The Instigator
Pro (for)
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
18 Points

That the US government is responsible for 9/11

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,044 times Debate No: 17028
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)




My opponent has made it clear in other debates that he would like a serious debate on whether 9/11 was an inside job. Until now I haven't had the time to issue him a debate challenge.

Burden of proof
To win this debate, I must show that the US government, on the balance of probabilities, was involved in the planning and/or execution of 9/11. My opponent shall refute whatever evidence I put forward.

The first round is for acceptance and clarification, the last round is for summaries. Substantive contentions should be argued in the second and third rounds.
Please don't post videos.
Other than that, standard debate rules apply.

US government - any branch. That is, the whole US government need not have been in on this for the US government to be responsible. Even if I prove a single CIA officer knew about 9/11 in advance, the US government is responsible because that one person helped with the planning by not informing others, which may have prevented the attacks.
responsible - responsibility is assumed if the US government had any part to play in the planning or execution of the 9/11 hijackings and the resulting catastrophe.
9/11 - All four plane hijackings that took place. However, even if I only prove that the US government was responsible for one plane hijacking, that is enough to carry the motion.
Standard definitions otherwise apply.

I hope my opponent accepts and wish him luck!


I’d like to start by thanking my opponent for keeping me in mind and issuing this challenge.

Burden of proof:


US government - Pro states that even a single officer having knowledge of the terrorist plot constitutes the government’s responsibility for the attacks. However to my knowledge the US did in fact posses the intelligence that may have been necessary to prevent them. In light of this apparent agreement, I would like to suggest the following adjustments:

Planning: the organizational process of creating and maintaining a plan; and the psychological process of thinking about the activities required to create a desired goal on some scale.

Pro contends that an officer having knowledge of the events and failing to inform others is planning the events, however based on this definition I would accept that it could be considered planning if proven based on probabilities, that the officer(s) in question knowingly withheld information with the intent of allowing the plot to take place.

Responsible: Accepted

9/11: Accepted

With this change I hope that my opponent accepts the adjusted resolution. Assuming he does, I wish him the best of luck. If not I invite Pro to leave any further adjustment suggestions in the comments where we will decide on a specific resolution to avoid loosing round 2 to acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting.

May, 2001. According to a 2002 Sydney Morning Herald report (, the United States defense force draws up battle plans for an invasion of Afghanistan at this time, to commence on September 11.

26 June, 2001. Four months before the world trade center attack, the Indian government announces it will support America's "planned" military invasion of Afghanistan.

Mid-July, 2001. Three months before the world trade center attack, the Pakistani foreign secretary is told by "senior American officials" that America was planning to attack Afghanistan in mid-October.

September 9, 2001. Two days before the world trade center attack, detailed plans for the US invasion of Afghanistan are already spotted on the desk of the US president.

The US had detailed plans for an invasion of Afghanistan well before 9/11. 9/11 was therefore not the impetus for the attack - unless, of course, the United States knew about the terrorist attacks in advance.

On September 14, 2001, then-president George W. Bush Jr. signed into law the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. The justification for this act? Let me quote - "on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens" (

Let me recap- the US government planned to launch an invasion before June 2001. The reason for this was an attack carried out in September 2001. Therefore, the United States government knew about the attacks, and planned for them to happen, to allow the war in Afghanistan to take place. Therefore, they are responsible.

It gets worse.

In the years following the attack, the United States and other governments have conducted widespread campaigns of misinformation and terrorism to cover their deceit at 9/11 ( If there was nothing to hide, what is the purpose of this?

It gets even worse.

