The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

9/11 was an Inside Job

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,429 times Debate No: 75748
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (75)
Votes (4)




Debate currently impossible to accept, anyone who is interested may say so in the comments.

As Pro I will be challenging the accepted belief that the September 11th [9/11] U.S terrorist attacks in 2001 were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda--and Osama Bin Laden--and will argue that they were organized by the American government with the knowledge and support of the Israeli government.


- All attacks which took place on September the 11th will apply, including the two planes that crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City, and the third plane that went into the Pentagon in Washington D.C. As well as the fourth plane which crashed into a field--80 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

-Acceptance first round.

-Opening arguments second round, with expansion on arguments in the third round and rebuttals in the fourth.

-In the fifth round both additional rebuttals and closing arguments apply.

-Shared BoP. It's on Con to prove that 9/11 was in fact not a cover-up but a genuine terrorist attack committed by Al-Qaeda--and on me to prove that it wasn't.


I wish Pro and the Illuminati the very best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Con.

Opening Argument:

C1) Building Collapse

I'll begin by directly addressing the three towers at the WTC that were brought down, specifically the two main towers that had two separate passenger airliners enter each of them; with the
American Airlines Flight 11 flying into the North Tower and United Airlines Flight 175 flying into the South, and the third Tower [Tower 7] simply coming down on its own without any plane crashing into it or any external components. It should come as no surprise that all three towers that came down at the World Trade center were considerably well-made , these buildings were specifically made to withstand pressure--and the event of a plane[s] crashing into them, given their height which stood at 1,368 and 1,368 feet--making them the world's largest buildings. For two such buildings to suddenly come down at a free-fall speed in fact defies basic physics and never has anything remotely similar happened before or after 9/11.

The only explanation for the fall of all three towers is controlled demolition, something that can even easily be seen in captured footage--and in comparisons made to other examples of controlled demolitions. Both the North and South Tower showed no sign of falling down and instead were withstanding the steady flames inside; before suddenly as the one hour mark was approaching, the North Tower dramatically collapsed after being followed by the South. The point of the Tower 7 should again be highlighted, as this was the tower that absolutely no plane enter it and would've easily been able to withstand any outside pressures.

C2) Thermite Explosives and Witness Testimony

Another striking piece of evidence is traces of Nano-thermite found in dust samples and molten metal that was found from all three towers—the only reasonable explanation for this is once again, a controlled demolition in which explosives were planted in the Twin towers. North and South collapse from the top which suggests explosives were placed in the top floors of the buildings, while Tower 7 collapses at ground level; meaning that explosives were placed at the very bottom. Witnesses and survivors of 9/11 have all stated that they heard numerous explosions coming from within the buildings, directly before they fell at free-fall speed; which was well under 10 seconds.

Again, why exactly would all three buildings have traces of Nano-thermite in them and why would there be explosions? On the basis of two planes crashing into the towers, they would not occur.

C3) Removal of Evidence

Instead of examining it and inquiring as to why three supremely well-structured buildings completely collapsed at free-fall speed, the evidence was promptly removed and not examined. The structural steel from the tower was specifically the most important piece of evidence—as it could’ve shown exactly why the buildings collapsed which they should not have. Additional evidence that has been destroyed are tapes that were recorded by around six air traffic controllers who handledhijackings on 9/11/01. This doesn’t stop at the WTC either, after the Pentagon crash officials began immediately to remove all evidence. Naturally this wouldn't’t be an issue if any evidence was presented of the entire 9/11 attacks but it never was. This lack of transparency from the U.S government led to many experts calling for a proper investigation to the 9/11, particularly at the WTC.

C4) Pentagon Crash

One of the major errors here is how exactly a 38 metre and 13,5 metres high passenger plane could only leave a hole that is 5 metres wide; obviously this is implausible. In addition, every passenger plane crash in history has left debris including large parts of the plane itself, where as no real debris was found at the exact place the plane went into. Given that the plane was supposed to be a Boeing 757, it also would’ve entirely smashed the surrounding windows. There is no way that the wings of such a plane could not demolish them. Another fact is that there were 86 cameras all around the Pentagon building, yet only one camera was used to display footage of the plane and this shows invariably nothing; neither the plane entering the building. Being a passenger plane, the Boeing 757 was also not made to go fast at such a low level [I.E ground] or make quick manoeuvres in the air.

The Pentagon airspace is in fact the most protected airspace in the world, so how is that a jet was able to enter it without any deterrence? Any unidentified planes would be observed and dealt with immediately.

C5) False Terrorist Link

Perhaps one of the most important aspects to the 9/11 Hoax is the terrorist link. The official U.S government version is that a total of 19 Arab terrorists managed to attack three separate buildings, the North and South Towers in New York, and the Pentagon--apparently all at the command of Osama Bin Laden who was accused as the main suspect by the U.S. The first issue in this is the fact that he never made the U.S most wanted list specifically for being responsible for 9/11. Osama never officially confessed to orchestrating the attacks and instead strongly denied all responsibility in 2001, stating that as Muslim he is "strictly forbidden" to "cause harm to innocent women and children". Videos released by the U.S clearly show that the men within them are not Osama, due to the differences in physical appearances and apparently age.

Moving to the other 19 accused terrorists, it should be highlighted that many
of them are in fact
alive. These include Abdul Aziz Al-Omari, he was quoted in 2001 as saying to British Newspaper the Telegraph:

“I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my
date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this.”

This presents the question of how exactly can a man can fly a plane into the World Trade Center, miraculously survive, escape authorities, and then somehow make it back to Saudi Arabia a few days later?

Another was Saeed Al-Ghamdi, accused of being aboard flight, who also reported to the Telegraph
in 2001:

I was completely shocked. For the past 10 months I have been based in Tunis
with 22 other pilots learning to fly an Airbus 320. The FBI provided no evidence of my presumed involvement in the attacks.”

So rather than flying a plane into the WTC this man was also in the Middle East at the exact
time 9/11 took place. Now onto Waleed Al-Shehri, the Daily Trust reported in 2001 that:

“His [Al-Shehri] photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack.”

Note that the U.S still categorized them as culprits and continued with their "suicide bomber" status even
after these statements were released and they were found to be alive in the Middle East.

