CreateDebate


Debate Info

380
430
Obviously...Wake up, America! Wrong, I trust my government.
Debate Score:810
Arguments:204
Total Votes:1538
Ended:11/05/08
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Obviously...Wake up, America! (108)
 
 Wrong, I trust my government. (96)

Debate Creator

Szechuan(101) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

9/11 was an inside job.

Ding!

Obviously...Wake up, America!

Side Score: 380
VS.

Wrong, I trust my government.

Side Score: 430
Winning Side!
5 points

This falls into the category of "how many suspicious things must be revealed before the mounting questions tip the balance away from the official story?" By the official story I mean the explanation profferred by a government or other overarching body, and it always holds much more sway with the general public. But when presented with an "official story" about anything, I would encourage everyone to investigate the possible motives that the establishment would have for pushing this particular version of events.

In the case of 9-11, the official story serves so many purposes for the establishment that it starts to look very much like the event was a benefit to them and their associates. Just look at the Reichstag fire in 1933. It was blamed on communists and helped Nazi Germany consolidate power under Hitler. Once you start to accumulate enough advantages from a so called negative event, is it that much of a leap to actually think that the ones standing to gain were involved? Isn't it strange that the interests of radical Islam parallel the interests of the Bush administration so closely? Global unrest has allowed the Bush administration to impose so many of their policies, is it so hard to imagine him and his business partners pumping their fists in the corridor of the White House?

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
5 points

The Gov't lied to the US to get them into WWI, WWII, Vietnam as well as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. With Iraq/Afghanistan being the most recent, how did the US get its people to agree to such a thing? 9/11...that's how. For those who haven't seen the movie Zeitgeist, watch these clips to see how the gov't lied and put everything in place.

Zeitgiest (The 9/11 Myth) Clip1
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
4 points

It was an inside job for no other reason other than 20 floors of a building cannot destroy and pulverize 80 floors. Just think about that for one moment. If you turn the building on its side and smashed 20 floors against 80, which side would win?? Well i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but gravity ain't that strong...and you can't say it was a pancake collapse because that wouldn't take no 10 seconds as reported by the 9/11 omission report.

In Addition, imagine for a moment that halfway through the "collapse" you were to draw lines up the edges, you would see that 75% of the material is outside the building, so what was pushing on the remaining so much that it could destroy all the way down to the ground? I don't subscribe to anything but science. I don't let things like "the government could never do that" or "it would be impossible for them to keep it a secret". That has nothing to do with what we see. People (and especially politicians) LIE , Science doesn't!!

So please ask yourself, do I believe what a government of Men tells me, or do I believe what unbiased science tells me?? Think for yourself. How could investigating be bad?

Supporting Evidence: Look Mommy, that building is collapsing due to fire. (www.911review.com)
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
kkitching(3) Disputed
1 point

Your 'science' argument fails to factor in the difference between live and dead loads, and inertia.

20 floors may not be able to collapse 80, but they didn't need to. All they needed to collapse was the floor beneath them. Then those 21 floors, now with some inertia building up, smash the next one. And so on, and so on.

As for the drawing lines down the collapse, how can you determine how much debris was there with any accuracy, considering all the dust in the air?

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
1 point

I think the greatest scientific argument that can be made is that jet fuel cannot burn anywhere near the temperatures needed to compromise a steel structure of such integrity. That is why oxyacetylene and oxyacetylyne torches are used to weld steel. They burn at much higher temperatures. Furthermore, if we take the arguement that the steel lattice distorted before failing, one would witness some horizontal force twisting when, and during the building's decline, spreading the debris over a much larger area. To your proposition of inertia, this implies that there is momentum, however, if I recall correctly, the buildings actually stood for a few decades before hand, and for half an hour after the plane(s) hit, whence cometh the inertia?

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
0 points

KKitching's argument is pseudoscientific rubbish.

All three collapses progressed at very close to free fall speed. That means there was no gathering pile-driver and no smashing into floors- that would cause the block of floors above to slow well beneath free fall speed.

And it is VERY clear, visibly clear in the video of the collapse even DURING the collapse that almost the entire building is pulverised before it gets chance to impart energy on the building below it. The excessive dust covering a huge portion of mahattan island is NOT explained by gravitational collapse and fires. Something has to impart huge amounts of explosive energy in order to force the concrete apart in that manner.

I refer you to Macqueen's speech and video at 911blogger.com

The free fall speeds prove anticipatory removal of structural resistance BEFORE the building mass hits its. Any resistance left stops it being free fall.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Both chairs of the 9/11 commission have stated publicly that the Kean Commission was inadequate and even interfered with.

The evidence is legion. Scientist from across the spectrum are coming together on this and Dr. Stephen Jones has now proven that a derivative a thermite was found in debris and dust from the incident.

There are witnesses, and video evidence for secondary explosions and molten metal that were excluded from the report. Quite frankly we couldn't possible get to all the question and evidence that need to be brought forth. Obvious foreknowledge, dubious wargames, pentagon cameras, the shankville crash... we could go on and on. I'll end with an utterly useless fact : 90-100 million dollars spent to investigate Bill Clinton's blowjob --- 11-16 million used to investigate 9/11.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
2 points

Where to begin?

A lot of people I have spoken to have trouble getting past the sheer madness of it. They never get to examining the actual facts of that day because, how could our government do that to it's own people? And what would they have to gain?

Is government complicity in 9/11 a crazy notion? Yes.

But no crazier than some of the other crap they have cooked up. Case in point: Operation Northwoods.