Three buildings fell during 9/11 (WTC towers) and one partially collapsed (Pentagon). According to the official story, the hijackers were highly faithful to Allah, so Allah graciously lowered the melting point of the steel in the buildings ( AND threw some thermites into the dust - so many, in fact, that some were even active long after the tower fell - see Even the fact that the towers fell all at once - technically impossible with fire - must be Allah's gift ( Allah also increased the impact damage on neighboring buildings ( and, just to balance things out, made the buildings collapse on themselves (see any video of the collapses). He even shook the Earth to confuse us (

Meanwhile the inspired journalists at every single station, as well as a few "eyewitnesses," invented the crystal ball and described the collapse of WTC7 hours before it happened (

Perhaps it's a little generous to say that there is an official story, though. In the case of WTC7, NIST has come up with dozens of explanations over the years. All have been debunked. Eventually, in 2008, they essentially gave up trying to explain it ( You need a serious amount of godly miracles in order to make the chemical findings of the remains of the WTC consistent with any official accounts. But if Allah really hated America that much, surely he'd just send down a few fireballs. Fireballs are much, much more awesome than jets.

A much more plausible explanation would be that there was no miracle. Two aircraft crashed into the WTC, but the buildings that fell were demolished. Police ( and firefighters ( tell us they saw and heard bombs and other suspicious devices around the WTC. Suddenly all the inconsistencies disappear. Now, is it more plausible that these explosives were planted by the government or the terrorists? Surely if the terrorists had these explosives planted there would be no need for the suicides. Perhaps that's why the American government has obstructed, intimidated, and destroyed evidence for every single investigation into the WTC collapses that has ever happened (

But you can't demolish the world trade center and use it as a pretext for a war if there was no hijacking. Not only did the US government destroy the WTC themselves, but they also allowed hijacking to take place. After all, they gave flight 11 a 30-minute head start towards New York and didn't respond at all to flight 175 - and even with flight 11, they seemed to make a point of flying very, very slowly ( That's despite the fact that the fighters had just been training for this exact thing -

The United States government had one more thing to do. Blame the attack on Afghanistan. However, Allah had covered all the hijackers tracks so that the CIA couldn't find any evidence linking any of them to the plot, and even resurrected a few of them - showing his supreme mercy towards the hijacker's previous antics of forgetting to take their holy books on to the planes ( Of course, the alternative hypothesis is that Allah is not that great after all - there simply were no terrorists. After all, both flights made no distress call (see timeline sourced earlier). Both sets of pilots had failed flight school ( Even allowing the hijackers into the country was technically illegal ( That is not to mention the claim in several media sources - including Newsweek, the Washington Post, and the New York Times (article at that the hijackers trained with the US Military. Did I mention that Atta used his frequent flier number as he boarded the jet? (see It seems highly improbable that this guy was going on a suicide mission.

Take it from Leonid Ivashov, formerly commander of Russia's defense forces: "'Al Qaeda' cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders." ( Al Qaeda are a small group of rebel fighters. This was a dangerously well-coordinated attack. Not even Jesus performed as many miracles in one day as this group did, according to the official story.

In the months before 9/11, Osama Bin Laden was visited by the CIA while getting his kidney treated, according to the French secret service ( Why? Is it merely a coincidence that George Bush was hanging with Osama Bin Laden's brother a day before the attacks ( The official account has no explanation for these things.

In the next round, I will take a closer look at what happened to the non-world-trade center flights, and offer a little rebuttal. Until then, good luck!


Thanks to Pro for clearly taking the time to put together a strong argument. However there is a major issue, Pro has not gone into depth on any one of his claims but instead makes very vague statements throughout the round and uses links to demonstrate what he is talking about. To refute Pros case entirely I would have to either make very short and inadequate statements supported only by links of my own (basically a my link vs. your link battle) or I can refute Pros claims which would then take much more character space then I am given. I decided that the correct approach would be to provide a brief but adequate refutation each of Pro’s claims as much as my space would allow. I would suggest to Pro that he elaborate on his points R3 so that the reader can get a stronger sense of what he is claiming, as neither they nor I should be expected to read 26 links to understand his case.