Another so-called suicide bomber of the plane that crashed into Pennsylvania, Ahmed Al-Nami, also stated in 2001 in his defence:

"I’m still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked.”

The BBC additionally reported in 2001:

“Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker n the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.”

As well as the CNN reporting on another hijacker:

“Adnan Bukhari is still in Florida”

C6) Zionist Connection

The private property developer and former chairman of the Jewish Appeal, Larry Silverstein, signed a lease on the WTC two months prior before the attacks. His initial move upon buying the WTC complex was change the security
company to Securacom, a company that George Bush’s brother happened to be the board of directors of. As well as the change in the security, Silverstein also increased the insurance policies of the complex; meaning that he was awarded a full $7,2 billion compensation after the 9/11 attacks. The fact is that the buildings were no longer financially profitable [mainly due to asbestos] and Silverstein and company actually stood a lot to gain—as well as Israel, who Silverstein regularly donates significant amounts of money to.

It also seems that Israeli’s within New York were forwarded of the attack, on September 12th 2001 the Jerusalem Post reported:

The Israeli foreign ministry has collected the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack."

However, only one Israeli at the WTC was killed on that day; indicating that the 4,000 number is a rather large amount to have survived without any severe injury. Other pieces of evidence include Israel trying to suppress a classified report on 9/11 and the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak somehow knowing in an interview with the BBC that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, despite the fact they’d only just happened and that no one had been formally identified.
The Zionist Connection to 9/11 connects easily to what *motives* existed. As well as financial gain for one of U.S’s most powerful Jews. There's also the War on Terror that would come soon after the attacks. Having such attacks on the U.S and a large loss of life gave the U.S government the perfect excuse to invade the Middle East on the premise that the U.S was literally under attack by militant Islam and that peoples lives would be in danger if they did not “confront” it directly—by invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S went into Iraq with the primary aim of overthrowing, Saddam Hussein, someone who on the contrary to inciting
error actually managed to control extremist fractions within his country. Israel in particular had a lot to gain, and repeatedly advised the U.S to invade.




I thank Emilrose for the invitation to this debate. I have double-checked the format and was surprised to discover that there will be no rebuttals until the forth round. So I will not expand too much this round.

Summary of my Case:
My case is relatively simple:

1. The attacks were planned by Al Qaeda
2. Hijackers co-ordinated by Al Qaeda hijacked four planes
3. Three of the four planes hit their targets, and one missed
4. The North, South and WTC 7 collapsed as a result of these attacks and the Pentagon suffered damage.

No cover-up, relatively straightforward clear and cut. This is why my burden ought to be significantly less than Pro’s, since it entails far fewer dubious variables, and provides significant explanatory power over the events we have them.

What Pro needs to demonstrate
All criminal cases assess the means, motive and opportunity of committing the crime. I will affirm in my case why the Al Qaeda easily fulfils these criterion, however I will state from the outset that a conspiracy of the scale required of 9/11 would entail a completely different mode of means, motive and opportunity. For example:

1a.The official report simply requires the means to hijack four planes and crash them into buildings
1b. The conspiracy theory requires 1a, but additionally the means to orchestrate this without any unwarranted leaks before or since for an operation that would have required many dozens, or hundreds of people involved.

2a. The official report requires motives that are already well-established in Al Qaeda (which I will affirm later)
2b. The conspiracy theory requires motives on an individual level that would override the risk of the enormous backlash of a unwarranted leak (clearly a criminal charge of an unprecedented scale). Killing many thousands of your own civilians in a democratic country and political landscape that the US is currently in would obviously not end well on many levels, both personally and politically for the party.

1.Identities of the Hijackers
Probably the most obvious place to start, the nationalities of the 19 hijackers were 15 from Saudi Arabia, 2 from United Arab Emirates and one form each of Egypt and Lebanon. None of the hijackers had made much attempt to conceil their identity, with visual recognition, credit card histories, flight seat numbers, phone numbers, recovered passports and even DNA analysis positively identifying all 19 hijackers that are currently upheld by the official report.

This process if further simplified by positive “Arabic” characterisations of the hijackers by those who witnessed them on the flight, and a very limited pool of Arabic names on the passenger lists.[,] One example of DNA confirmation was of pilot Ziad Jarrah, who was matched with samples taken from his girlfriend’s residence in Germany.[ ibid]

2.Connection to Al Qaeda
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-shibh were arrested after the attacks and have both confessed to their involvement in co-ordinating the hijackings with the former confessing to involvement in the 1993 WTC bombings, failed shoe bomber plot, the 2002 attack in Kuwait, and several dozen other conspiracies.[] Moreover a hard drive of his was recovered which contained “code names, airline company, flight number, target, pilot name, background information, and the names of the hijackers”. Needless to say, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was intimately involved with al-Qaeda by heading it’s media committee.

The confessions were performed under both legally recognised and informal circumstances, with the latter in an Al Jazeera interview where he also detailed the original plot to attack nuclear facilities.[] He has since in custody released a 36 page manifesto aimed at “converting his captors”.[]

Furthermore, Bin Laden himself has confessed to Al Qaeda’s involvement in a famous 2004 videotaped message []

“Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we didn't strike -- for example -- Sweden. And we know that freedom haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19.”

Other Links
Two of the hijackers on AA Flight 77, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, were already known to the FBI with Al Qaeda connections before embarking on their respective hijacking. Both fought in the Bosnian war and were well regarded Jihadists in Afghanistan in 1999 and were photographed at a Kuala Lumpur al-Qaeda Summit 2000 where they were photographed.[]

Imam Anwar al-Awlaki also directly links the hijackers to al-Qaeda, with a close relationship with Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar and himself was directly linked to al-Qaeda by documents found at Bin Laden’s household,[] and also via. his recruitment actions in later attacks, such as with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day “underwear bomber” which he later confessed his intimate involvement into.[,].

Assessment of means, motive & opportunity
Al Qaeda has well-established motives for launching such an attack on the US, with Bin Laden issuing two fatwas, the former in 1996 directly against the US as a declaration of war and the latter in 1998 identified as a “World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders”.[] This latter fatwa cited US sanctions against Iraq as positive motives for action.