Now declassified, the Northwoods documents detail a covert psychological operation intended to rally foreign and domestic support for military intervention against Cuba. (Starting to sound familiar yet?)

The operation included, among other things, this little gem: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba...casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Supporting Evidence: Operation Northwoods (www.whatreallyhappened.com)
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
charlesviper(72) Disputed
2 points

You mention Operation Northwoods. What has a declassified Cold War-era document, with no planned fatalities, have to do with a peacetime plan to evoke a war with casualties ranging from 2,000-30,000 at peak WTC hours?

Why is it so hard for people to see things the way they are now? A man with a $15 air rifle in a book depository or sixteen Saudis with box cutters can change the course of history? Everything is a conspiracy to give power to Israel or an international banking syndicate these days. If Bush wanted to go to Iraq, he wouldn't have fought Afghanistan in the first place. In fact, why even publicize the conflict? Why not just fight a covert war like the Contra scandal or funding the Mujahadeen?

If Bush wanted to go to war in the Middle East, it's not like he'd need a big precedent. This is the THIRD Persian Gulf War in less than two decades. I fail to see why this conflict would need a "false-flag" event that could only be completed by bribing or 'brainwashing' thousands of government employees who stand to gain NOTHING from this. Why would the members of the FAA or NSA want to see their friends in the Army go to Iraq and get killed? What's the point of this coverup?

You say this is "no crazier" than Operation Northwoods. That was a false-flag event that would see NO loss of life, and even that was rejected for being to far fetched. Why do you think it's a declassified report? Because the Government never put any amount of thought into it!

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
0 points

Right conclusion for the wrong reasons. A very bad place to begin.

9/11 was an inside job because the manner of the collapses forensically prove it to be so using only basic newtonian physics.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
geoff(738) Disputed
0 points

It doesn't prove it. There could be perfectly reasonable, scientific explanations why the buildings fell - I just don't think there's enough evidence either way to prove the causes beyond a doubt. I think considering the events without adequate evidence will bear no fruit. Instead, we should focus on the concrete facts and aspects which can be proven beyond a doubt. E.g. Why hasn't the Pentagon released the video showing the plane? Clearly, they have it. Why has the flight recorder data not been turned over to air crash investigators and scientists? Why was WTC7 collapse not mentioned in the official account when it's destruction was linked with the tower collapses? Why did Bush and Condoleeza's advisers instruct them to lie when they said they hadn't envisaged terrorists using planes to attack American civilian targets?

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
pvtNobody(642) Disputed
-4 points
2 points

was there a reason to invade Iraq? A reason to invade Afghanistan? A reason to go into Vietnam? I mean, real, valid, sensible reasons. No. Is there a reason to think that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Gov? Yes, since in all other decisions regarding national security and belligerent action the US government has acted irrationally, hence if attacking your own people seems irrational to more than 50% of the public, then it has more than 50% chance for it to have been a decision taken by the gov.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
2 points

If it wasn't done by us, we had something to do with it. (More than just our "freedom".)

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
2 points

We can start from a few uncontroversial facts:

- It was a conspiracy

- 3 steel framed buildings with all floors remaining collapsed

- America has many enemies

- The global competition for oil is ballooning

- The perceived anti-Western population of Muslims are concentrated in oil-rich regions of the Middle East

- The entire world's economy is based on oil for fuel and manufacturing

- Subterfuge, sacrifice and coercion are the historic staple strategies for successful empire building

- No photographs of flight 77 have been released by the government despite the Pentagon and surrounding buildings bristling with CCTV

- The collapse of WTC7 is not mentioned in the 9/11 commission's report

- Iraq/Saddam Hussein had nothing whatever to do with 9/11

- Civil liberties of Americans have been significantly curtailed

We must always ask cui bono? with any event within the sphere of human influence. It's simply in our nature to secure the watering hole, protect our family etc.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
2 points

The proof is just insurmountable. I really didn't want to believe it, but emotion gives way to logic, and I can't honestly see it as anything but an inside job.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
1 point

How it was (most probably) done:

1. Don't build the buildings properly in the first place (X-beams left out due to rushing).

2. Get some R/C planes.

3. While before, fill the buildings with thermite & igniters so when ignited in time they cause the structure to fall in on itself to minimize outside damage.

4. Drop the air-defenses for the time needed to do the job (eg: turn off SAMs and divert interceptors somewhere else).

5. Have a training exercise running at the same time, to confuse the lower echelons of the Air force.

5. Do the job.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
1 point

I'd just like someone to show me where to buy one of those planes with impervious steel & concrete-slicing wings, and a nose which can puncture an entire building and come out the other side in tact, and which disintegrates completely post-impact.

Supporting Evidence: Save the vowel, buy a clue. (video.google.com)
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
3 points

Office of Public Affairs

CGI Department

Central Intelligence Agency

Washington, D.C. 20505

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Here's some support for the conspiracy theory.

http://tinyurl.com/9kmqa

http://tinyurl.com/pyug2

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
0 points

The 9/11 commission omits the presence of molten steel from their official report. It took weeks for rescue workers to water-cool the glowing steel beneath the wreckage at ground zero. It was clearly and prominently visible in a thermal image taken by a USGS satellite on September 16--five days later.

In the video, one of the workers states that it has been almost 6 weeks after the attacks, and workers are still trying to cool down the steel.

The 9/11 commission and supporters of the official story don't try to make the claim that office fires produce molten steel. They just ignore it.