Pro begins with the argument that the US planning to invade Afghanistan before 9/11 supports the theory that the US planned for the attacks by having foreknowledge. The issue with this argument is that it ignores the reality that the US in fact had every reason to draft a plan of action given Al Qaeda’s terrorist history and repeated threats against the US as illustrated below:

By September 2001 Al Qaeda had already proven to be responsible for the 1993 world trade center bombing, the 1998 US Embassy Bombings, and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. In addition to that Osama Bin Laden himself had also personally engineered a plot to assassinate Bill Clinton in 1996, but that plot was discovered and disrupted by Secret Service Agents(1).

Pro States that on Sept 9th 2001 detailed plans of the US invasion into Afghanistan were spotted on the president’s desk as if this should be suspicious. The details of this plan were not described in the link that was posted but there is a much more in depth explanation of those plans which can be found in the 9/11 Commission report(2). Pro should familiarize himself with this document. It states that the plan was actually drafted on Sept 10th (page 214) and discusses the US’s reasons for such a plan in depth in chapters 4,5, and 6.

This plan was not an all out assault but a gradual plan beginning with diplomacy and if necessary culminating with lethal forces. The plan however changed dramatically after 9/11 and resulted in a new plan being drafted which was not even brought to the secretary of defense for approval till October 1st. (3)(page 3)

In conclusion, the fact that the US had intentions of invading Afghanistan is not suspicious, it is common sense given Al Qaeda’s terrorist history. Also if the US had been planning these attacks specifically in response to a plot they were in fact aware of, then they would have been ready to launch their attack instead of waiting almost a month to finalize their plans. Lastly, none of this is secret by any means as it has been public knowledge and is discussed in detail in the 9/11 commission report.


It Gets Worse

Here Pro makes a vague statement of the US conducting widespread campaigns of misinformation and terrorism to cover their deceit on 9/11. His article gives various theories of major events in history being faked and does not make have any significant message. Pro should expand on his assertion if he wishes for this to be taken as part of the debate.

It Gets Even Worse

1. Pro begins with a sarcastic assertion that the official explanation of the collapses is that the fire caused the steel to melt. The official explanation was not actually given till 4 years after Pros source was written, and explains that fires caused the steel to weaken, not melt.

Pro then asserts that thermite (nano-thermite) was found in the dust. The issue with his source is that it is not conclusive at all. The following is taken from page 25: “All these data suggest that the thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nano-thermite” . So in other words, we think its form of nano-thermite. But it gets better…“We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains” . Apparently they didn’t feel it was necessary to identify the actual substance.

Pro then post 3 links claiming that the buildings could not have came down as the official story explains. This is extremely vague and Pro gives no explanations so I will wait for him to elaborate on his points before responding.

2. Pro then attempts to show that the BBC and CNN “invented a crystal ball” by reporting WTC7’s collapse before it happened. The reports Pro is referring to actually originated from firefighters who were on the ground and could plainly see that the building appeared as if it was about to collapse. The reports were misconstrued by the time they got to the journalists from “the building was about to collapse”, to “the building already collapsed”. For details to get mixed up in the middle of a breaking news story is not something new.

3. Pro continues with another link showing that NIST “gave up” on trying to explain its findings. This is the natural thing to do when you have spent many years with a team of 200 scientists and structural engineers studying a building collapse, only to be questioned by conspiracy theorists on the internet who don’t bother to read the report they are questioning.

4. Pro then asserts that government involvement would seem to be a more plausible explanation. Pro however does not state an alternative story that would be more plausible and in fact in the nearly 10 years since 9/11 no one has ever been able to come up with a theory that would survive even the modest bit of scrutiny.

Pro gives links showing that eyewitnesses heard bombs which would imply government involvement. These explosions have been explained for years by engineers as electrical transformers, gas pipes or other natural sources, which would seem much more plausible then a massive government conspiracy. Furthermore there was never any evidence of bombs found, and if these loud sounds of explosions were from bombs it would completely contradict the thermite theory as thermite does not have a loud explosive sound.