Furthermore, Al Qaeda already had demonstrated aggression towards the US with the well-organised simultaneous Embassy Bombings in Kenya, and Tanzania, killing over 200 in 1998. [] Later, the foiled millennium attack plots which included airport and destroyer bombings, which was followed by a successful bombing of the USS Cole in the fall of 2000.

Implausibility of US Involvement
Whichever interpretation one takes, the basic facts are that four airliners were hijacked by an organised group all of which were piloting with intent to suicidality cause massive civilian damage at the cost of their own lives. Therefore the conspiracy theorist would need to argue that the US managed to co-ordinate 19 Islamic hijackers of Arabic origin, to hijack and commit suicide for US motives. This makes absolutely no sense, given the very extreme belief of the suicide bombers that we already have experience with. Given that these hijackers had access to a plane, they would have willingly attacked on US orders instead of attempting to escape, etc.

The simplest explanation was that the hijacker’s motives were essentially in line with their organisation’s motives, which would not be possible with US co-ordination. Furthermore, a US conspiracy on the scale require would have entailed so many people involved that whistleblowers would have been inevitable. For example the Watergate scandal, a conspiracy on the scale of several orders of magnitudes smaller than 9/11, was quickly outed with leaks. Iran-Contra, Enron [,] and of course the NSA & Edward Snowden to name just a few were also leaked operations which again was nowhere near the scale required for 9/11 to be successful.

Debate Round No. 2


You're welcome Envisage.

In this round I will summarize my own case and briefly expound on important points made.
Additionally, I'll highlight again what Con needs to prove as is specified in round one. All four points that have been made by Con in his opening round should be supported with evidence and validated.

So far, I've shown that the 19 Arab men that were accused by the U.S government of hijacking planes in fact could not have been responsible, simply for the basic fact that the majority of them are still alive and living in the Middle East. To reiterate these include primary suspects such as Abdul Aziz Al-Omari, Saeed Al-Ghamdi, Waleed Al-Shehri, Adnan Bukhari and Mohammad Atta. [1.] Obviously, if these men really did fly the two planes into the World Tower Complex they would not be still alive. It's also unlikely that the U.S government would immediately be able to conclude the identities of these men in the event of the attacks being genuine and these men actually being responsible.

Cons fourth point in the summary of his case is that the North, South, and WTC7 collapsed as a result of the damage of the 9/11 attacks, however, I've clearly explained in round two that such towers were specifically built to withstand such attacks [given their immense height] and that the infrastructure would've been resilient to them. There's also the very important fact that the towers showed absolutely no signs of collapsing until the 60 minute mark. If it was a genuine collapse brought on by the damage and fire, they would not have came down at such a high speed and within 10 seconds. On a scientific basis, this is again implausible and not supported with any real evidence by the U.S government. It took the U.S over three years to release the 9/11 Commission Report to the general public and even now there's still a full 28 pages missing, which once more confirms the lack of transparency shown by the U.S government and the very probable fact that they have something hide. [2.] and [3.]

Con claims in his opening argument that the attacks were indeed co-ordinated by Al-Qaeda, however, there is very little credible evidence to support this assertion and [as clarified in round one] it's on Con to convincingly prove that this is the case.

Regarding the means, motives and opportunity for committing a crime--in this example it being the 9/11 terror attacks--the U.S had considerably more of all three than Al-Qaeda and the 19 men that were allegedly involved. Firstly, the U.S absolutely has the "means" in that it can easily orchestrate such an attack, and significantly more so than than those accused, who by all accounts, are not even adequately equipped at flying passenger airliners. This is where we once again come to exactly how the World Trade Center Complex was brought down, something that the U.S [and its Zionist owners] absolutely had the means to do in the form of a controlled demolition. The only requirement for this would be placing explosives in the building a few days prior to the attack; which also explains why Nano-thermite was found in dust samples taken from the three buildings.

Other indications can be found in the fact[s] that bomb sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the WTC Complex a total of five days before the attacks, as well as the mysterious evacuations had also been taking place in a the few weeks leading up to 9/11 [4.] and [5.]

Now alluding to motive, again this was something else highlighted in my opening case. Motive was in fact the strongest component in as to why 9/11 was an inside job--and once more, the U.S had considerably more to benefit from than 19 Arab "terrorists", who do not even fit the stereotype of Islamic religious fanatics; given that Mohammad Atta spent the days prior to 9/11 partying around the states drinking alcohol and snorting cocaine. This was a man that not even a practicing Muslim. [6.]

What possible motive could these men have had exactly? If they were not Islamic fundamentalists [which they weren't] there is no motive. Whereas the U.S had the very large motive of invading Iraq and Afghanistan and proceeding with its "War on Terror". As also touched upon on in my initial case, something as alarming and unprecedented as the 9/11 attacks naturally gives the U.S the perfect excuse to go ahead with its and Israel's aim of a Middle East invasion--which would entail the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein, general killing of civilians and gradual development of even more terrorist groups. The most significant motivation was of course oil, however. Before the invasion Iraqi oil was nationalized and closed to Western oil companies, but after the U.S invasion it became privatized and exclusive only to foreign firms [7.]

Now onto opportunity, the third thing that the U.S still had more than these 19 accused "terrorists" and Al-Qaeda itself. Con cannot simply base his argument on there being other *alleged* Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S as his burden comes in finding the evidence that they did this one. One reason why Al-Qaeda had such limited opportunity [applying the term in the literal sense] is because the U.S happens to be the most protected country in the world in which if they were planning to fly two planes into the WTC Complex and the Pentagon, they would have very obviously been thwarted. There is no conceivable way that the U.S could not simply notice or have knowledge an attack as large as 9/11; one that once again not only included two passenger planes flying into the WTC Complex, but also two other passenger planes that were aimed for the Pentagon--one of which that successfully made it despite the enormously high surveillance and the fact that any unidentified planes, especially passenger, would be seen and immediately dealt with.

I'll also highlight again the basic impossibility of a passenger airliner [a Boeing 757] not only somehow making it into Pentagon airspace but actually entering the building itself and only leaving a 5 meter hole when the wings of the plane are in fact thirty-eight meteres wide. Why exactly were no outside windows smashed? And why exactly was footage from only one camera shown when there's a total of eighty-six cameras? Majority of which would've been facing the plane directly. The lack of wreckage and actaul evidence of the plane also presents some very curious questions.