Molten Steel
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
borme(660) Disputed
4 points

How does the lack of molten steel in the commission report indicate that the government planned 9/11? This wasn't an ordinary "office fire" as you state in your argument. It's well documented that jets ran in to the Twin Towers with full tanks of jet fuel.

From the NIST website, "Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
grillo(35) Disputed
3 points

How can two towers, hit by two different planes, at two different impact altitudes and with different speed, with different fuel loads can create exactly the same type of damage to identical towers?

If you wish to refute the identical towers claim, then how can the two towers differ in such a way, that their physical differences compensate the differences stated above, and still cause the same type of damage?

Vertical collapse after a horizontal impact sounds almost cartoonish doesn't it?

Either the buildings were specifically designed to fall in such a way or it was arranged for it to fall like that.

Regarding the whole, molten steel, weakened steel effect theory, since when are steel columns all uniform? Steel uniformity is so hard to achieve, that the steel structures of transcontinental cruise liners and cargo ships have to be manufactured to very specific properties in order to withstand the rigors of seafaring. Steel used in building construction during the 60s could hardly be ascertained as uniform, especially if it came from different foundries.

So, again, how can so many differences in all the variables required for proper demolition be accounted for without the planned demolition theory?

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
Szechuan(101) Disputed
1 point

The lack of molten steel in the report indicates one thing: The working hypothesis is insufficient.

9/11 was a historic and tragic event. It has radically altered the political discourse and shaped America's foreign and domestic policy for the last 6-7 years. Don't you think our government should be interested in a full and complete investigation? We spent more on the Challenger disaster($3million vs $50million). Considering the investigation doesn't appear to be complete, it seems reasonable to invest another $47million or so, what do you say?

I agree with NIST's first proposition. I even agree with some of the claims in their 2nd proposition, but it goes too far.

See the link below for a plausible look at the actual energy unleashed by the burning jet-fuel.

Even if you believe NIST's claim that a massively compromised support structure on a handful of floors could cause a global collapse, how could it have created the molten steel furnaces that burned for weeks beneath the rubble at Ground Zero?

That's why molten steel is important. It proves that the 9/11 commission's hypothesis is not sufficient to explain all the data. If you can explain the molten steel with the 9/11 commission's facts, I'm ready to hear the alternative viewpoint. So far, the best your side can come up with is, Oh, molten steel is irrelevant.

Supporting Evidence: How hot? (911research.wtc7.net)
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
rocknwow(77) Disputed Banned
-4 points
grillo(35) Disputed
7 points

The thing about the CIA brainstorming:

If they came up with that idea, means that it some cases it's a valid idea, and it means that in some cases it has been the accepted procedure.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
-4 points
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
0 points

Burning jet fuel doesn't generate intense heat. Its flame point isn't even close to that required to melt steel, and melted steel IS required for the free fall collapse of the THREE towers:- anything less means that plastically deforming steel retains some resistance to the collapse, making free fall impossible.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
0 points

Since many of you are familiar with the NIST report and freely refer to it, consider this editorial written by Kevin Ryan.

Mr. Ryan worked at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) -- the company that tested (and disproved) the pancake theory. The progressive collapse theory, which NIST fabricated later, was based on a distortion of data provided by UL.

Although he had recently been promoted, when Kevin Ryan asked too many uncomfortable questions, he was fired.

Supporting Evidence: UL and NIST: Kevin Ryan's story (www.911review.com)
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
0 points

WTC 7 has always been the big problem for me. WTCs 4, 5, and 6 all sustained heavy damage due to falling debris from WTC 1 and 2, however those structures are still standing. WTC7 showed minimal damage with a couple of small fires and fell into its own footprint.

The other thing that bothers me, is why was the debris from the towers so quickly carted off and recycled? If a plane crashes, they will hold on to the debris for quite some time in order to piece out what caused the crash, but not so for the towers.

Side: Government Inside Job
-1 points

This is probably the most wanted to know question in the world. Until "PROOF" comes about its speculation...and in the USA speculation has no grounds but i think we all know someone had a hand in it... even with out proof im saying yah.

NEXT!

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
0 points

proof is already present.:ae911truth.org

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
randomguy(46) Disputed
1 point

here is some "proof" that counters many of the non-free fall conspiracy theories.

Supporting Evidence: Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories - Free fall (www.debunking911.com)
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
-1 points

come on didn't you see all the stuff that happened. the twin towers couldn't have just fallen because of two planes i mean the structure of the buliding could have handled that damage without the collapse and the way it collapsed was also suspicious i mean a building doesn't just fall like a pancake it just doesn't happen like that and why did building 7 fall there was nothing to make it fall no planes. nothing . it had to be set up. and the government had many warning yet they did nothing. yet when you think of england and how they had the bombs as well and how they survived and didn't many deaths compared to America of course it would have had to be an inside job. there were people trying to cover something up that is why building 7 collapsed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
frenchieak(1131) Disputed
1 point

Even if the structures of the towers may not have failed due to the impact of the aircraft, they were both transcontinental flights. That means that even with the takeoff and travel to New York City, they still would have had a nearly full load of jet fuel. The fire caused by the fuel could have weakened the structure of the building to the point that the structure could not hold up the several floors above the point of impact.

As for Tower 7, there was structural damage caused by the collapse of the towers and fires burned on the inside. Inadequate fire suppresion systems caused the fires to burn out of control, weakening the structure of the building. If almost ANY building were allowed to burn uncontrolled, the frame would eventually weaken to the point of giving way, and in this case, it brought down the building.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
-1 points

I agree with this arguer, even though he doesn't provide any evidence. It IS obviously an inside job, but many Americans want to cling to their notion that the US government actually cares for them, so you have to proovide forensic proofs. Even then some still deny it.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
3 points

*she =)

Check people's profiles before using gender-specific pronouns. :P

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
-2 points
-3 points
rbouchoux(31) Disputed
4 points

This is a video of 5 story concrete building. In no way do I see how this is relevant to a 110 glass and steel building.