Pro also shows a link that claims the US committed “Destruction of WTC Physical Evidence” by removing all of the steel without giving investigators a chance to examine it. The steel was not however completely removed until May 29, 2002 and even as recent as April 2010 there were 500 tons of WTC steel transported to Pennsylvania using 28 flatbed trucks(4). Investigators have obviously had plenty of time to examine the evidence.


5. Pro states that “they” gave flight 11 a 30 minute head start towards New York and didn't respond at all to flight 175. I am unclear as to where this allegation comes from. Again, Pro should elaborate. The FAA did not learn of flight 11’s hijacking until 8:24 and did not notify the FAA until 8:32. Flight 11 then crashed at 8:46 so this 30 minute “head start” in unsupported. With Flight 175 receiving “no response” I am again unclear as to where this claim comes from. The FAA was notified of its possible hijacking at 8:48 and it crashed 15 minutes later at 9:03.

At this point I have ran out of space, and would like to remind the readers as well as my opponent that refuting a vague claim supported only by a link, takes much more space then simply posting that very same claim. Because of this I will have to leave those last 3 paragraphs on the table. If Pro would like me to focus on each of his points then he should do the same by elaborating on them. I look forward to reading his rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks, con, for your rebuttals. I do have a lot of ground still to cover, so I'm writing out my arguments in as much detail as the letter-count allows, and then I'm adding the sources to back it up. My arguments can be understood without reading the sources - although if he is unclear as to where my claims come from (as he was twice) then he can simply click on the link and be enlightened. I think this is a cover for the fact my opponent had no sources for about half of his claims.

The 9/11 commission co-chairs wrote a book about their experience called "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission." In this book they reveal that they could prove the military were lying to them. They say that they wanted to refer this to the justice department but were overruled by other committee members. The final report is based on this false testimony. Scientists reporting to the commission ( as well as politicians ( are known to have lied too. The whole thing, therefore, was practically authored by liars. Furthermore, the chairs assert in this book that they were denied access to critical data, and that the time they were given (less than a year) was not enough to critically examine the evidence (over three million pages) - in fact they never even got around to looking at building 7 (despite my opponent's assertion - perhaps he should read the report?) In the words of the book's authors, they were "set up to fail."

My opponent claims that previous attacks could have been the impetus for the US battle plans. This cannot be reconciled, however, with the fact Bush specifically told the FBI to "back off" investigating Bin Laden months before 9/11 ( Clearly this wasn't what the president was so upset about.

Why did they wait a month after 9/11? Because otherwise the deception would have been obvious. You can't tell the common soldiery about this kind of deception or else it will leak out. The common soldiery needs some time to prepare for war. They had to wait for the pretext before they could begin the operational phase of the attack.

My opponent notes the steel did not melt. First, numerous eyewitnesses to molten steel disagree with that theory ( and Second, scientists checked the dust and proved the steel melted (

Next he criticizes my source for thermites as being inconclusive. The first sentence he cites is that the "termitic material" is suggested to be nano-thermite. The second is the specific type of "thermitic material" was not identified. Notice how both of those sentences come from extrapolations from the claim that active "thermitic material" was found in the dust. That's all it set out to prove, and cannot be explained by the official theory. While the specific form of thermite is still being tested, that it is a thermite is certain.

He claims the NIST report was not read by the scientists for 9/11 truth. In that case, how did the scientists document so many contradictions and known falsehoods in their theories? My source provided a complete history of all dozen or so of them, which for space reasons I cannot list here. He also claims the steel was not moved until May, 2002. 20% of it was. The other 80% was hastily trucked away, mostly to China and India for recycling ( The 20% still at ground zero was almost wholly inaccessible to investigators (

Finally, my opponent asserts thermite has no explosive sound. Voters will perhaps better know thermite as that stuff used to make fireworks and hand grenades ( Listen to them.

Flight 77, which flew into the pentagon, was highly censored. We still have no videos showing the 757, and there is strong evidence that the FBI tampered with the crime scene ( The NTSB also refuses to release the black boxes ( As such, it is difficult for any investigator to make any claims about what happened. No investigator, to my knowledge, was allowed anywhere near the pentagon for a month.