Thanks Pro.


So this round is necessarily an extension of the previous round, since rebuttals are prohibited until round 4. I am not sure how I am supposed to extend my case here, since my it is rather straightforward. It makes very few assumptions, and pretty much follows events as we have witnessed them. Thus I expect most of my work will be on rebuttals to Pro’s absurd position.

Requirements for a Conspiracy of 9/11

At the very least, a government conspiracy must account for the hijackings of the planes that crashed on that day – the notion of them all occurring as a co-incidence I don’t think is remotely worth discussing. Thus the US Government would have been required to co-ordinate members of Al Qaeda to hijack planes and crash them into their own property.

If this doesn’t scream absurd I don’t know what will. You don’t find suicide bombers at the local corner store, and neither do you find suicidal pilots, much less ones doing such for a purely patriotic cause. However, even if pro could prove this much, she could only ever hope to achieve a draw in this debate, since it would still follow that Al Qaeda did co-ordinate and execute the attacks of 9/11, albeit with outside influence. Thus Pro must deny some of the basic facts of the case. I can see which one’s Pro has indeed attempted to deny however I am not permitted to rebut them this round.

Furthermore however, an infiltration or some form of direction of members of Al Qaeda must be accomplished without possibility of any whistleblowers. I am not sure if Pro could seriously defend the US Government co-ordinating Al-Qaeda without a lot more unsolicited people knowing about it. The very problem of such groups is that they are non-state actors – thus much less accountable for their actions. The saying goes that MAD (mutually assured destruction) doesn’t work without a return address, and Al Qaeda is such a group.


My case shows that the official story is both the sufficient and likely cause of the actions of 9/11. There is no need to convolute a case which adds no explanatory power to the hypothesis. Thus I will hand over to Pro so that we may begin rebuttals next round.

Debate Round No. 3


Thanks Con.

Due to business I will keep this round relatively short and proceed with rebuttals and closing arguments in round five.

Once again, Con has seemingly failed to recognise the fact that the BoP [burden of proof] is shared and that is also on Con to *prove* that the attacks that took place on 9/11 were not part of an Inside Job; so far Con has not shown this or even offered any convincing suggestion[s] of this.

Rather, my case shows that there is significant flaws in the official story of 9/11 and that many questions have been left answered--specifically as to the "cause" of the WTC collapse and *why* such attacks would be orchestrated in the first place. Simply labelling my position as "absurd" obviously doesn't support anything in Cons own case or offer any substantial evidence.

I'll highlight once again that valid questions have been raised. Such as:

1.) How the WTC Complex was able to collapse in the first place, when it was specifically made to withstand such pressure.

2.) Why there was traces of Nitrate in the WTC debris. Again one thing that as of yet has *no* viable explanation.

3.) Why evidence was removed so abruptly from the WTC Complex, one more thing that Con has ignored so far.

4.) Why the Pentagon Crash did *not* have the amount of debris that it should have done and why it did not leave the evidence it should have done--such as a considerably larger hole in the Pentagon building. Additionally there's the fact that the Pentagon supposedly failed to observe a passenger plane entering its airspace.

5.) How the majority of the 19 accused suspects were discovered to be alive, says after the attacks.

6.) The Zionist Connection and U.S motive. This is one of the main *points* here. The WTC Complex was owned by Zionists who stood to gain a large amount of profit from its demise. Additionally, the U.S has the ideal reason for invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Con has yet to show exactly how the attacks were not part of an Inside Job and to properly negate the resolution.


Thanks Pro. Now the debate can finally begin for real.

Building Collapse
Funnily enough, this argument doesn’t establish that 9/11 was an inside job on any level. Pro needs further arguments to fulfil her BoP with this argument. Pro’s arguments come in two parts, one that the towers could not have in principle collapsed due to their construction, and Tower 7 collapsed completely unwarranted. I will tackle these independently.

Tower 7 was hit by a falling skyscraper – namely WTC 1. The debris of which ignited fires which burned out of control on floors 7-9 and 11-13, unfortunately the fires weren’t mitigated by the sprinkler system due to the damage to the water supply from WTC1 & 2’s collapse. []

To make things worse, on top of the structural fatigue caused by the fires, the building also suffered a 20 story gash from the collapse of WTC1 (further compromising structural integrity) and it was observed that the building was visibly sagging before collapse.[,] Note that WTC 7 collapsed nearly seven hours after WTC 1 & 2 collapsed, and was on fire for this entire period. Thus the assertion that WTC 7’s collapse was unwarranted is completely false.

Additional Issues
1. No plane hit WTC 7, if it really was an inside job then we would expect a jet plane to have been commissioned to crash into it to “cover up” its collapse like they allegedly did with WTC 1 & 2
2. Planted explosives surviving in a raging fire for 7 hours? I really don’t think so.

One key structural consideration for WTC 1 & 2 is their “tube in a tube design” – which was realised in an effort to maximise office space. Instead of a traditional interlocking web design such as in the empire state building, the internal core columns of WTC 1 & 2 are only designed to support vertical loads, thus failure of these would induce a collapse of the type we witnessed. They were good at supporting “static loads”, but poor at supporting “dynamic loads”, such as is caused from the motion of one floor collapsing above another. The largest aircraft at the time of the design of these towers was the Boeing 707, a much smaller and slower aircraft and fuel load was not considered.[] The towers were certainly not designed for:

1. 140 tonne airliner crashing into it at 500 mph
2. Impact blowing off fire insulation
3. Prolonged exposure to said fuel fires which compromise steel column structural integrity

Pro also asserts that the towers came down in free-fall, “defies basic physics” and the demolition explanation is visible in the footage comparisons but provides not a shred of evidence to support this.

Inconvenient Facts
In the bases of both WTC 1 & 2, the point of collapse occurred exclusively at the impact & fire zones. Moveover visible buckling was present at these zones, increasing towards the point of collapse.[] This supports the standard explanation and renders demolition untenable, especially given:
1. It would have required precise piloting, which testimony to the skill of the hijacking pilots of those on board contradicts.
2. Or it would have required liberal planting of explosives

Not to mention that planting said demolition explosives would have been blatantly obvious to anyone in the building at the time.

