapse of Building 7. Please find any comparison of a steel building collapse to compare to that of Sept 11. Logically, how can two 110 story buildings collapse in 9-10 seconds? Also, do you not agree,that September 11th has been a ridiculously over-used pretext to any neo-con agenda war, veto, or policy since that tragic date? I think it's a horrible thing, but just like the gulf of tonkin, and hitler burning the reichstag, governments have a history of setting up their pretext. September 11 has become a pretext to a war that had nothing to do with 911, the Iraq war. Lies, Lies, Lies. Can you justify this?
jevan

Con

Lets Start.

You state that Henry Kissinger has a history of coverups. You give no evidence supporting you claim. I will hope you shall elaborate in the next round so i may refute it. Otherwise this argument has no impact in the round.

How am i suppose to compare this to other building collapses? Planes don't fly in buildings everyday.

You ask "how can two 110 story buildings collapse in 9-10 seconds?"

The answer is simple a plane flew into the building.Causing it to collapse.

I disagree that Sept. 11 is a ridiculously over-used pretext to any neo-con agenda war, veto, or policy since that tragic date.

By certain conservatives yes, but not them in general. Of course Rudy ridiculously over-uses it, but not many others do. You are just stereotyping the republican party.

Truly, this argument of the over-used pretext has no impact in the round. It doesnt prove how 9/11 was an inside job.

I feel I am winning the debate round because i simply proove how 9/11 was NOT an inside job.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 2
peacebone

Pro

The weight of those planes could not be enough to collapse those buildings the way they fell.

Lee Robertson was the structural engineer who designed the towers. he explained that those buildings were designed to resist multiple crashes from jets and still stand. "The world trade centers steel framing is kind of like the mosquito netting on a screen door. A plane flying into the building is no more significant than a pencil puncturing that netting. it really does nothing to the screen door"

the concept of kerosene melting steel is just impossible. i dare you to go out and buy some kerosene and pour it all over a steel beam and see if it melts, haha.

the most important and obvious question i'd like you to answer: explain building 7. how did this steel structure collapse without any plane hitting it? it collapsed in just a few seconds.

disregard the concept of a "conspiracy", and look at the blunt physics and logics of the events on 9/11. they just do not make sense. these were extremely intricately designed steel structures. airplanes get held up on the ground by a relatively tiny amount of steel connecting their wheels to the plane. there are so many people who were involved with the building of the wtc's who say "no way".

In regards to Henry Kissinger, here is a quote (http://www.thenation.com...)

"His obsession with preventing all government leaks, except those of his creation, is well documented in the Nixon tapes. And this is the man who publicly lied about everything from the bombing of Cambodia to the cover-up of the Watergate break-in of Democratic Party headquarters to the overthrow and death of the democratically elected leader of Chile."

i'm out of breath! but i must ask, how can you be a "fiscal conservative" and support this ridiculous "war on terror" that has cost trillions of dollars all of which are borrowed from either china or the Federal Reserve Bank. People are getting pretty damn rich from these wars!
jevan

Con

Thank you for responding.

You stated that we should disregard conspiracy. Well if we do disregard "conspiracy" then you lose the round. You have to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, and by disregarding conspiracy you cant proove this. Hence my first reason why I win in the round.

Through your entire rebuttal you ask how did this truly occur. why did building 7 collapse without a plane hitting, and how can the twin towers even fall.

Starting with building 7.Building 7 had a huge chunk taken out of it made by falling debris from the Twin Towers collapsing.When the twin towers we collapsing falling debris took a huge chunk out of building 7, causing it too collapse. (Somewhat worded like SPQR).

You give this quote from the structural engineer about this net type thing. Showing how if a plane was to hit it, it would not collapse. Planes dont fly into buildings everyday, this is an unusual occurence. How can this engineer truly test this net theory. ( without simply crashing a plane into it!)

Through your argument you say that the steel structure cannot have been melted, and how its simply impossible. Well the steel technically did not have to melt. When the steel structure is heated to an extent it begins to distort and become disfigured. When the steel structure was distorted to such a degree, the building simply collapsed.

You still make an ambigous arguement about Henry Kissinger. I feel there is no point to refute it because of its ambiguity.

Finally you mention how can I be a fiscal conservative and support the war on terror. Well to that peacebone I say how can you be a republican or even american to not support this war. We must fight the global war on muslim extremism! I do care a lot about our economy, but how can we have an economy when muslim extremists attempt to bomb our cities or fly into building and etc!

