The Instigator
RUN4ACES
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Oromagi
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Was 9-11 a False Flag Operation?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Oromagi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,445 times Debate No: 46644
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

RUN4ACES

Pro

I contend it was and have listed 10 of the over 100 questions I have as follows:

1. Why was the crime scene destroyed, starting with the most controversial first. Building 7?

2. Why were Federal investigators prevented from accessing the evidence at Ground Zero?

3. Why was the steel sent to China for destruction we have steel mills?

4. Why did it take 447 days before pressure on Bush caused him to start the investigation he never wanted?

5. Why are Pentagon suits seen collecting evidence in a crime scene before investigators arrived?

6. What was hidden under the blue tarp being carried away by Pentacon suits?

7. Why were no serial numbered parts found positively identifying them to any of the 4 planes?

8. Why was Henry Kissinger the biggest cover up artist in U.S. history first appointed to head up the investigation?

9. Why was flight 11 and 175 still tracked on radar after the Towers were reported to have been hit by these planes. This would be impossible if they hit the buildings?

10. Why are there no airport photos of the hijackers boarding the planes or even in the airports and no Arabic names are on any of the passenger lists?
Oromagi

Con

I'll accept that challenge. I always enjoy taking the skeptical position in relation to disorganized conspiracy theories.

For the purposes of this debate, I'll offer Wikipedia definitions for these two terms:

The September 11 attacks were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks launched by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda upon the US in NYC and Washington, DC. on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. [1]

and

False flag describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them.

The burden of proof will be on Pro to demonstrate that 9/11 was a US Military operation and not a terrorist attack.

My job is to demonstrate that Pro lack sufficient evidence to support such claim. I need not necessarily endorse any established or popular conclusions, only show that Pro can't prove that 9/11 was carried out by the US Military.

THESIS: Pro lacks convincing evidence that 9/11 was a covert operation conducted by the US Military.

Since Pro's opening arguments have been presented in the form of questions, my counterarguments will be in response to the questions asked.

1. Why was the crime scene destroyed, starting with the most controversial first. Building 7?

Two passenger planes, American Flight 11 and United Flight 175 were deliberately flown into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Within two hours, both towers collapsed. All other buildings belonging to the WTC complex were destroyed by falling debris, fire, or both. Ten other buildings outside of the WTC complex were significantly damaged: St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Deutsche Bank Building, and Manhattan Community College classrooms were destroyed.

2. Why were Federal investigators prevented from accessing the evidence at Ground Zero?

Names, dates, documentation? Even assuming this claim is credible, with this level of detail the reasons could be anything: safety concerns, failure to provide credentials, incompetence, mismanagement... anything.

3. Why was the steel sent to China for destruction we have steel mills?

Steel recovered from Ground Zero has been recycled in various ways. As much Ground Zero debris as possible was removed to the Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island for evaluation by various investigations and processing. Bulk steel no longer relevant to any investigation was contracted for by two New Jersey metal distributors for resale. In the first years after 9/11, US Interests generally refrained from buying WTC steel out of concern for backlash. In January 2002, Shanghai Baosteel bought 50,000 tons of unwanted WTC steel at a substantial discount for recycling. [3] Later bulk allotments were mostly bid on by Bangladeshi and Indian Steel recyclers. After a few years, American interests recognized the sentimental value of the remaining steel and have bought some smaller lots as they come up for sale. Amite Foundry in LA. bought and molded 7.5 tons of WTC steel to form the bow of the USS New York. [4] Some relatively intact beams have been used in various 9/11 memorials and much steel is still extant at Fresh Kills and the primary investigation repository at JFK Airport. Much of the remaining steel is now available for purchase for memorials, art projects, etc.

I note that Pro simply refers to "the steel" to indicate that all WTC steel was disposed of by a single effort. This is false and either unresearched or deliberately misleading.

4. Why did it take 447 days before pressure on Bush caused him to start the investigation he never wanted?

Here again my opponent refers to "the investigation" to indicate that there was a single investigation of the 9/11 attacks. In truth, there have been hundreds of investigation by hundreds of local, state, federal, and international bodies in response to 9/11. Although not all investigations agree on every point, I am not aware of any official report that supports Pro's "False Flag" conclusion. The most significant primary investigations, FBI, NY State, NY City, FAA, and Arlington County began on Sept. 11th, 2001.