Thermite Explosives and Witness Testimony
I couldn’t find any of Pro’s sources for her claims here – she has done a spectacularly bad job of making her information accessible.

This argument can be dismissed until Pro provides her source for this. Since we do not know where, when and what manner the “explosions” were heard. For all we know they were the impact sounds from when the towers were hit, or any time between the impact and collapse, rather than immediately before. Moreover it’s not exactly difficult to have explanations for such statements, e.g.:

“I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever”

Even the falling bodies of people jumping off the building were causing “explosions”, we even have testimony affirming train-like sounds. Are we to believe that trains caused the collapse?[]

1. Thermite mixture is aluminium + iron oxide, yielding the products of molten iron & aluminium oxide. We would thus expect to find molten steel, and iron, and aluminium oxide powder, yet only aluminium oxide is found, which is unsurprising given that aluminium composes a large quantity of the towers and planes themselves and burns in air to form aluminium oxide… The lack of the other products outright falsifies the thermite hypothesis.[]

2. Virtually impossible for thermite to burn horizontally, since gravity tends to pull molten iron vertically, inconveniently in the wrong direction of the way the columns run (and good luck having something to support the 4000K molten mixture without itself melting).[]

3. I cannot see where Pro’s source is, but assuming that the trace unreacted thermite mixture was found, we would also expect to see much greater quantities of all the products (see point #1), thus actually weakens the case for thermite, rather than strengthens.

4. All other elements that would appear on a dust analysis are present in the towers anyway. E.g. sulphur from gypsum-based drywall, iron-based paint, manganese in structural steel, fluorine in Freon and titanium in paint, to name just a few.[]

Removal of Evidence
This is not an argument for a conspiracy, only for a lack of transparency (which given the genuine conspiracy investigation that was involved, is unsurprising). Thus is goes nowhere in fulfilling Pro’s burden of proof.

I again couldn’t find Pro’s source, the best I could find was regarding the ATC tape, which appears to be from a finding in the government investigative report (ironic, given it is allegedly fabricated according to pro), which as a tape of the accounts given by 6 ATCs destroyed by a FAA manager to which the report found:

“We believe the audiotape in question appears to be consistent with written statements and other materials provided to FBI investigators and would not have added in any significant way to the information contained in what has already been provided to investigators and members of the 9/11 commission”

Note that this was destroyed several months after the interviews, and it tape-recording of ATC accident interviews is non-standard procedure, and was only agreed upon if the tape was to be a “temporary document”.[]

Moreover, the wreckage was investigated, however the survivor search & safety was priority in the time following the attack, the investigation did not formally start until several months after.[]

Pentagon Crash
This is not an argument for a government conspiracy, only mitigation of the official report. Moreover I don’t know where Pro is getting her information from, but whatever she asserts she needs to square with several inconvenient facts:

1.If “no real debris” was found, then I don’t know how the nose cone, nose landing gear,[] both flight data recorders, ID Cards,[], flight seats [ to mention pieces of the wing, and flight crew qualify.[]

2. “how exactly a 38 metre and 13,5 metres high passenger plane could only leave a hole that is 5 metres wide”

It didn’t.

It left 2 holes, one 23 meter hold in the external wall (Ring E), and the 4 meter hole in the internal wall (ring C). Planes do not punch cartoon-like holes into reinforced concrete buildings such as the pentagon, moreover the plane did not hit the pentagon level, it struck its wing into the ground first (which sheered off), thus came “side-on”, as attested to by dozens of eyewitnesses at the time. The smaller hole was a result of the landing gear, which was found at that location.

Regarding the camera situation, surely if a camera was conveniently pointed at the exact crash location, it would be evidence in favour of a conspiracy? Moreover the camera was on a time lapse (check the footage for yourself), where the plane was visible as a “white blur” for one frame before impact (not at all surprising given the mechanics of the crash.[]

Pro implies that he jets would have received deterrence, but provides no reason to believe this would have occurred, or even could have occurred. Questions do not constitute an argument.

False Terrorist Link
I have already addressed Obama’s confession of 9/11 in my opening round. Pro provides no source that denies that Obama was the person in the confession, so we can reject this until she does so. Moreover, Obama and Al Qaeda already had a history of terrorism as already described in my opening. Thus Pro’s argument for specific responsibility for 9/11 is a non-sequitir.

Pro’s argument for still-alive terrorists are a simply case of two people sharing the same name and hence mistaken identity. Pro has no argument here.[]

Zionist Connection
270-400 Jews were killed in 9/11, so I don’t know where Pro is getting her facts from.[] Further I have already implicitly addressed her arguments for motivations in my opening round. Regarding the lease on the WTC… so what? If you stare in the right places, you will find weird stuff. That doesn’t mean they are meaningful.

Debate Round No. 4


Thanks Con, now to the final round.

Building Collapse

The fact that three seperate buildings collapsed entirely does in fact show that there are a major flaws within the official 9/11 story. Once again, two planes entering two buildings does not answer how the structure failed as specaularly as it did. Moreover, it certainly doesn't explain how the Twin Towers began to collapse at the bottom instead of the top--which is exactly what would happen if it *was* in fact the planes that caused it.l If the Towers were to come down because of the two planes; it would have happened far sooner and there would have been initial signs. Whereas they all collapsed suddenly and at an extremely fast speed. Con has yet to oultine preciselty what the cause of this was and how it corresponds with the official version of events.

The WTC7 source that Con has provided doesb't actually highlight anything significant or show in any depth how alternative theories to the World Trade Center collapse are "wrong". The article has proposed to have the correct answer [and to successfully disprove other non-official stories] but has a notably limited amount of evidence and a number of flaws. For example, if Tower 7 was supposed to have been brought down due to fire/heat, why were not other towers within the exat same area? Additionally, why would it come down literally hours later? If the damage was that severe, it would be an entirely different story. And as previously highlighed, all three towers came dowm in a very unusual fashion. If it was genuine fire damage; they would have continued burning until all flames were eventually put out. They would not all suddentrly collapse [each] under 10 seconds. The only viable answer for this is a controlled demolition.