Several eyewitnesses, however, reported feeling, seeing and smelling a cordite detonation wave( at approximately the moment the aircraft hit. While certainly not conclusive (we all know how trustworthy those witnesses were when it came to WTC7) it does raise a lot of questions that have never been dealt with in any report. The government effort to suppress the evidence suggests their involvement in the plot, and a desire to "cover their tracks". Needless to say that crashes and fires do produce lots of rumbling and shaking, but no shock-wave. Not to mention the fact that the fire was too hot to be a kerosene fire (

In order to execute this maneuver into the pentagon, the pilot - who had also failed flight school after being unable to land a Cessna 172 - executed a maneuver even expert fighter pilots would find almost impossible, despite never having been in a 757 cockpit before ( The official word is that good ol' Allah gave the pilot extra luck, allowing him to execute the biggest fluke in aviation history. However, the flukes don't end there. It's no secret that the pentagon is the world's most protected building. Numerous radars and air force bases surround it. Obviously, therefore, the plane was being tracked. Luckily for the hijackers, Allah made the Americans forget about launching interceptor missiles, or even evacuating the pentagon. A single C-130 was ordered to follow, and got an awesome sightseeing tour of Washington ( A few other fighters were dispatched - not from Andrews Air Base, only 10 miles away, but from Langley which is much further out, and traveling at only about 205mph ( The maximum speed of an F-16 is 1500mph. At the time of the crash the fighters were still 12 minutes away.

Looking at an aerial photo of the damage, the entry and exit points line up at a perfect 45 degree angle to the wall. This is after the plane, with a fuselage only 2mm thick, somehow smashed through the only "reinforced" section of the pentagon (, destroying 32 pillars and breaking the solid masonry wall on the other side ( Since the pentagon is only made of concrete, it is plausible that fire could have broken these supports - but not the initial impact.

And how convenient that all the witnesses who claim to have been able to identify the airline or the make of the aircraft are top-ranking military personnel? The very people who had just finished planning this Afghani invasion? (

All this evidence points to some sort of US government involvement in the 9/11 attack on the pentagon.

Next round I'll get to the final 9/11 flight. I wish my opponent luck with his responses.


My opponent seems to disagree with me that a debate should focus on the validity of the claims being made as opposed to the amount of them. In this round Pro again fails to go into depth on any of his claims, leaving me to read each of his 19 links in order to understand and refute his case. Being that my intention is to refute his claims rather then to simply post links in response, I will again run out of space and not be able to acknowledge every point he attempts to make. I trust that the voters understand how a debate should be conducted.

Response to Pros opening statements

I will begin by refuting Pros opening statements about my case. Pro states that I was unclear about his claims twice. The first claim that I was “unclear” of was a vague statement about the US conducting “widespread campaigns of misinformation”. Pros vague claim was followed only by a link that goes onto depth on 4 separate events. Expecting me to refute 4 separate claims supported only by a link is unacceptable. That is not debating.

The second was a claim that the fall of the towers as told in the official story is “technically impossible”. Pro makes this claim and then posts 3 links to illustrate it. Calling the fall impossible is not an argument, and again there is no reason for me to read 3 links to refute this statement. If my opponent wants a rebuttal to match his vague claim here it is: It is technically possible: So there.

Lastly, the reason I did not post sources for “half of my claims” last round is because my claims were in refute of the sources Pro provided. Many of my points either came from his sources or are common sense arguments against them that the voters may or may not agree with. There is no reason for me to re-list Pros sources, and there is no source for common sense.