Pro is referring to the 9/11 Commission, a top-level retrospective "chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks." [5] I won't pretend to any special insight into the Bush Administration's resistance to creating an independent commission. I do know that the Bush Administration resisted every independent governmental investigation proposed during his terms in office on general principle, just as he opposed just about every expansion of non-executive authority. Commission Chairman Thomas Kean has been pretty direct in his accusations regarding the CIA investigation, that body's reliance on torture and the subsequent cover-up. [6] If we're looking for reasons to delay the investigation, CIA torture and cover-up is as sufficient as many other potential reason. Bush had plenty of known reasons to fear an independent commission: his own paltry leadership on the day of 9/11, Cheney's illegal executive order to shoot down United flight 93, the administration's manufacture of evidence in support of the Iraq War. None of these necessarily provide evidence of false-flag.

5. Why are Pentagon suits seen collecting evidence in a crime scene before investigators arrived?

The Arlington County incident commander established his command post directly in front of the Flight 77 impact site 4 minutes after impact. [7] Keep in mind that the entire site was immediately inundated with hundreds of officials representing many different agencies, many of whom, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, assisted in the first hours with evacuation, transportation of the wounded, recovery of the dead, etc. Is the accusation that these employees were conspirators hiding evidence in plain sight? What sort of evidence does Pro suppose these employees are collecting? Why would conspirators allow Washington Post reporters, French Foreign Nationals, and other civilians to snap photos of their cover-up?

6. What was hidden under the blue tarp being carried away by Pentagon suits?

Carried in, actually. The blue tarp is clearly the incident command tent, assembled on the highway in front of the impact zone and then carried by volunteers to the impact site.






7. Why were no serial numbered parts found positively identifying them to any of the 4 planes?

False. Black boxes with serial #s were recovered from Flight 93 and Flight 77 crash sites. No black boxes have been recovered from Flight 11 or Flight 175, but other parts with Boeing unique identifying numbers were: landing gear, engine parts, pieces of fuselage.





8. Why was Henry Kissinger the biggest cover up artist in U.S. history first appointed to head up the investigation?

I think we can agree Kissinger is a creep. Since his tenure on the 9/11 commission only lasted for the first 2 weeks of an 19 month investigation, we should also agree that Kissinger had no influence on that report's outcome.

Getting low on space, so we can look at questions 9 and 10 in Round2.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://articles.chicagotribune.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...(LPD-21)
[5] http://govinfo.library.unt.edu...
[6] http://www.nytimes.com...
[7] http://govinfo.library.unt.edu...
[8] http://www.rense.com...

Debate Round No. 1
RUN4ACES

Pro

Not sure if I am replying in the correct way or not first time. Thanks for your replies.

1. Maybe you misunderstood my first question. I don't recall asking about the collapse. I am aware of the damages to all the buildings this alleged attack amazingly caused, turning these buildings into virtual dust. My question is in reference to the evidence illegally destroyed. Nothing should have been shipped overseas, sent to landfills, removed or tampered with IAW Federal Disaster Protocols published by NIST for any reason. Period. This clearly was done breaking several of there own federal laws. If I had done this I would still be in jail. This material should have been sent to safe location just like all other disasters until investigators were satisfied they had all the information possible. Then still it should have been kept.

2. Documentation will be tough the Govt. made sure there was none. I can't prove this as much as the Govt. can't prove they were allowed to enter ground zero. Witnesses have been silenced. Only low to high level employees from Controlled Demolition amazingly enough were allowed, first responders and rescue workers of course.

3. Recycled? This is a violation of federal law before a investigation is done as if it matters. The Govt. is above the law. Who claimed the bulk steel was no longer relevant to the investigation. The Government (the accused)? Names, dates, documentation. Backlash from who? My money is on the Govt. they either made the threat or claimed it was from American's, this close to the event most people did believe the official story. But, the Govt. did not want American's to have access to it. Unwanted WTC Steel? Again according to who? Any steel sold after subjected to the possibility of contamination may just as well been destroyed. I agree there is some steel stored in a hanger at JFK this is under lock and key nobody is allowed access so testing is impossible. Building 7 was the most damaging as it was not hit by a plane and all supports failed simultaneously. None of this steel was saved for obvious reasons, sent overseas starting the day of the attack. Using a never ending line of military dump trucks which just happened to be in NY. https://www.youtube.com... Any remaining steel is useless by now. It was compromised at the most critical time.

How do you paste the entire video in the replies?