Con hasn't successfully negated to the design argument either, both the Twin Towers were made to withstand the kind of pressure they were *supposed* to have given into. There is no conceiable way that two planes could cause three buildings to essentially reduce to dust--especially on the basis of fire damage and heat. Once more it is *only* explosives that could bring all three World Trade Center buildings down so successfully.

Pentagon Crash

Regarding the Pentagon crash, my argument was that no visible debris found immediately. Normal plane crashes generally have debris found straight away and the impact of the plane crash is clear to see. But the Pentagon had a remarkably limited amount of evidence and there was no direct evidence at the exact scene; such as bodies [a basic form of evidence with passanger airline crashes], suitcases around the area [no photos disclose anything], other parts of the plane and just generally people's misp;aced belongings. These things are usually clear to see and in normal circumstances you do not have to rely on statements and other pieces of information released by the government to conclude it to be "true". A brief look at any of the photos of the Pentagon Crash, and you'll see that that any supposed evidence or indication of it being a passanger jet is barely there.

Moreover, Con has not fully responded to the argument on as to how a passanger jet could leave a small hole; again, something that photos and examples of the plane actually entering the building can clearly show. [1.]

Con has also failed to explain or provide any valid answers as to why there is such a limited amount of camera footage of the "attack". Seeing as such a high number of cameras were around the building [particularly in the area in the plane was said to have crashed], why was only one piece of camera footage shown? Again, if the attack was real--the evidence would be far more available. There is absolutely no footage that shows the plane flying into the building. Which, due to the higjh survelillance, there technically should be.

Con has also pretty much dropped the case of the Pentagon airspace being the most protrected in the world. As with all other aspects og 9/11, there is no valid reason why Pentagon airspace security would have suddenly failed on that particular day. Any passanger airliner would have been oberserved, and then dealt with accordingly. If an actual attack had have occurred, it certainly wouldn't have turned out the way it did or been successful.

As for the false terrorist link, I've already referred to the fact that people within the Osama "confession" videos are indeed not him. If they were, they'd naturaly all appear to be the same person with the same features. However all people within the videos have had noticably different features with visibly different ages. They are in no way Osama himself. I also included within round one that Osama formally denied the attacks and explicitly stated that he did not commit them. Why exactly would he change his mind and then decid that he did? Obviously this doesn't even remotely add up. The argument of the other 19 terrorists is alo far more expansive than Con claims it to be, over at least 6 of the accused terrorists were found to be alive in the Middle East and credible outlets such as the BBC have reported on this. This is considerably more than the case of some passports or two names of the terrorists accused by the FBI becoming mixed up. To reiterate, over 6 of them are alive.

The Zionist Link does in fact correspond properly, especially as the World Trace Center complex was owned by Zionsits who had huge amounts to gain financially from its destruction. As stated in my round one argument, the World Trade Center was no longer financially profitable and its owners [I.E Larry Silverstein] stood to receive billions in damages and insurance. The State of Israel of course had the long-term invested interest of the U.S invading Iraq.

To summarize my argument, I have demonstrated the flaws within the official version and shown that the evidence does not correspind with what the U.S goverment has stated. In fact, all information points to 9/11 being an Inside Job. Con has ultimately failed to negate this and prove that the official story is the correct one.



Thanks Pro. It seems Pro’s sources regarding the illuminati have been greatly exaggerated.

Defence of Positive Case

1.Identities of the Hijackers

I have demonstrated that at the very minimum, all hijackers were jihadi, Arabic, and suicide bombers. Pro has not contested this much (she has only asserted they were not Islamic Fundamentalists, with no evidence). It follows alone that these attacks were hence co-ordinated for religious purposes, which flat out refutes US involvement. These racial and religious demographics note are determinable from just the eyewitness testimony of those on the hijacked flights and from CCTV at the airports and analysis of left-behind luggage.

Furthermore, Pro does not contest the physical evidence that we have the identity of the hijackers (visual recognition, credit card histories, flight seat numbers, phone numbers, recovered passports and DNA analysis) with well standardised & public access comparisons for such analysis.

Pro’s dispute here are that the associated hijackers are not who the US claims them to be, but merely at best Pro has only demonstrated that there exist Arabic people with the same names as the named hijackers. That’s it. I just googled “Emily Rose” and found 120,000,000 hits – does that mean my opponent isn’t real?[] Moreover, attributing the hijackings to these people would make no sense even if it was a conspiracy because none of the “alive hijackers” have any Al Qaeda connections whatsoever. BBC itself as the perpetuator of the initial confusion has stated:

The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.”

Onto Pro’s individual examples, Wail al-Shehri, Abdulaziz al-Omari and Saeed al-Ghamdi all originated as listed with no photos, and only limited biographical details on Sept 14th, in which period said people came forward. The photo list was only released Sept 27th. Waleed Ahmed al-Shehri for example actually had a different name to the hijacker – “Waleed Mohammad al-Shehri”, from which confusion occurred due to name shortening. The rest of Pro’s alleged alive terrorists are more of the same, with dubious sources to back them up (e.g. Pro’s evidence for Mohammad Atta’s alive status was an article.. discussing a book... written by a known conspiracy theorist, with consequently no data integrity controls in place.[]

2.Connection to Al Qaeda

Pro never contests the connection of the hijackers I have established with Al Qaeda, which I have done via. a plethora of evidential means, including positively linking two of the hijacker’s Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar involvement at the Kuala Lumpur al-Qaeda Summit and other Al Qaeda activities. Note that the identities of these two was never disputed by Pro – thus their connection to Al Qaeda and involvement with the hijackings was dropped by Pro. Pro has only contested that the videos of Osama’s confession are falsified. The top left is a photo of Bin Laden from that clip, and the other three are well-accepted photos of Bin Laden, voters for themselves can decide if these photos are falsified. Note that the video was of poor quality and shot in only four frames per second, thus several of the moving images were blurry, leading to a misleading appearance in stills.[]

3. Means, motive & opportunity

Pro drops my whistleblower arguments, and Pro doesn’t contest my assessment of the MMO for Al Qaeda directed attack, Pro also conflates the “United States Government” with the people running it. It is the people running it that require the motive to co-ordinate such an act – and obviously committing the equivalent of near-genocide on your own people, at enormous obvious risk of self-exposure, for ends that do not directly benefit them (they may well benefit the US Government, but not necessarily the people who are making the decisions) that renders the motive for US Conspiracy virtually untenable.

