the government did not attack America on 911
Debate Rounds (5)
Some of surprising evidences are:
-World Trade Center's owner (i guess of it's property) leased it 6 weeks before 9/11/01, with an insurance of $3.5 billion in act of terrorism.
-The FAA HQ and Command center's dialogues right when the plane hits... "oh, i don't know, everyone just left the room"
I highly recommend you to watch this documentary video, and post your comment on the next round.
american5 forfeited this round.
This video views 9/11 terror as a conspiracy, and it's a high likely chance to be it rather than a real terrorist act.
Omnipotent forfeited this round.
Before 9/11, the government was heavily, yet secretly working on how to successfully execute the attack. There are too many evidences to just ignore it as a mere terrorist attack.
Few days before 9/11, people involved with the towers and government put insurance on the tower, especially in case of terrorist attack. Usually, insurance policy wont compensate for the loss if they had insurance for only short time, because it could result in fraud.
The day of 9/11, they stopped all the aircraft from flying on the day (Before the towers were hit) with exception of few military craft that had permission to. Why would they stop the flow of the aircraft on the day where they'd be hit with, say terrorist attack? Maybe they knew it'd occur.
The days after 9/11, people who theorized against what government claimed the incident was, (plane fuel and engine incinerated the body of plane which resulted in only parts of it left in the scene), were soon to be found out that they were either 'accidentally' dead after their public speech about this incident, or they changed their mind and announced their agreements with the government. Why would they agree or change their mind so soon?
This should be enough evidences to prove that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. There are no solid evidences that I've heard of that supports that it was really a terrorist job.
I would've appreciated if you would show proof and evidence to prove so then.
What's the likelihood of someone getting an insurance right before the incident? Its because they knew it were going to happen. An insurance policy specifically toward terrorist attack on those towers.
Again other evidences that show proofs of government's innocence or terrorist's guilt.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 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:||2||1|
Reasons for voting decision: 911 was not a government plot... Arguments were very poor for both sides, sources were not used for pro but con based all of his on one sad movie which ignores basic facts of what happened that day. Con did have better grammar though
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.