4. I am referring to an official investigation. Any investigations done by Govt. Agencies are suspect and a conflict of interest since almost everyone believed the official story at this time. Including myself. Americans have been brainwashed by MSM into thinking it is anti-American to even talk about 9-11. Convenient. Any investigation done by the Govt. is equivalent to holding a trial in a Kangaroo Court. This is a huge conflict of interest. Imagine a trial where the accused is appointed Judge the Jury is selected from a pool of his relatives, The entire Judicial System is on his payroll and the first ruling in the case is to ban the entire prosecutions case from entering the Courtroom. Would you trust the verdict? Even if this was the only known reasons Bush didn't want an investigation the fact it was for these illegal reasons is reason to investigate further. Manufacturing evidence to gain support for an illegal war is treason. Not to mention Norman Minetta's testimony under oath claiming Cheney had NORAD on virtual stand down. This was never even reported by the MSM along with a lot of other evidence. You seriously don't believe this cock'n bull story do you? Wow! I know of nobody who investigated the evidence aside from MSM who believes the official story.

5. The fact Rumsfeld was even out on the Pentagon lawn is highly suspicious. He is the Secretary of Defense for god's sake the Nation is supposed to be under attack, what the hell is he doing carrying stretchers? Like they need his help he should be holding high level meetings with top military brass. Especially when Bush is MIA and Cheney won't answer the phone after he changed the protocol at NORAD to the White House at least until the following day when it was changed back to NORAD. Thought nobody would notice this slight of hand.
Oromagi

Con

Counter-arguments continued from Round 2:

9. Why was flight 11 and 175 still tracked on radar after the Towers were reported to have been hit by these planes. This would be impossible if they hit the buildings?

Only a little bit true. Keep in mind that 3 of the flights shut off their transponders and were flying fast and low over hilly terrain. The hijackers of Flight 175 changed the transponder code twice rather than shutting theirs off. Using more traditional radar, all 4 flights were tracked in part or in whole by Air Traffic Control towers in Boston, New York, Washington, Cleveland, and Indianapolis. Boston's military liaison Colin Scoggins erroneously reported to NORAD at 9:21am that Flight 11 was still in the air, 35 minutes after that plane had hit the North Tower. So NORAD's human intelligence had Flight 11 in the air long after the plane crash, but there was no corresponding radar output. In fact, recordings demonstrate that Boston ATC tracked Flight 11 from its beginning in Boston to its end in the North Tower. So only Flight 11 had bad tracking by only NORAD and only because of human, not radar, error. [1]

10. Why are there no airport photos of the hijackers boarding the planes or even in the airports and no Arabic names are on any of the passenger lists?

If Pro wants to make the extraordinary claim that none of the 9/11 hijackers were on board any of the 4 planes, that claim stands in opposition to a preponderance of data: identification by flight personnel, flight manifests, DNA, paper identification, and the martyrdom claims of al Qaeda. Absence of photographs or flight manifests would not by themselves refute so much hard data. Even so, Pro's indirect claims can also be shown to be false.

There are, in fact, a few well-publicised pictures on a few of the hijackers boarding.

Here is video of the five Flight 77 hijackers going through metal detectors at Dulles.



and here is Mohamed Atta passing through the security checkpoint in Portland, ME before boarding Flight 11:



The claim that the 19 hijackers did not appear on flight manifests is patently false. In truth, all 19 used their real names and real credit cards to purchase seats. Since these 19 represented nearly all the manifest names appearing to be Muslim in origin, the U.S. Customs Office of Intelligence had identified all 19 hijackers within 45 minutes of the last attack. [2] Here, for example, is the Boston Globe's visual breakdown of the Flight 11 manifest, published two days after the attacks.

image:Flight 11 Manifest.gif****************

Here are my responses to Pro's 5 counterarguments offered in Round 3:

1. Maybe you misunderstood...

Well, Pro asked what happened to the crime scene, including Bldg. 7. My response was directed to that question. Based on Pro's counterargument, it seems like he meant to ask what happened to the criminal evidence, a different question altogether and one not yet asked by Pro.

The question of how evidence has been processed is entirely to wide-ranging and various to be answered here. If Pro wants to present a specific case of violation of IAW Federal Disaster Protocols, I may be able to offer a specific response. To the extent that much of the evidence could be characterized as burning piles of toxic dust in the middle of the world's largest financial center (WTC) and the world's largest officee complex (Pentagon), I'm sure Pro would allow that a certain degree of expedition and pragmatic consideration for human health was appropriate.