Find the society of structural engineer's, or of civil engineer's or even of architects who support the notion that it was a planned demolition.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
3 points

What this video tells me is that you have to blow every floor in order to get a building to collapse onto itself. I don't see an explosion on every floor of the towers. This means that something other than explosives caused the towers to collapse. Could it have been the intense heat of the plane's burning fuel? We have to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
rocknwow(77) Disputed Banned
-3 points
Szechuan(101) Disputed
0 points

Rocknwow.

You have criticized me elsewhere for speculating both too much and not enough. In fact, you do such a good job of contradicting yourself, I need only step aside.

However, you did raise one or two "points" I wanted to address:

"Why bother to cover up the thermal devices within??? If [discovered, it would] confirm how brilliantly conceived the terrorist plot truly was."

and

"Is it possible the 'molten steel' wasn't mentioned because who cares? What difference does it make?"

Molten steel, first. See the link below for a plausible look at the actual energy unleashed by the burning jet-fuel. It was insufficient to compromise the structural integrity of the steel columns on the floors in question.

How then, did it result in the molten steel furnaces that burned for weeks beneath the rubble at Ground Zero?

There is a brief video documenting the molten steel elsewhere on this page. In it, one of the rescue workers estimates the temperature of the steel as "about 1500 degrees" (note: this was filmed six weeks after the attack). As the temperature of steel increases, it shifts in color. The color range of steel from dull red to bright orange equates to 1200 degrees F to 1600 degrees F. I would say the rescue worker is pretty close with his estimate.

And you ask "who cares?" A jet-fuel fire + office fire could not have produced the necessary energy to heat that steel, and maintain that heat for weeks after the incident.

In this light, it certainly appears that secondary devices may have been used. To rebut your former question, why not blame those devices on the terrorists, I would suggest that it is much harder to explain away how the terrorists would have bypassed WTC security to plant those devices.

From http://www.iwilltryit.com/marvin.htm

" Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

Supporting Evidence: How hot? (911research.wtc7.net)
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
-4 points
13 points

The way this debate was constructed creates a false dichotomy. Just because one thinks that 9/11 was not an inside job does not mean one trusts the government.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
defproc(6) Disputed
6 points

I think it's only meant to imply that you "trust the government" not to have a hand in 9/11. Sadly, when I look at history, I don't.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
0 points

Im a truther. The government did 911, as demonstrated by the extensive evidence cited in my rebuttals found below.

That does not stop me from agreeing with this sadly deluded and superficial individual that the debate options present a false dichotomy.

So I gave him a point for effort and endorse his argument. But it isn't an argument against an inside job, just an argument against silly debate premises.

For the proof the government did 911, I suggest

ae911truth.org

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15793

as good starting points.

Specifically, the best proof lies in the fact that a third building, WTC7, damaged largely on the south side, but hardly at all on its north side, fell verticaly at free fall speed, meaning the entire resistance of its steel structure was eliminated synchronistically by preplanted explosives.

The free fall WTC collapses have never happened at any point in history to steel framed buildings without the use of preplanted explosives or steel cutting charges.

The links above provide ample evidence of molten steel far too hot to have been melted by anything other than preplanted charges.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
11 points

This is a pointless debate. Conspiracy theorists are going to cite regurgitated information from conspiracy theory websites, non-conspiracy theorists are going to cite sources from government and popular mechanics magazines. Each side will discredit the other side's sources.

We've got sources like the Northwoods Documents, which was a plan that was never carried out. There are thousands of documents in our government that play out different scenarios, most of which will never be used. We've got the popular mechanics article, which I think does an excellent job at debunking the myths. But what it really comes down to is your beliefs. There are a lot of impressionable people on both side of the debate that believe what others tell them.

Its my opinion was that it was carried out by terrorists. The buildings collapsed because planes crashed into them. That is a lot easier to believe than the government can keep a secret, especially one so big that would have to involve hundreds of people to carry out. I say no, even if they wanted to our government is to incompetent to pull that feat off.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
1 point

Here's a 3D animation created by Purdue University scientists that show the effects of a plane plowing into the towers.

First scientifically accurate visualization of 9/11
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
0 points

"We've got the popular mechanics article, which I think does an excellent job at debunking the myths."

Only to the superficial observer.

The popular mechanics article implies that standard office materials created the heat necessary to melt the steel core of the towers, which is utterly impossible because of the amount of steel involved, its conductivity and the low flame temperature of almost every office furnishing mentioned. Even they admit that only "pockets" reached the temperatures they claim, and doesnt address the video and eyewitness evidence of streams and pools of molten metal.

The popular mechanics article ALSO fails to address the free fall speeds of the collapses, which means that the entire steel frame had to lose ALL of its resistance, not just part.

Thirdly, the popular mechanics article fails to address thje vertical nature of the WTC7 collapse, a building that was overwhelmingly damages on the SOUTH side, and reinforced to withstand earthquakes to provide support for the emergency command bunker.

There are several other points from ae911truth.org that popular mechanics doesn't address, or pretends to address, but those who stand behind the popular mechanics article are not serious critical thinkers.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
3 points

By molten steal are you referring to those trusses and beams that had diagonal cuts and were allegedly proof of theremite? If so, firemen and other workers have tools that enable them to cut through hard metals including steal, which is why it's cut diagonally (theremite can only burn holes at best) and so low to the ground.

