The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government
Debate Rounds (5)
I am not on a biased agenda. If cold hard facts that are supported by science and reason are presented, I will fully acknowledge them and truly take them into consideration and if this information is correct and trumps my side of the debate then I am duly willing to accept defeat and admit the flaws in my side of the this debate.
1.) WTC 7- World Trade Center 7 did not fall in complete free fall. At one point it did for 2.2 seconds, and that was the west side of the tower. When the tower began to collapse the incredible resistance due to the 7th floor ceased the free fall acceleration. Do not let biased conspiracy theorist tell you other wise as they believe and spread the theory that WTC 7 fell in 7 seconds, which is extremely misleading and incorrect.
2.) As for fire never being the primary cause of a collapse of a steel frame structure, this is untrue just look at Windsor Tower, The Faculty of Engineering building and even World Trade Center building 5. Sure the Empire State Building didn't fall because the plane that crashed into the skyscraper in 1945 was first moving at a much lower velocity and was a much smaller plane. And to clear the record, no one ever said the jet fuel melted the steel in the twin towers.
3.)The Melted steel that was found at ground zero was a chemical reaction of iron, hydrogen, and other chemical reactions and elements found at the site, if you want me to go into long detail of the chemical equations that caused this molten steel, it requires some sort of degree in chemistry. Its a lot to take in if you don't know certain aspects of chemistry but I can try to explain it to you, if it is what it takes to believe the truth in on September 11th.
4.) The black box recordings that were never found I don't really have an explanation for that. But it doesn't really prove anything that helps your skepticism, as their were phone calls made from the hijacked airliners by terrified passengers, just do a simple Google or as I prefer Bing search of the recordings, its available my friend.
2. Yeah just look at the Windsor tower it only partially collapsed. The fire burned the whole building for 20 hours and it didn't collapse.
3. That chemical reaction was caused by the controlled demolition. Controlled demolition creates a chemical reaction. All the things that were thrown and the debris at ground zero points to a controlled demolition
4. You couldn't make from calls from airplanes in 2001 so the cell phone calls are made up. There were also so many more phone calls from flight 11 then any other plane. There was also a call in which some guy claimed to be seeing smoke in the bathroom of flight 11. The FBI seized this call and the operator was told not to discuss this call.
5 . There was also no military planes in the air. Where were are planes that day? The law was actually changed in 2001 that the bases had to contact someone in the government to be able to deploy planes. This person supposedly didn't answer. In my opinion this was a huge failure. So why wasn't anyone fired?
6. Why wasn't their a 9/11 investigation ASAP. It was done over a year after 9/11. I would launch a legitimate ingestion on September 12th. Also we only put 14 million in for the investigation, but spent 40 million for the investigation of the Clinton affair and 75 million for the Challenger disaster.
But ok if you don't think Windsor tower is legitimate then look at WTC 5 or the engineering building collapse
No, first off I hope you know that molten steel is not a sign of a controlled demolition, but of course you do, you've done legitimate scientific research on this yes? As for the chemist side of things iron and steam were big contributing factors to this molten steel which may I remind you was not as much there as conspiracy theorist claim there is. When you put iron and steam together the reaction is very exothermic. Also the spraying of water done by the FDNY was just feeding to this fire, like a fuel source. But this is all in terms of that TONS of iron was actually found, which it wasn't. You say that the fire was molten steel yet it was never tested and looks just like molten aluminum, so I guess your just going off of looks?
These calls were made 15 minutes in the flight, they weren't that high up too to not make a call. And wait a minute he was in the bathroom and saw smoke? What? How did he see this in the bathroom? And a missile would destroy the plane and leave a trail of debri
You claim iron and steam can make molten steel. Iron and steam get put together all the time in an everyday household and that doesn't make molten steel. There has to be temperature upward of 2700 degrees to melt steel.
Here are some more reason not mentioned yet that contribute to my theory.
Please explain to me the failure of our military too. Our planes were no where to be found.
There was also insider trading done before the 9/11 attacks.
The treasury announced they had lost over two trillion dollars on September 10th only for the story of 9/11 to diminish it.
We never indicted Bin Laden.
The government won't answer any of our questions on 9/11.
We have been in Afghanistan for 13 years now. You think the best military in the world could defeat Al Qaeda in way less then 13 years.
The US has lied about wars in the past.
We water boarded the people associated to 9/11 which produces false information. Just watch someone get water boarded. If you were water boarded you would admit to 9/11 too.
We were warned 40 times of Bin Laden hijacking planes and flying them into buildings in New York.
One more thing. You keep saying none of my claims have been proven and your right it isn't proven, but what the government told us about 9/11 isn't proven either. It is simply a theory.
And I do claim this, but that's in terms that there was even molten steel at the scene which was never confirmed because the molten 'steel' looked just like molten aluminum was never tested and there was very little amounts of this molten material found.
This is the fist time our air defense system encountered something like this, simultaneous crashes of planes, NORAD was scattered across the board. Its like your house has just been robbed then your brother dies then you lose all the money on your credit card, which one do you address first, and how? Nothing like this have ever happened to you. Ok sure lets say that my theory isn't already scientifically proven but my "theory" has evidence yours does not see how we differ? And Bin Laden never said this 40 times that's just a lie
gkoz23 forfeited this round.
Theorist attach to the theory that claims that bombs, missiles, or even military jets. Lets address that there is no evidence of any of these claims. No eye witnesses has seen any of these things, there has been no forensic evidence that these weapons always leave behind. So I guess I'll ask a couple questions as well.
1) where is the explosive evidence in WTC? The red gray chips found in the debris was not nanothermite because it had no elemental aluminum
2) There is just no logic to this theory, its almost comical if it didn't disrespect so many victims. Why would the U.S. government use a missile if there are hundreds of people that can see, also there is no proof of a missile or anything but a Boeing 757
3) 95% of flight 93 was collected, along with the black box data
I welcome anyone to present better evidence as my opponent wasn't all that competitive thank you
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. As to arguments, I left it tied. Pro should have presumptive BoP, but it seemed as though Con took it on by arguing first--as though Con recognized a BoP, and that Pro's was the "default" position. Neither side's arguments were really thorough enough to make their case, so I wound up deciding not to decide. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.