The Instigator
Armani201
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dit731
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

the 9/11 conspiracy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 846 times Debate No: 48172
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Armani201

Con

Glad to see your enthusiastic about this topic. Lets have a clean and friendly debate!
dit731

Pro

Sounds good to me.
Debate Round No. 1
Armani201

Con

Well my friend we just wasted a round so let me start off by predicting that you have no evidence what so ever of this conspiracy or any logical feet on the ground. But I'm better at debunking or rebuttals so if you could be so kind as to start with your thesis in great detail!
dit731

Pro

Since I'm playing devil's advocate, debunking will be very useful to me here. However, since you would like me to start, I'll go ahead with a thesis. I do have evidence to prove my point, and I'd like to point out that it doesn't do you well to assume your opponent will automatically make an illogical argument.

I would like to make clear that I do not claim to know the reason behind the United States 9/11 conspiracy. I only claim that there is an effort to hide the truth, as the evidence does not add up to the conclusion that we would like to come to. I will first be addressing the multiple failsafes that had been bypassed (including the warnings of an impending attack that were received), the inaction of a normally effective NORAD, and the incongruencies of ATC recordings regarding the flights involved. I will go on later to show the strange behavior of the buildings affected by the crash (however, I will not be putting too much emphasis on this) and show how various high-level officials had indications of an impending attack, while federal agencies blocked external investigations and redacted important relevant documents.

Before you proceed with your rebuttals, I would like to hear your main argument as well.
Debate Round No. 2
Armani201

Con

Well my main argument is the mechanics and science of these events. More of a technical side of reality. But I'm willing to break the 4th wall for the sake of a good debate on a controversial matter. I assume because your argument lacks a logical stand point because in essence that is what the 9/11 conspiracy is, lacking in logical and critical thinking. Everything that official reports and independent investigations say are legitimate and true. My issue (besides how theories completely negate evidence and science) is that conspiracy theorist jump to conclusions. I want establish this, asking questions, and being skeptical about what really happened is completely natural and justifiable. I had a lot of questions as well when this happened. But what I found is that conspiracy theorist don't like getting the answers to these questions. They like to believe that this was all setup by some higher power controlling the world. Now when I had questions about the official report I did my research. As what any curious person should do. And I found everything that I once questioned, it took me maybe a couple minutes to answer some of my questions. Why doesn't anyone who has some questions about 9/11 do this? It takes maybe a week or 2. But they just won't. They rather just look at biased videos that set the mood in a spooky environment that deepen these deluded believes. Its an "alternate reality" stated by author Jonathan Kay. An easy way out. Just because they simply can't accept the fact that planes can slam into huge building.

Now as for my rebuttal. First don't put that much faith into NORAD. I would love to sit here and tell you or air defense system is fully efficient, but its just not. Here's a swell statistic for you. In 2000 of all the 67 scrambles of jet fighter to apprehend a suspicious aircraft on 1, and I repeat ONE happened in U.S. territory. And do you know how long it took for that the fighter jet to successfully intercept this ONE plane, 76 minutes. Don't give NORAD that much credit

I can explain the building collapse but I have a question for you? After this debate, or if you want to allow this debate to continue outside the realms of 5 rounds. If I answer all of your questions and prove this theory wrong, will you actually change your mind? Because my goal is just to disprove these deluded claims, but if I can change your mind about this whole think I would love to just to help you see what truly happened but if I can't, then I accept that
dit731

Pro

Once again, I'd like to make it clear that I'm playing devil's advocate, as you seemed to miss that. I do not personally believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I am simply arguing the opposite side for the sake of a quality debate. Now that that's out of the way...

I have done my research on the subject as well, and I assure you that I have not watched a single video regarding the subject (unless you count ATC audio recordings as videos). And I very well do accept that fact that planes can slam into buildings... as an aerospace engineering student, my primary goal is to improve aviation safety.

I'm sure you and I can both agree that NORAD officials know their own program much better than you and I do. NORAD officials knew the location of the rogue airplanes (even though the transponders on three of the four flights were turned off) due to sophisticated long-range triangulation. They also had military exercises during the week of 9/11 (Operation Northern Vigilance), so they must have been on heightened alert; this should have lowered the expected response time. However, the air defense system failed in four ways: the FAA took a significantly longer time than usual reporting the missing aircraft and the suspected terrorist operations to NORAD, doing so incorrectly regarding one of the flights which lead to jets being sent out over the Atlantic, which hurt interception chances greatly; NORAD, after finding out about the nature of the aircraft, failed to scramble jets from nearby bases like Andrews Air Force Base (which NORAD did indeed have permission to operate, contrary to claims by the opposition) and instead opted for bases hundreds of miles away; the jets in flight did not fly at speeds required to intercept the airliners (yes, it is against protocol to break the sound barrier in pursuit to intercept, but the F-15s flew at a measly 1/4 of their top speed of 1660 mph. In fact, given the location at the time to the nearest hijacked aircraft, a 600mph speed would have sufficed in catching up to the hijacked plane); and fourth, jets within the vicinity to intercept were not redeployed to chase the hijacked planes.

NORAD General Ralph Eberhart stood by NORAD's timeline release that proved that the jets were scrambled with enough time to intercept the jets if they had operated as per procedure (in fact, the timeline shows they were airborne by 8:52 AM, leaving more than twice the amount of time required to intercept the plane) [1].

In addition to NORAD's actions, there is evidence showing that knowledge of the attack existed beforehand. During Stock Market trading the days before 9/11, American and United Airlines (the airlines involved in the attacks) recorded a massive increase in put orders. If you're not familiar with put orders, it simply means that individuals bet that the stock price would drop, which they did (in dramatic fashion) after news of the crashes spread. This shows that there is reason to believe that people were aware of the situation and were capitalizing on it to make a good deal of money.

The lack of evidence is also disturbing in this case, and that very fact can be used as evidence itself. Of the black boxes from the four aircraft, only three were found, with only one being in a usable condition (which is bizarre, as many aircraft have experienced significantly more damage to the tail section where the black box is housed - see Air France Flight 447 which crashed into the Atlantic from 38,000 feet and Korean Air Lines Flight 007 which was shot down from 35,000 feet over Soviet territory into the ocean - and have had their respective black boxes recovered). The one that was in usable condition was kept hidden from the public, and the version that was released much later was heavily redacted. In addition, the Department of Transportation confirmed that interviews with air traffic controllers who spoke about their communications with the hijacked planes had been destroyed without being copied or even listened to.

I will reserve more analysis for the next round, mostly because I'm getting really sleepy.
Debate Round No. 3
Armani201

Con

Armani201 forfeited this round.
dit731

Pro

dit731 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Armani201

Con

Armani201 forfeited this round.
dit731

Pro

dit731 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dit731 2 years ago
dit731
I urge you all to vote on this!
Posted by liberal17 2 years ago
liberal17
I think that Armani was stupid in round 1 and 2, why don't you state your point. LOL! No offense you had good arguments, after that.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
IMHO had the government known that the intent of the planes was to be used as flying missiles headed for Capitol Hill, the White House, the twin towers, or the Pentagon, those planes probably would have been shot down, with a massive cover-up to hide the fact.

This fits the description of United 93.
Posted by ararmer1919 2 years ago
ararmer1919
I'm curious I what pro thinks NORAD would have done if they jets they sent out HAD reached the hijacked planes before they crashed into the towers?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Armani201dit731Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: No vote. Debate wasn't finished plus barely a noticeable effort.