As for WTC7 and why it lands in its foot print: WTC7 had extensive fire damage and therefore its entire structural integrity was compromised. The south side, it's true, had the bulk of the damage mainly from falling debris, once it failed (which rescue workers were well aware it was going to do 20 minutes ahead of time: hence the "we pulled" and the 20 minute prescient news report) it, like the towers, fell into its foot print through a domino effect succession. In truth, though the south side was badly damaged, fire raged for a long time through practically the whole building. This is predicated not only on video evidence and professional testimony, but also several computer models done by NIST and independent enterprises, including the discovery channels "Conspiracy Files" show.

Ockham's Razor does the rest.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
6 points

To specify, I'm Canadian and this isn't my government. I dislike the US' current government, and I think it has used 9/11 as an excuse to start a phony war.

This said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I see none that shows 9/11 was an inside job. It sounds like another conspiracy theory to me, like the fake moon landing or the bigfoot.

Moreover, the one reason I see to stage such an attack would be to earn the support needed to strike back at someone, like those mentioning Northwoods say. But if that's what really happened, why frame Afghanistan? I would think they would've directly framed Iraq...

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
Loudacris(912) Disputed
2 points

Its hard to cite the specific motivation but watch this video, it contains some hard evidence. BTW, here is a related debate.

9/11 Conspriacy: A Controlled Demolition Destory the WTC
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
2 points

Follow the link I provided to a timeline that shows how afghanistan played into all this.

Supporting Evidence: A timeline of Oil and Violence. (www.ringnebula.com)
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
Szechuan(101) Disputed
0 points

If the government were involved, speculating on its motivations is fruitless. We don't have the classified 9/11 Psy Op document (if there is such a thing)... and look how crazy that Northwoods document sounds. I'm looking at it, and it's still hard to believe!

The questions of this debate are merely:

1. are there elements in the Bush administration crazy enough, stupid enough, and lacking in conscience and decency enough, to terrorize and murder it's own citizens in the pursuit of a political agenda, and

2. is there credible evidence that the government covered up their own involvement?

That being said, I can't resist pointing out the following:

We didn't frame Afghanistan, we pinned it on "the terrorists," specifically, Al-Quaeda. For a corrupt and sinister government, this is actually a better scapegoat because it gives us the right (so says Bush) to attack any country (including say, Iran) as long as we label them terrorists first. In addition, the CIA could have found no better accomplice than Al-Quaeda, since the CIA created and trained them to begin with, and they are fanatical muslims to boot.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
rocknwow(77) Disputed Banned
2 points

This is just too easy.

If the government were involved, speculating on its motivations is fruitless.

What? That's exactly how a lot of crimes are solved. Who stands the most to gain? Who has gained?

Example:

Did you know that Larry Silverstein...collected something like 14 Billion in insurance claims?

This may be valid or may be a coincidence but, if true, is a good place to start. Then take some time and build your case but to speculate does nothing but let guys like me have an easy time pointing out all you're doing is speculating without evidence.

1. are there elements in the Bush administration crazy enough, stupid enough, and lacking in conscience and decency enough, to terrorize and murder it's own citizens in the pursuit of a political agenda, and

Yes. Mystery solved.

is there credible evidence that the government covered up their own involvement?

No. Another mystery solved.

and look how crazy that Northwoods document sounds. I'm looking at it, and it's still hard to believe!

What is so hard to believe? You don't solve many problems do you? Some times it helps the creative process to contemplate the ridiculous. Sometimes it hurts to contemplate the ridiculous because you can get sidetracked. The point is that it's a process.

Now if you told me the ship was at the bottom of the Bay...well that would be hard to believe.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
5 points

I favour occams razor - "When multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities" i.e. "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

The people who believe it's a conspiracy have created an enormous 'tower' of evidence, with each wild hypothesis based on yet another wild hypothesis. It's an enormously convoluted mess. For example I find it extremely unlikely, nigh on impossible, that such a plan could be executed with the utmost secrecy, with everyone agreeing after the fact, and I repeat, AFTER the fact, to keep quiet. So everyone is given as minimal role as possible, yet don't you think that people would realise the part they had played once they saw TV that day? Everyone involved in this 'demolition' and many other planning aspects would suddenly realise what they helped plan for.

I could go on, this is just one example of how such a large and convoluted plan would never remain secret, were it even to get off the ground in the first place.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
Szechuan(101) Disputed
0 points

Key phrase being "equal in other respects."

According to our President, the terrorists attack us because "they hate our freedom." Accepting this argument is much simpler than getting off your ass and learning the history that the U.S. has in that region. I guess that's why a lot of Americans (probably the same ones that are satisfied with the 9/11 commission report) actually believe that nonsense.

There should have been a proper investigation. Occam's Razor doesn't mean that complicated situations don't exist.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
andrewlinn(18) Disputed
1 point

Right. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I agree that saying 'the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom' is wrong. America was attacked because it has never been a popular country in the middle east. The fact is, there was a motivation there, so while saying 'they hate our freedom' is wrong, it doesn't change anything.

Of course complicated situations do exist. Occam's razor is a guide on how to examine two situations which both have varying explanations.

I don't understand what you mean by 'Key phrase being "equal in other respects."'