Pro brings up a book called “
Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission”. He states that they reveal that the military was lying to them and that in the words of the book's authors, they were "set up to fail". Pro is apparently trying to make it sound like this book should be taken as evidence of some cover up. This is an excerpt from describing the book:

The authors cogently defend the compromises they made and swat conspiracy theories about coverups”

Pro also states that I should read the 9/11 commission report, because I asserted that they mentioned building 7 which they did not. I clearly never said this. Also, there is a very good reason why building 7 was not in it: because it was not an engineering report. The purpose of the 9/11 commission is to explain who attacked us, evaluate our preparedness for it, and what we need to do to prevent it from happening again. Building 7 was not a terrorist target, and nobody died in it, so there was no reason for building 7 to be included.

Pro states that Bush told the FBI to “back off” from investigating Bin Laden. This statement originates from a news cast where a BBC journalist states:

“After the elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents. I'm told that since September 11th the policy has been reversed.”

This statement does have some merit, but is obviously not what pro makes it sound. First, it comes from a journalist. There is no documentation to verify the validity of this statement or the context in which it was originally spoken. Second, he is talking about the Bin Laden Family and the Saudis, not Osama Bin Laden and certainly not Al Qaeda.

Pro states that the US waited a month to carry out their pre planned attacks because they didn’t want to make it obvious. However if they had carried out their attack right away conspiracy theorists would have found that to be suspicious. Apparently waiting a month is suspicious also.

I also find it interesting that Pro notes the inevitability of keeping a large secret, while at the same time showing evidence that would implicate thousands of government and private citizen’s to be involved in orchestrating and covering up the murder of 3,000 people.

The argument of finding molten steel at ground zero is important because steel has a very high melting point that would not be explained by the fires observed in the towers.

Pro claims that numerous eyewitnesses saw molten steel at ground zero. First of all, an eyewitness can not tell what kind of metal it is simply by looking at it. There are many metals that have a much lower melting point then steel, and would have been expected to be found at ground zero. Also, the very source he provided states that it is “molten metal”.

The third source Pro provides is of a research paper by RJ Lee Group who analyzed dust samples at ground zero. Pro claims they found a composition of molten steel in their dust samples. Question for Pro: since all steel used in the creation of any building was melted at one point, how is finding a composition of steel in a dust sample at the WTC suspicious?

Pro states that my criticism of his thermite source is unwarranted because it only set out to prove that thematic material was found in the dust. Pro should read his source. The purpose of the paper was to prove (which it didn’t) that the existence of nano-thermite was found in the dust to support the controlled demolition theory. Investigating WTC dust for simple thematic material would be completely senseless because it was used in the construction materials that made up the twin towers and is expected to be found.

6. I did not claim that scientists for 9/11 truth did not read the NIST report, although I can see how my wording might have given that impression. The fact that 9/11 truth continues to question NIST hardly changes the argument. If any respectable science organization would actually question their report then there might be a reason to consider NIST giving up suspicious.

Pro asserts that the remaining 20% of the metal was
“wholly inaccessible to investigators”. There is so much to say on this point so I will simply quote this, which came directly from the link where Pros source got their information:

“Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York have volunteered to work on the BPAT team’s behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings.”

Is this the scrap metal cover up conspiracy theorists are referring to?
(half way down the page)

In response to my rebuttal Pro asserts that thermite does in fact have an explosive sound. While thermite is used in grenades and fireworks this does not mean that thermite is the cause for the explosive sound. The following 2 excerpts are taken from Pros own source:

Thermite is not an explosive; instead it operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures”

Thermite can permanently disable artillery pieces without the use of explosive charges and therefore can be used when silence is necessary to an operation.”


As much as I am enjoying this, I am again out of space. The voters should take notice that I went in order, I did not cherry pick or avoid any of Pros points. I could easily continue but we have a character limit for a reason. That is why pasting links and providing only brief descriptions of those links does not make a valid argument. Pro states that he has much evidence to cover, but this does not mean that any of it is valid. Pro should focus on providing strong evidence instead of much evidence.

I wish my opponent good luck in this final round.
Debate Round No. 3


Since my opponent is harassing me about having too much evidence stacked against him, I shall not continue my argument or rebut his (except to say, if it isn't obvious, that if other materials in a firework can make a sound, so can the other materials in the WTC). Obviously I'd like to address the last flight but appreciate my opponent's concern. This will allow him to get around the character limit problem he has been having.