There is no conceivable way that the U.S could not simply notice or have knowledge an attack as large as 9/11”

The US did notice, although the attack involved as already argued just 19 people and four aircraft out of thousands, the attacks from the time of first hijacking (8.19am) to impact with the Pentagon (9.37am) was just 78 minutes total maximum action time, with realistic action time much shorter – for flight 77 was hijacked no earlier than 8.50am, leaving a maximum of 47 minutes to react, and this is not even accounting for the time it took for ground control to realise that the flight had been hijacked, to reported to the air force, and then the air force scramble a jet to their location.

The fighters scrambled to intercept flight 11 for example would have been forced to kamikaze, since no armed aircraft were immediately ready in the area, and flight 77 was only tracked less than three minutes before it impacted the pentagon.[]

Regardless of who co-ordinated 9/11, each of the aircraft was hijacked by suicide pilots. The notion of a purely nationalistic motive for these pilots is patently absurd (no matter how much oil it would win the US), thus Pro’s case suffers serious problems of motive. Given the evidence these were clearly Islamic Jihadists, and then followed by the evidence of identification of these hijackers and their backgrounds – it follows that the conclusion of Al Qaeda involvement is infinitely more sound than a US Conspiracy. Pro has not contested this side of motives of the hijackers – which is a glaring hole in her arguments. Just what were the pilot’s motives IF it really was a US Conspiracy?

Counter Rebuttals
Building Collapse
“Once again, two planes entering two buildings does not answer how the structure failed as specaularly as it did.”

Of course it doesn’t. The fires, loss of structural integrity, loss of fireproofing, and the specific design of the buildings do.

“Moreover, it certainly doesn't explain how the Twin Towers began to collapse at the bottom instead of the top”

They didn’t (Pro provides no citation for this assertion either), the collapse initiated at the point of impact/fire floors as already evidenced and confirmed by technical experts. In fact readers can easily see this for themselves by watching the collapse of WTC 1. Watching the following linked video between 0.07-0.11 you can clearly see that at ~0.09 the collapse initiates at the impact floors, but even more dramatically, the collapse begins by the walls of the tower being pulled inwards, not blown outwards, which is a result of the trusses pulling the weakened support columns in as it collapsed.[]

Note that it isn’t my burden to show step-by-step how these towers collapsed, since it isn’t my contention that anything happened to the towers outside of the aircraft impacts. I don’t need to invoke additional explanations on top of the plane impacts.

Pro does not attempt to refute or dispute my arguments as to why WTC 7 collapsed, which by itself refutes Pro’s assertions that it mandates a demolition – and actually renders such an explanation absurd (demolition explosives in a place on fire – hello?!).

“For example, if Tower 7 was supposed to have been brought down due to fire/heat, why were not other towers within the exat [sic] same area?”

Other 50 story towers were on fire on multiple floors for 7 hour straight and were hit with a 20 story gash? Pro needs to demonstrate like-for-like here to make a case.

“why would it come down literally hours later?”

Why not? This isn’t an argument.

“The only viable answer for this is a controlled demolition.

This is called an argument from ignorance.[]

Pro ignores my argument that the very design of the twin towers made them uniquely vulnerable to such attacks (being a tube in a tube design), whereas an interlocking grid design almost certainly would not have collapsed, since loads are easily redistributed in such a design – the tube in a tube design was far less versatile. Made worse by its safeguards being overcome (such as the loss of fireproofing).

Pentagon Crash

Pro provides no sources to back up her statements, I had already provided photos and a plethora of eyewitness testimony of both the crash itself, as well as the recovery process. The wreckage (and bodies) was largely disintegrated and intermixed with the wreckage of the pentagon itself. That being said there are plenty of photographs during the recovery process (over the following three days) which affirm the official story.[]

Pro would need to find similar crashes and compare like-for-like on what happens to a plane. Please note that the plane slammed into a reinforced concrete building (it was a military building after all), the results are completely different to the relatively soft and weak aluminium of WTC 1 and 2.

Pro also ignores my “big plane small hole” rebuttals, planes aren’t solid tubes of metal which punch holes, they are hollow aluminium cylinders – they tend to disintegrate when they are slammed into concrete at hundreds of miles an hour (unlike anything her sources compare with). The idea of a cartoon like impression on the building is flat out delusional.

Furthermore, Pro has provided no evidence of the state of pentagon air security pre-9/11. Given this, she cannot draw the conclusion that the pentagon could never have been hit by a hijacked plane since she cannot analyse the response capability of such an attack on it was. Even her claim that “the Pentagon airspace being the most protrected in the world” cannot be assumed because she doesn’t have the facts to present on this. Intuition is not a substitute for evidence.

Zionist Link

Pro drops my refutation that tonnes of Jews died in 9/11. Therefore she is left with pure speculation that there was a Jewish motive. I think her case here has been sufficiently weakened that the rest can be dismissed here.