Why should there be another investigation? Your unanswered questions mainly relate to happenings which are unprecedented, ie. molten steel inside the building. You seem to be forgetting that the entire act was unprecedented. 'No building has ever collapsed in this way' people say, yet the fact is no building has ever been crashed into by a fully laden jet airliner of such a size. Videos are used to compare the collapse of the towers to the collapse of a controlled demolition. 'Look!' People say 'they're the same! and they shouldn't be the same! they should be entirely different collapses! there ought to be no similarities at all!' But hold on for a second. Since no building has ever been crashed into by a jet airliner before, exactly how should we know what the collapse should have looked like? We have nothing to compare this to. Just because the collapse has some elements of a structural collapse caused by controlled explosives does not mean that the collapse was caused by controlled explosives.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
4 points

I don't trust my government, but come on, think of what it would take to do it and how many people would have to be involved. And if you have a lot of people involved, then you will eventually have someone "tell" all. No one can keep a secret now -a-days, forget it, it just couldn't be pulled off. Some of you are watching way too much TV and stupid plot movies... No one could pull this off.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
heelspider(109) Disputed
2 points

"No one could pull this off." Don't you mean, no one other than the conspiracy the government tells us pulled it off??

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
Szechuan(101) Disputed
-2 points
rbouchoux(31) Disputed
4 points

There's a layer of grunt work which would be unambiguously implicated in 9/11. Setting and wiring explosives isn't something just anyone can do -- it requires a fair number of people (to do it on that scale) with at least some experience of blowing up buildings and I'd imagine that those people would be acutely aware that they were setting charges in the Twin Towers.

The list of people involved would be hundreds long and the government's senior officials haven't the technical knowledge necessary to coordinate them. What's more, any significant deviation from the chain of command would be noticed.

Consider the logistics chain from procurement to placement. Think of the number of people needed for each of them to be relatively unaware of the implications of their role. There's noway that many people could have their actions coordinated without serious management. The senior officials wouldn't know who to contact to assign qualified people to fill the necessary roles; they wouldn't even know all the necessary roles that required filling.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
3 points

What is the motive for that? I think any person who believes the government would kill thousands of people for no apparent reason is and ignorant conspiracy theorist.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
3 points

Official Account: With the intention of influencing American Foreign Policy in the Middle East with an act of terrorism, 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four commercial airliners crashing two into each tower of the World Trade Center, which subsequently collapsed due to the damaged sustained from the impact, one into the Pentagon, and the final crashing in a field in Pennsylvania killing 3,000 American civilians. WTC building 7 also collapsed due to a structural damage caused by a large portion of the falling North twin tower striking it during its own collapse.

Conspiracy Account: In an effort to cause fear in the American public in order to justify going to war in the Middle East to get access to oil and pass laws which strip civil liberties away, the government of the United States coordinated a staged terrorist attack on its own people. Four commercial airliners loaded with passengers were diverted of their planned flight and landed in a secret location where the passengers were either killed or imprisoned indefinitely, then the planes were destroyed. Then two unidentifiable windowless, and presumably radio controlled, government planes were crashed into each tower of the WTC and subsequently detonated there explosive payload. Meanwhile two ballistic missiles were launched into both the Pentagon and a random field in Pennsylvania to appear as though the last two planes crashed into them. After the initial impact of the military drones into the WTC at 56 and 102 minutes previously planted demolition explosives, including thermite, were set off to ensure the buildings collapsed within there own footprint and at free fall speeds. Additionally, WTC building 7 was also destroyed by explosives, also secretly installed at an earlier time, to ensure it also fell within its own footprint.

Which of these two scenarios seems most reasonable, obviously the official account is. The only somewhat rational argument for the governments involvement in 9/11 is that they intentionally ignored intelligence warning of the subsequent attacks. This is of course also highly unlikely for if that were the case, those involved are doing a horrible job keeping incriminating evidence a secret. It is already common knowledge that many key reports and forecasts of forthcoming terrorist attacks were not headed by those in the government. This is simply proof of the ignorance of those responsible for our safety not of their guilt in a treasonous conspiracy to forward their own agenda.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
0 points

Includes a whole lot of straw men about 911 truth. Most truthers dont claim to know about most of how 911 was pulled off. But we DO know the buildings were pulled with preplanted explosives. As a I make very clear in my arguments throughout this debate.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
Szechuan(101) Disputed
-2 points
1 point

Your point makes the fallacy of hindsight is 20/20. We know now that the memo on Osama Bin-Laden was one that was very valid, but that is hard to discern in the heat of the moment while the president has literally dozens of similar memos put on his table every day.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

first of all, I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

second of all, I believe terrorist were responsible for 9/11.

third of all, I don't entirely trust any government.

fourth of all, I believe that there are evil people on this world.

fifth of all, I believe that there are people bent on destroying America.

On the other hand, I have five more fingers.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
3 points

I almost hate to write a comment on an argument that is so infiltrated with paranoid schizophrenics. Conspiracy theorists persist in magical thinking rather than accepting the obvious. I don't trust my govt. but I also know they are incapable of producing a conspiracy that cannot be easily uncovered. I can hardly believe that this is an actual debate. I'm so disgusted I don't even want to argue this silly postulate.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
2 points

I think all people who are opposed should watch a good show about it. Their theorys about what happened are wrong, engineers have figured it out.