Here are some reasons why I am winning the round:

1. My opponent states we should disregard conspiracy. By doing so he automatically loses the round.
2. I prove that 9/11 was NOT an inside job.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by peacebone 9 years ago
peacebone
we also have a shitty government that doesn't care about what our public wants. but there's a reason that majority of the worlds polulation doesn't hate us. we're non interventionalists, and we haven't violated international law like the US did,and is still doing.

it doesn't always have to be the US, but you're the ones in the middle east fighting for "freedom". over a million innocent iraqi's have been murdered. your government now wants to bomb iran. your media is ridiculous if you've been noticing how incredibly bias they are. they only endorse cfr members. chairman- david rockefeller.

you say in your profile you support this war. it's an illegal war. i'd like you to watch this http://ca.youtube.com... and let me know what you think !
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Peacebone , so why doesn't Canada get off their butts and help Africa if they are so upset with the US for being the way we are????? So typical for someone from another country complaining about how we don't do enough to help another country. Why does it always have to be the US. Also remember your countries soldiers were also going over in the war , so how is the US any different??????
Posted by peacebone 9 years ago
peacebone
when will we be fighting the saudi's? and then where to?

if this war has anything to do with the promotion of freedom, why don't the US clean up Africa? a place where the people don't have the freedoms to food or water? i was in tanzania last year and the corruption is the first thing you notice when you get off the plane. you see billboards for the president everywhere, thousands and thousands of them. one costs 700$ US. how much irresponsible spending of foreign aid has been occuring there? their soldiers gets to vote in elections, but when they show up to vote, the currents presidents name is already ticked off.

the general concencous in Canada for many years has been that Americans must be living in a trance, because your puppet media and your non-democratic government have been manipulating popular opinion in the US for so long.

your country will elect another imperialist who will continue to "keep you safe" fighting resource wars while hundreds of thousands of people suffer in new orleans. They won't make any change to monetary policy and they'll keep printing more money and making the dollar worth less and less.

your country is electing a president on the same merit they endorse celebrities. the masses have hardly any regard for voting records or consistancy, and just like bush suprised everyone, it'll happen again, but with far more cynicism.
Posted by jevan 9 years ago
jevan
send my thanks as well kels
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Thanks preacherfred, Things are actually improving so much that they are sending his unit home a few months early from the deployment. He found out yesterday.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Kels...tell your husband that there are people here who appreciate what he is doing. He is in the prayers of the staff and clients of the Veterans Transition House.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Ummm no actually my husband is fighting terrorists, suicide bombers. We are actually going to see a troop surge in Afghanistan soon so those num bers will go up. There was a troop surge in Iraq because it was needed and it is working. The people there are actually turning in TERRORIST GROUPS now, they are rebuilding their businesses and are very welcoming to the US soldiers. They are actually glad not to be under Saddam's rule anymore. If you believe Saddam wasn't funding terrorism and harboring terrorism you are very naive.
Posted by jevan 9 years ago
jevan
I agree with the 100 years thing, but you took that quote out of context. McCain said he would reduce troop and just leaving a military base, and so many soldiers. Just like we have in kuwait and saudi arabia.
Posted by peacebone 9 years ago
peacebone
Jevan, all of my Ron Paul support aside, what about McCains approach to monetary policy do you support? He said he doesn't care if the war in Iraq lasts another 100 years. The States is in extreme debt, and has a deflating dollar. Is "terrorism" really the biggest threat to the US ?
Posted by peacebone 9 years ago
peacebone
Your husband is Iraq is fighting radical groups that are threats to the US empire. You can call them "terrorists" if that makes it seem more just, but the reality is that Iraq posed no significant threat to the US homeland, and the troops fighting in Iraq right now are there because of US nation building. It's not just a coincidence that Iraq is one of the most critically resourceful countries in the world. The plan to invade Iraq was underway many years before September 11, and the US has lost more American men in this war than died on September 11. I also think the almost one million inncocent Iraq's deserve honourable mention here, as they had nothing to do with "terrorism".

Also, there are at least 150, 000 American soldiers invading Iraq right now, and there are about 18, 000 in Afghanistan. The US should ideally focus on completing their mission in Afghanistan before rushing so many troops into a disastrous war concept that has hurt America in so many ways. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the war in Iraq is wrong, always has been wrong, and the history books will most likely declare it a failure.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
peacebonejevanTied
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 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
peacebonejevanTied
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 
Vote Placed by mommys_little_marxist 9 years ago
mommys_little_marxist
peacebonejevanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
peacebonejevanTied
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 
Vote Placed by sluggerjal 9 years ago
sluggerjal
peacebonejevanTied
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 
Vote Placed by chesleya 9 years ago
chesleya
peacebonejevanTied
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 
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
peacebonejevanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mr.R0dr1du3z 9 years ago
Mr.R0dr1du3z
peacebonejevanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
peacebonejevanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
peacebonejevanTied
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