2. Federal Investigators denied access...

In Round 2, Pro asked why Federal investigators were denied access to Ground Zero. I countered that without any detail about the incident, my response would be sheer speculation. In Round 3, Pro admits he has no details to offer. Why make an accusation if you can't sustain the claim with a single scrap of evidence? Saying that the Govt has destroyed it all is just adding one unsubstantiated claim on top of another. I would not be at all surprised to discover that some Federal Investigators were denied access to Ground Zero for any number of ordinary reasons. Without any detail, Pro's argument is little more than a rumor in the ether.

3. WTC Steel

Dr W Gene Corley was America's preeminent expert on building collapses in 2001 and the lead investigator evaluating the structural collapse of the WTC. He was not a govt. employee, although the investigation was federally funded. Corley addressed Pro's concern during his testimony before Congress in March, 2002:

"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures." [3]

Building 7.... all supports failed simultaneously.

Another unsubstantiated claim.

[Steel] sent overseas starting the day of the attack.

This is false. The first overseas sales were conducted 5 months after the attack. [4]

a never ending line of military dump trucks which just happened to be in NY

Here is another video of the same caravan that clearly shows the dump trucks were NYC property. Is Pro doing any research into his claims or is he simply accepting anything Alex Jones tells him as gospel?



4. Investigation

Any investigations done by Govt. Agencies are suspect.

Of course, any failure to investigate by Govt Agency would likewise be suspect.

Americans have been brainwashed by MSM into thinking it is anti-American to even talk about 9-11.

Except for you and I, apparently. Oh, and the many debaters on DDO who discuss this topic. Oh, and the hundreds of websites devoted to conspiracy. In fact, the conspiracy websites are so numerous and more trafficked than the dull, old just-the-facts websites that I've been forced to look at page after conflicting page before finding reliable sources offering information in a rational, well-documented regarding many of the topics Pro has broached. 5 minutes googling 9/11 topics puts the lie to Pro's statement.

I know of nobody who investigated the evidence aside from MSM who believes the official story.

By MSM, I expect Pro is referring to the mainstream media. Pro hasn't defined the term, but we can see the term is designed as sufficiently nebulous to be self-reinforcing. Any media that offers a rational, documented perspective on the subject may be casually dismissed as mainstream and therefore suspect. Any media that offers conspiracy, no matter how unsubstantiated or conflicting, is independent and therefore to be taken at face value. Nor does Pro discuss MSM's motivation for perpetuating a supposed cover-up. Are Fox New and the BBC, the NY Times and al Jazeera all so perfectly in alignment with the Government's false-flag operation? Isn't it more likely that reporter after reporter has looked into 9/11 theories and found little evidence to support a massive conspiracy?

5. Pentagon

The fact Rumsfeld was even out on the Pentagon lawn is highly suspicious.

Not really. Just a politician recognizing a good PR moment. Would Pro have preferred that Rumsfeld emulate Cheney's scamper off to a bunker? or Bush's full-on blankness? Once one becomes a true believer in conspiracy, is there any political reaction that would deemed less than suspicious?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...
[3] http://www.asce.org...
[4] http://articles.chicagotribune.com...


Debate Round No. 2
RUN4ACES

Pro

RUN4ACES forfeited this round.
Oromagi

Con

CONCLUSION: Pro lacks convincing evidence that 9/11 was a covert operation conducted by the US Military.

Pro wants us to believe that the US Military carried out the attacks on 9/11, but does not seem to know how to build a substantial case.

Pro has failed to define any suspects, except perhaps Henry Kissinger? Pro has failed to describe the necessary scope and scale of conspiracy necessary to blow up American office buildings on live TV while making it look like foreign terrorists to such an extent that the foreign terrorists actually take credit for the strike. Seems like the smallest number of people required to pull off such an act would be in the tens of thousands while the scale of the event suggests the participation of hundreds of thousands of conspirators. Obviously, it would be Pro's first obligation to name names, an obligation he fails to live up to.

Pro has failed to define a motive for a false flag operation.

Pro has failed to establish a means or opportunity. Does Pro think planes were involved or were the planes a TV trick? Does Pro think terrorists were involved or were terrorists just some govt. slight of hand? Pro never got specific about the nature of the crime he implies.

Pro failed to respond to half of my arguments, so we'll consider those arguments unchallenged. Of the five he did answer he admits he has no evidence to support some of his arguments, blaming the govt for destroying that as well. Pro discounts information provided by Mainstream Media as suspect but does not put forth any sources as particularly credible.

When claims like no airport photos, no Muslim names on flight manifest, military dump trucks in Manhattan are shown to be false, Pro has no defense.

Let's agree whether or not there is evidence that might allow a rational person to conclude that 9/11 was in fact a US Military operation, Pro has failed to present any here and his claim remains unproven.