And on a side note I am not american, and I don't think anybody could completely trust their government especialy the americans.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
2 points

I do not like the choices I was given, I do not think it was an inside job, but I don't really trust the current government much.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
2 points

I say that is wasn't an inside job, not necessarily because I trust my government, but because I think that George W. Bush is too much of an idiot to pull off something that complex and not get noticed by his peers. I mean, just look at how Bush reacted when it happened, he panicked! He wasn't sure what to do, so instead he let congress and the house of representatives decide we should go to war! So with that, I restate that I don't think it was an inside job because Bush is not smart enough to pull it off.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
1 point

Here's an article from Popular Mechanics debunking many of the common 9/11 conspiracy theories.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
heelspider(109) Disputed
3 points

Yeah, well now link me the Popular Mechanics article addressing the STRAW MAN!

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
Szechuan(101) Disputed
0 points

Popular Mechanics, of course, did their best to remain unbiased and objective in their investigation.

A quote from prison planet web site:

"It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.

The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?"

Supporting Evidence: rebuttal to popular mechanics (www.serendipity.li)
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
randomguy(46) Disputed
6 points

The main crux of your argument is that because someone may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks then that person must have conducted and/or supported the attacks at the very least. From the US government planning and executing the attacks, to Larry Silverstein fraudently insuring the trade centers against terrorism, to Popular Mechanics and the 9/11 Commission conducting widespread cover ups, your list of accomplises continues to grow to unbelievable lengths. Isn't it far more likely that a known anti-american terrorist group, that had previously attacked numerous US embassies, boats, etc. abroad, finally managed to succeed in an attack on US soil?

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
0 points

From the top of page 2: "The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home."

To those who reject the official story: how do you account for this evidence?

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
0 points

Page 5 attempts to explain the collapse of WTC7 with a 6 paragraph, arm-waving attempt to argue that the perfect, vertical, free fall collapse of WTC7 was not explosives for Americans too afraid to accept it. NIST has subsequently admitted it can't explain WTC7, and this is PM's DESPICABLE attempt to help the government escape blame.

There was NO DIAGONAL collapse. Watch the videos of this collapse. This collapse was vertical.

None of the assertions about "unusual design", fires, or debris damage can explain the free fall, vertical nature of the collapse. Steel, when exceeding its "load-bearing capability" due to heat does NOT instantly lose all of its strength, but DEFORMS PLASTICALLY, Maintaining resistance to collapse.

WTC7 contained an emergency command bunker, reinforced and designed to withstand earthquakes, among other disasters. If there was any "unusual design", it was a STRONGER design with ADDITIONAL REDUNDANCY to achieve this.

As any chemist knows, even an ENERGY PRODUCING CHAIN REACTION requires an ACTIVATION ENERGY, WHICH WOULD NECESSARILY REDUCE THE SPEED OF THE COLLAPSE WELL BELOW FREE FALL SPEED WHERE THE ACTIVATION ENERGY WAS THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO OVERCOME THE RESISTANCE OF A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO RESIST THE LOAD.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
0 points

Page 4 provides a mere seven paragraphs of despicable lies dealing with core claims to help government terrorists get away with murder.

The first three paragraphs insults alert people and confuses dimwits by asserting that lobby damage was as a result of burning jet fuel falling hundreds of metres down the lift shaft, when the vast majority of it visibly burned up on impact in a large fireball and other eyewitnesses (William Rodriguez and others) have testified to hearing and feeling bombs in the basement IN ADVANCE of the plane impacts.

Then the releveant section follows up with deception by omission- A collapse itself doesn't require melted steel but the SPEED of collapse DOES:- "However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength"

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
-1 points

This supposedly authoritative article spends less than 15 paragraphs on the controlled demolition hypothesis. I have demonstrated why they are false in my Stumbleupon review of it.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
0 points

Add a link to your StumbleUpon profile so people can check it out!

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
1 point

The fact that the 9/11 truthers are winning this argument is every indication of why this site will fail. God dammit, it had so much potential too!

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
Szechuan(101) Disputed
2 points

A debate site is doomed because it permits free and open discussion?

Maybe our side of the debate has more support because we've submitted more convincing evidence.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
3 points

Here, here! We should consider all the evidence in an open, honest and transparent way.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
1 point

Answer me this: How did the government arrange for Building 7 to have extensive exterior damage occur that would be a precursor to the controlled demolition?

Were explosives placed within all of the surrounding buildings and since building 7 was hit the hardest, only that one was imploded? What if building 5, 4, or 3 had been hit with debris but building 7 spared? Would the government still have imploded building 7?

Or was the exterior damage of building 7 also a controlled operation? Was the exterior damage to building 7 planned? If so, by what means was it carried out?

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
0 points

They didn't. There was trivial external damage only, and almost all of that was on the south face.

External damage is NOT a precursor of controlled demolition. Controlled demolition usually occurs EXCLUSIVELY through INTERNAL DESTRUCTION OF THE CORE STRUCTURE.

building 7 was NOT hit hardest. Buildings 3 4 and 5 ALL took more damage than 7, as you'd expect them to, being closer to the collapsing towers than WTC7 was.

The poster of this question knows so little about 911 and makes so many errors, I dont consider his question credible.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
1 point

People who say 9/11 was an inside job do not understand the reality of Jihad.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
1 point

Wrong. (Minus the I trust my government) I trust my own rational thought and impartial observers. It's the same logic I apply to the Kennedy assassination and the moon landing.

As an aside, what was the last really big secret that our government kept?