Let me only very quickly summarize my main points:
  • That the US appears to have known about 9/11 before 9/11 because they were planning an attack before that date, the justification for which was stated by the president to be the events of the day
  • That the official account of what made the twin towers fall is inconsistant with known scientific fact
  • That nobody can explain the fall of WTC 7
  • That police and firefighters reported seeing explosive devices and hearing explosive sound in the WTC
  • That the pentagon fire was too hot and produced a shockwave consistent with a cordite detonation, and the blast damage was too extensive
  • That the US executive has done everything in its power to prevent and obstruct investigations, and the FBI tampered with the evidence at the pentagon
  • That NORAD's response to the hijacking was woefully inadequate
  • That there was no evidence linking the hijackers or Bin Laden directly to the attacks
  • That the alleged pilots were all morons, despite apparently doing ridiculously difficult maneuvers on the day
  • That Al Qaeda did not have the resources to carry out the mission
I thank my opponent for a fun debate and urge a pro vote.


I appreciate my opponent’s gesture to allow me to refute all of his claims but I don’t quite feel my points on this were understood. I am sorry if Pro feels that I was “harassing” him about stacking too much evidence against me. The point I was making is that it does not matter how much evidence there is, the question is weather that evidence is valid. What I was pushing for Pro to do was to provide key evidence that he feels is strong and stand by it, as opposed to throwing mountains of evidence at me with the apparent hope that I would not be able to refute it all.

Since Pro has apparently given me a “green light” to continue refuting his points in this round I will do so, and then follow with my concluding statements. I will begin from the point I left off with in my last round. The numbers indicate each of Pros paragraphs as he did not have a specific layout to follow.

I would like to take advantage of my first rebuttal to show why Pros conduct is unacceptable debate practice as I have been explaining for those who may still be unclear or disagree. Here is how this paragraph begins:

“Flight 77, which flew into the pentagon, was highly censored. We still have no videos showing the 757, and there is strong evidence that the FBI tampered with the crime scene (”

Here he simply states 2 points for me to refute. The second point which says “the FBI tampered with the crime scene” is a point that means nothing without elaborating. Pro should take the time to show how the FBI tampered with the crime scene to make his case. But since he did not I will now read his 6,026 character link to understand his claim…

After reading his claim I found 2 places he may have gotten his statement from. The first is a claim titled “videos seized” where it states that the FBI confiscated videos from 2 private businesses. Confiscating videos is a typical way for the FBI to gather evidence, it is not tampering. The second is a paragraph titled “disturbing the crime scene” where it talks about the rapid response at the pentagon after the crash removing debris from the plane. The people who “tampered” with the crime scene in this case were not FBI agents and in fact were not even supposed to be there. It was a simple natural response to help, by people who just witnessed over a hundred people crash to their deaths.

Pro also states that the NTSB refuses to release the black boxes and that investigators were not allowed near the pentagon for a month. The black boxes were found at 3:40am on Sept 14th so investigators were obviously allowed in the Pentagon. The reason they don’t release them is because there is nothing to release. The black boxes were damaged beyond use. This is to be expected when a plane slams into a re-enforced concrete wall at over 500mph.

Pro suggests that the government not answering as to what caused the “detonation wave” that witnesses reported feeling at the moment that flight 77 hit the pentagon is somehow suspicious. I do not know what Pro suggests that a plane traveling at over 500mph slamming into a re-enforced concrete wall would feel like to a person close by. There is no need for the government to investigate such a common sense notion that a detonation wave would be expected.

Pro also states that the fires inside the pentagon were to hot to be caused by jet fuel. Pros source does not give any scientific explanation but instead uses eyewitness statements like:

“We're having a lot of trouble in there. It's about 3,000 degrees inside”

This hardly gives a credible point to refute. To my knowledge no one has ever tested the heat inside the pentagon or attempted to explain it. There was no reason to. Only a conspiracy theorists would even think of a detail like this.