Thanks to Pro for the opportunity to discuss this topic and thanks in advance to readers for voting CON.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
RE: How do you paste the entire video in the replies?

I believe it only works for YouTube vids. Cut & paste the link from the browser location bar into your argument. It should be the link with the word "watch" in it. If you did it right, the video should be seen in the upper right hand corner when you review your arguments.
Posted by Zdawg 3 years ago
Zdawg
Rumsfeld being out on the lawn after the plane crashed is in no way "highly suspicious". It is human curiosity to know what is going on. Have you ever driven past a car wreck before? Somebody getting pulled over? You see an ambulance at your neighbors house? Do you not slow down and look over at it? Talking to people asking what happened? 99% of the people in the world would have a natural response of "curiosity", it isn't everyday a giant plane crashes into your office building. And it wasn't like he was out there for an hour and a half, he was out there for 20 minutes, and he even says in interviews that he realized he had a job to do and went back inside. Do you have any recollection of how chaotic it was in the midst of all this? It is hard for most people to focus on exactly what to do when you have A, B, C and D going on. Just like every other person that worked there, they ran over to see what happened. Your claim that it is highly suspicious is useless and subjective. And I think you are forgetting while both of these sites were technically "crime scenes", they were an area of search and rescue first and foremost. What is more important? Saving peoples lives? Or preserving a crime scene where we pretty much already know what happen. This wasn't a bank robbery. And FYI, the only thing that turned to dust was office contents and cement floor slabs, not the steel. Even if it was a controlled demolition, they don't turn steel into dust, I don't even think there is anything that can do that. You are talking about a distant shot of the core that collapsed. If you look at a closer video, you can clearly see it doesn't turn to dust. Do you ever read what you write? You can't make that sort of stuff up! I understand I'm not in the debate, but it is hard to keep quiet when you make such outrageous claims that have been completely proven false.
Posted by Zdawg 3 years ago
Zdawg
Hey RUN4ACES, aka Greg, do you really not see what is wrong with your argument? You are just flat out denying undeniable evidence, and without explanation as to what made you come to that conclusion. You cannot just say "that is a lie" to stuff that has been proven, that isn't how the world works. When you say "that is a lie" this is called an opinion since you are not providing proof to backup what you say. Do you really think you are on to something the rest of us in the world can't see? Do you really think that you have figured something out that no one else could? What makes you so special? You keep crying you want answers, "wah, I want answers, I want answers". And then every time you ask your questions, someone tells you the answer, and they use this little thing we call proof, evidence, whatever. But when you are presented with these answers, you automatically shut them out, no no, Greg has to be right, t/here is no way you could be wrong, right? I work in the mental health field, and I can tell you this is not a healthy way to go through life, but I know how it works, you will never see that, you say to yourself "I'm not crazy, I know I'm not crazy" well guess what Greg, you are crazy. Have you noticed how many people you get in arguments with on YouTube? Do you see how many people are telling you that you are delusional? So is everyone wrong and Greg is right? Why don't you be a man, and when someone gives you an answer to a question you ask, and they provide proof, just accept the damn answer. The entire world is not wrong and you are right. And like I said before, you seem to be linking what the US government did in response to 9/11 with why you think they are responsible for it. You are pointing to all these things that happened after 9/11, instead of pointing to things that happened before 9/11. Jesus, there just isn't anything anyone can say, you only want to hear proof it was an inside job, whether it is true or not. Wake up Greg, you are wrong!!!!
Posted by Zdawg 3 years ago
Zdawg
Hey Oromagi, I challenged this guy to a debate on this website a couple days ago over on YouTube, which he accepted. So now I obviously can see he could not wait until this weekend when I told him we would do it. I see you have an expert knowledge about 9/11, as do I, so if you need help, please let me know. And by the way, you will win this debate, however it will not change his mind, I've been arguing with this guy for months on YouTube, he denies undeniable evidence. He just calls it a "flat out lie".
Posted by RUN4ACES 3 years ago
RUN4ACES
Show me I have been investigating this for 4 years now and have never seen a legitimate photo. Don't tell me about the video where Mohammad Atta is seen boarding a plane claimed to be flight 11. This is a MSM lie he was boarding a plane in Portland Maine. What about the other 9 questions? 1 claim hardly proves anything.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
No airport photos? Where do you get this from? Those airport photos have been made public.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
RUN4ACESOromagiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: excellent job refuting on Con's part. provided reasonable explanations to all of pro's challenges. plus a conduct point for pro's FF.