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
2 points

I guess you don't keep up with history. Ever heard of Iran Contra? How about how nearly every war we've been in since the 60's has usually be precluded by a lie: Gulf of Tonkin, WMD, Babies being killed by Iraqi's, Do I really need to go on?? and that's just the lies to get us into wars... and you ask such a vapid question. Every new experimental aircraft was a secret at one point. The stealth bomber was thought to be a freakin UFO before they showed it to the public. The freedom of information act has allowed us a huge insight into out government except for people who want to remain ignorant I suppose.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
Szechuan(101) Disputed
0 points

Oh, I don't know. Operation Northwoods is pretty good. (It's near the top, in the left hand column. Enjoy).

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
1 point

Conspiracy? Puh-leeze. My dad was in the Pentagon for years, and while I waited for him to get off work, I'd sit in the lobby and watch CNN...

With all the other military types in there. Spy satellites? Hollywood thermal imaging? I can't remember how many times these general big wigs would stop and watch CNN, trying to get their news too. I don't trust my government, I trust that my government can't find it's way to Bin Laden's ass if he was camping on the White House lawn.

I trust that my government is filled with dumb meatbags who want to go home after their 9 hours and watch sports and porn, just like you. Just because they have power doesn't make them any more competent then your conspiracy addled mind.

9/11 an inside job? Not even, you'd have to believe that your fellow man is vastly more intelligent, then your common man displays. And then you'd have hope, because that would mean your fellow man has a plan to take care of your retarded ass while you suck on the teat of American Idol, World of Warcraft, conspiracy theory and fast food.

Conspiracy theory is for weak people who need faith. You've simply replaced God with Government.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Governments don't normally conspire to blow up their own buildings and kill their own people in order to have an excuse to attack a third world country that has no economic or strategic benefit (like Afghanistan).

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
2 points

Ever heard of the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline? I didn't think so.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
1 point
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
0 points

Well, I may not trust my government completely, but I have experience with the Intelligence industry and it was far more a result of nitwits and opportunists than insiders.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
0 points

Then explain the molten metal and the free fall collapses.

Also, where is the steel so we can check how the buildings came down?

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
Tamisan(890) Disputed
2 points

The "weapon" was a large airplane containing enough fuel to cross the ocean. The ignition of such a large amount of fuel produce a number of cataclysmic results including liquification of metals (and other materials). In addition, pressure generates heat. As the building collapsed, it caused massive momentary increases in pressure setting of further explosions, detonating other items which added to the heat.

You must remember that the mastermind is an engineer. Like Hitler, he's as insane and evil as he is brilliant. You may as well ask how Einstein or Beethoven achieved their great deeds. Genius is as genius does.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
0 points

You really think the government would kill that many of their own people for a few dollars?

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Ok, are we done with this? Looks like the "No's" have it.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
0 points

No. No-one has responded to my challenge to explain the vertical free fall nature of the WTC7 collapse yet.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

I guess the "not an inside job" have it.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
0 points

i agree that the 911 inside job "theory" or better put "argument" (as a lot of people do believe it) is just simply too big. waaay too big. im not saying that information wasnt distorted or that there wasnt ANY form of a cover up but come on...two of the largest buildings ever built being brought down by the government is just insane. insane for anyone to ever imagine.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
geoff(738) Disputed
0 points

Most people thought the earth was flat once - they were all dead wrong.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
-2 points
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
-2 points
-1 points

Ok, it looks like people who don't believe in conspiracies won this one.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
0 points

Wrong. its too close to call. The strength of argument on the inside job side is stronger. The number of people on the 19 Arabs did it side is marginally stronger.

This is explained solely by the fact that big media has a pipeline into 99% of US and UK homes.

The evidence supports inside job conclusion.

And even if it didnt, the people on the 19 Arabs side STILL beleive in a conspiracy - by 19 Arabs.

So wrong its unbelieveable.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
-2 points
-4 points

Ok, I've seen the video where they blow the bottom floor of a building and it doesn't collapse into itself (I'll call this building number one). The floors near the top of the towers blow up and the whole thing collapses. Why did the towers not behave the same as building number one? If you're going to use the video of building number one as evidence then the conclusion would be that you would have to blow every floor in order to get the towers to collapse onto itself. However, there are no explosions on the subsequent floors.

The premise that this was an inside job doesn't make sense. Assuming that that it is an inside job, why not just blow every floor of the tower and have some terrorist group claim responsibility. They have tried to blow it up before. It would have killed a little less people but it would have had the same effect and it would have been easier to pull of logistically. I mean, the hardest part is to get the explosives in place. Once in place, why have a plane crash into it and then set of the explosives? Just blow it up. A plane just adds to the complexity of an inside job and added complexity increases the likelihood of failure. Why risk it. Imagine how bad it would have been (for the insiders) if the plane crashes into it, then they set of the explosives and the explosives in the middle malfunction and don't go off. If you were an insider trying to blame the terrorist and cover your tracks, would you take this chance? Would you risk proof that the plane had nothing to do with the explosions near the lower floors? Or would you just say, "The terrorist infiltrated our security, planted the bombs and blew the whole thing up." Same dramatic effect (the towers collapsing) same results (people pissed off at terrorist) and no risk of a plane hitting the top and the middle explosives not going off and the bottom explosives do go off.

Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
-1 points

Where is your evidence that there was anyone in the planes, please?

There are no videos of the hijackers boarding. The ones you have seen are from other locations and times.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
2 points

So the grieving widows shown on T.V. are fake? I can't even get one friend to keep a secret. If I tell anyone, it is leaked. And you think that we can get a group of people to collaborate on a lie? I mean, we might as well say that the Holocaust never happened because we never saw the atrocities being committed right in front of our eyes and that what ever evidence exist was fabricated by a group of people conspiring against us.

Side: Wrong, I trust my government.
-4 points