Debate Round No. 5
75 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
GG = "Good Game" or "Well Played"
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Emilrose not know the meaning.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
very GG
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
GG Pro.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
RFD part 5
Finally he points out his photography evidence along with his photos and the fact that Emily provided no true examples; and Emily's assertion falls against Envisage's evidence of Jews dying in 9/11.
I think that Emily was rushing a little bit. Her short round 4 wasn't even good against Envisage's round 3 [Emily just gives goals for Envisage to do while Envisage shows exactly what burdens he has to prove/proven]. Emily merely repeated her same points over and over again while not really challenging Envisage's arguments. Thus, I believe Envisage is the winner of this debate. Congrats Envisage.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
RFD part 4
Emily tries to stress on how the way the towers collapsed was unusual and strange, and also asks a few questions to bring doubt into his sources especially about tower number 7. She clings onto her 10 second argument, nearly completely ignoring Envisage's refutation within the previous round about how SHE HAS TO SHOW that the building's unusual fall was due to an inside job. As for the Pentagon crash, she showed that there was little evidence [just repeating what Envisage said about nothing being found], but also supporting her original "removal of evidence" argument, as well as repeating the fact of no footage being found. She also shows that the terrorists are suspicious, stating once again Osama's contradiction with himself. She finally says that the Zionist works because of its financial access and concludes that the US government contributed to 9/11.
Envisage Once again repeats his first round argument. He points out the racial divergence which is indeed a crucial point that Emily forgot to refute. He also points out that although Emily did say no visible debris of the plane was found, the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE still remained. He also discusses that Emily's sources aren't very trustworthy [especially about Mr. Atta's status written by a conspiracy theorist]. He once again calls back Al Qaeda, which was really not refuted by Emily. He even pointed out that Bin Laden's identity was accepted by all, even pro/emily, with the perhaps sole exception of Osama's confession. He also strikes at Emily's pointless repetition of "US Gov" doing 9/11 because his original question concerning WHY the US would commit genocide on its own people. He also used calculations to prove that the flight/hijacking could not really be stopped, and could not really be for the US. He also stated that Emily's analysis was incorrect because the walls collapse inwards rather than outwards, thus no dynamite.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
RFD part 3
Envisage penetrates Emily's argument by showing that even though Emily did SUGGEST and only SUGGEST that because the buildings fell down before they should have, 9/11 was an inside job--but Envisage points out that she needed further evidence. He shows that tower number 7 was in fact already on fire by WTC1; and collapsed even before the 2 WTC's. He also points out that WTC7 was never hit by a plane, making an inside job very suspicious. He also analyzed WTC's design, which was good at sustaining "Static" compared to "Dynamic" loads; thus unable to take on the plane, fire--especially prolonged fire. He used specific hitting points to direct the only possibility was that only piloting was possible, or explosives--but the latter would have "been blatantly obvious". He also showed that the "explosions" could have been different sounds than, well, explosions. He also points out that due to Nano-thermite's components, we should have found OTHEr products than Al-O; and also other facts that make the dynamite impossible [burn horizont., and all elements being in a dust analysis].
Finally he shows that the removal of evidence doesn't go anywhere because even the ATC tape seemed to be given to the FBI according to his person, as well as the investigation being delayed due to safety priority. He pointed out that Emily's assumption was false in that the plane actually caused TWO holes, and that her questions go nowhere. He even shows Emily's fallacy within "two people sharing the same name" as well as Jews being killed in 9/11. Envisage is attacking Emily's sources so viciously I'm almost tempted to give him source points, but we'll see.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
RFD part 2
So let's see...Emily nods her head at the fact that 19 Arab men hijacking the planes, but also points out the flaw the They would not be alive if they flew the planes into the towers. Then, she reiterates her point concerning the fact that the towers were STRONG. They did not collapse until "60 minute mark"--and not merely 10 seconds either--and the 28 missing pages from the report which gives huge suspicion to the US government. She then talks of how US is ABLE to concert the attack, again highlighting the evidence of the NANO-THERMITE. Interestingly enough, she also gives the new evidence of the bomb-sniffing dog and also the fact that the "arab terrorists" weren't very arab [no muslim for Mr. Atta?] She also questioned the motive again, showing that ISLAM HAD NO MOTIVE; and US was heavily-protected, making it incredibly difficult for the US to not have noticed such an attack. She then repeats again concerning the Boeing 757 incident of the tiny hole compared to the giant plane.
Posted by Emilrose 3 years ago
Thanks for still doing an RFD 9space.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
RFD part 1
This is 9sk, making this RFD to decide a winner and regain voting privileges.
So, the nearly unbeatable Emily starts off with the following arguments: The third building "simply coming down on its own" (with no outside interference), explosives found WITHIN the tower with the only explanation of people planting them on the inside, and the fact that the evidence was not found [it was removed], and finally the crash of the Pentagon itself, especially the suspicious evidence of merely one camera showing the plane that doesn't suggest anything. She also points out the the terrorist of Osama Bin Laden, although the main suspect, never confessed, and was never shown within the videos. A few men even survived and escaped out of the country. The last argument was the WTC "Zionist connection" with the fact that they pointed out O.B.L. as the culprit, noting the lack of evidence and the quickness. So Emily points out that the motives could have been coercing the US to overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

On the other hand, Envisage noted that he could not refute anything until much later; so he used the main suspect of Al Qaeda instead. He states that Al Qaeda fulfills the conspiracy much better than an "inside job", because it would not make any sense for a US belonging citizen to kill a huge population of his/her own people. So he then offers the evidence that the hijackers' names and location origin, that none of them were from the US. He then points out the Mr. Mohommed and Mr. Al-shibh CONFESSED, as well as countering Emily's claim by using a videotaped message showing Bin Laden's involvement. He also noted the origin and the "foreshadowing" of the hijacking, so to speak, because they were already known as Al Qaeda, and furthermore already had some attack plots and even bombed the USS Cole. Finally, he points out that the organized group could not possibly get 19 arabic people and that it would be illogical to hire these bombers we already know.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 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 Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave sources to Con because while he substantiated nearly everything he said with sources, much of what Pro said went unsourced, and Con listed the things Pro said that went unsourced. I gave arguments to Con because much of what Pro said seemed to be speculative to me. She said this or that wouldn't have happened, or we should expect this or that, but there was not enough substantiation in her posts to give us much confidence. She asked rhetorical questions but didn't explain why we should accept her implied answers. Some of the facts Pro cited turned out to be false, which Con demonstrated. The strongest argument in Con's favour, I thought, was the sheer implausibility of such a large scale conspiracy on the part of individual government members.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Like most 9/11 conspiracy theories, pro's side was built on only enough evidence only to raise questions about the official reports of what happened on that day, rather then substantiate that an actual conspiracy by another party had taken place. Con provided a tremendous amount of evidence showing how it was very plausible for all the attacked buildings to have been damaged/collapsed the way they did, and on top of that, con provided overwhelming evidence that Al-Qaeda were the ones responsible for the attacks, as evidenced by how they took credit for the attacks, and by how many of the people on the planes that day were linked to radical Islam, something that the Pro simply ignored and tried to lazily dismiss by claiming that such evidence had 'little credibility'. Arguments completely go to the con, all other points tied.
Vote Placed by Death23 3 years ago
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: test
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
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: test