Pro asserts that the alleged pilot of flight 77 could not execute the maneuver he was credited with on 9/11. This is simply a matter of opinion that many do not share. Here is a 27 year Italian air force pilots take:

“the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible…It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what hey did”

Pro also states that flight 77 was being tracked but offers no further explanation. I have never seen credible evidence of this and did not find this claim in the 24,264 characters in Pros source. Pro should have elaborated.

Pro also asserts that fighter jets should have been scrambled from nearby Andrews Air Force Base instead of Langley. Andrews was not one of the alert sites from which NORAD had at its disposal to scramble fighter jets. Langley was the nearest base. Their structure is described here:
(pages 2 and 3)

Pro makes a statement of a comprehensive scientific conclusion, not supported by any scientific facts. His need to point out that the fuselage is only 2mm thick would be comical if it was not so deceptive. The 2mm fuselage was followed by the rest of the plane weighing in at 255,550lb(1). Yet he still seems to believe that it is impossible for flight 77 to cause the damage that it did. Since his statements do not appear to be supported by any scientific facts I will simply post a scientific study on the matter and hope Pro will read it(2).

Lastly, Pro states that all the people who claim to have been able to identify the airline or the make of the aircraft are all “top-ranking military personnel”. His own source starts with a list of six people with whom none of them are military personnel and includes Fox News Greta Van Susteren.

In reality there were 136 eyewitnesses who saw a plane and 104 of them who saw flight 77 directly hit the Pentagon. But don’t take it from me, let them tell you about it:


The fallacy here is that the amount of "evidence" is in no way proof of anything. The vast majority, and usually all of this "evidence" is easily explainable and just patently false. There may be a few points which may be more difficult to explain, but they alone wouldn't be so convincing.

In Pros final statements he asserts that he has proven all 10 of his main contentions. I remind the voters that he has not in fact proven any of them, as I have refuted nearly all of them with no response back from him. The only claims that were not refuted were from round 2 in which I ran out of space due to poor conduct that I feel I've shown has been demonstrated by Pro very clearly.

Pro gave it a good try, but as clearly put, the amount of evidence put forward in no way proves the validity of a case. I can only assume that if Pro had an answer to my rebuttals he would have given them instead of stepping back and “handing me the mike” so that I can finish refuting his claims. I think it is clear that he did not make a valid argument and the voters should see this clearly.

Thanks Pro for keeping me in mind and for this challenge. I wish the best of luck in the voting round and future debates.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
It wasn't an open debate. I specified my opponent when creating the debate.
Posted by Hubris 5 years ago
"I hope my opponent accepts and wish him luck!"

No chance your opponent could ever be a woman?
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
"I can only assume that if Pro had an answer to my rebuttals he would have given them instead of stepping back and "handing me the mike" so that I can finish refuting his claims"
- That assumption couldn't be further from the truth. I attacked your case vigorously in the other round. I have plenty of rebuttal, and a whole airplane full of substantive points. I just don't want you to be held back by the letter count. I regret making this only 4 rounds not five, since I have 4 planes to deal with and one round for intros. Never mind, you did well.
Posted by kjw47 5 years ago
Bush-Cheney and all their cronies were all oil men-- after the events of 9-11-- oil went from $30.00 to $145.00- they all got richer than hell off of 9-11-- what is 2 plus 2
Posted by GOD-vs-ITSELF 5 years ago
Larz the info warrior! LOL
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
BTW I forgot to mention that I agree to your definitional change.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
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: countering MDs absurd votebomb.
Vote Placed by MassDebator255 5 years ago
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: fonzi says: HEY!!
Vote Placed by Dmetal 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Slaughter!
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: I expected more from Larz here, far too much external argumentation and Double_R hammered on that fault until it broke and Larz conceded. Fairly dominating performance, 5:2.