THBT 9/11 Was NOT an Inside Job
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Pro will prove that 9/11 did not occur due to controlled demolitions and that the US government did not plan to destroy the twin towers/ WTC.
Con must prove that 9/11 was more likely than not an Inside Job (some government agency directly planned to destroy twin towers/WTC)
9/11: The September 11 attacks, often referred to as 9/11,[a] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Wahhabi[3] terrorist group Al-Qaeda[4][5][6] against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks resulted in 2,977 fatalities, over 25,000 injuries, and substantial long-term health consequences, in addition to at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage.[7][8] It is the deadliest terrorist attack in human history and the single deadliest incident for firefighters and law enforcement officers in the history of the United States, with 340[9] and 72 killed,[10][11] respectively.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks]
Burden of proof is shared
9/11 "Inside Job": The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were the result of controlled demolitions rather than structural failure due to impact and fire.[5][6] Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government[7][8] or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective stand-down of the American military.
Post-R1 FF
Unfortunate as Con bad begun a good case for the physics.
Forfeit aside, this was not a very strong debate. Pro's argument was essentially that 9/11 was not an inside job because Popular Mechanics said so. And while PM is a reputable magazine who did some great work investigating the claims, it's just not enough. I think any combination of more references, pointing to the fact that after all these years there is still no coherent alternative narrative, and philosophical points addressing how we prove a negative could have all helped the case. With 10,000 characters to work with, there was no shortage of space.
Con's case however wasn't any more complete. All he provided were a few attempts to refute the science Pro pointed to, and claims of an incomplete investigation. This does not even lead us in the direction of a conspiracy, let alone connect the dots. Since Pro's case at least gets us there, Pro wins arguments.
Conduct to Pro for the forfeit.
Mostly forfeited.
vote.
if Con's one of those newbies who forfeit every round, I don't think I'll need to prove much at all ;)
LOL so you will prove there is no reason at all?
the burden IS shared, what are you talking about?
"As you can see, even though I am merely summarizing the article, the logic works well, the story checks out, and the studies combine together to show there's no reason that 9/11 was an inside job."
Firstly, you mean 'no reason to think it was' not 'no reason it was'.
Secondly, this is such an arrogant and foolish shouldering of BoP, I hope Con properly holds you to those words and makes you backfoot and change the BoP to be on balance if you want a hope to win.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/AMR51/097/2011/en/
Read the PDF, solid stuff even ignoring 9/11.
Legally there's a difference, morally not much. Innocent lives lost for the sake of greed and power either way.
I am with RM on this one. Not because of me belonging to the Muslim community. I am strongly against the terrorist groups in the name of Islam such as ISIS. But in addition to the agenda of framing anti-invasion leaders of Middle East as RM pointed out, I have seen too many falsified and tampered evidences to not condemn US in this case. Also, as he said, it's too easy to DEMONISE Con in this altercation.
US agents using atrocity propaganda to justify an invasion of the middle east is not the same thing as deliberately imploding a sky scraper live on television and launching a missile in to their own headquarters.
The Death Star was an inside job!
They said Saudis did it... Saudis, as in Saudi Arabian citizens and natives.
Then they bombed Afghanistan and Pakistan, demonised Iran while also claiming there were Nukes in Iraq yet what happened to Saudi?
Jack shit, that's what. Stay blinkered, it's not my issue. This is a very sensitive topic where it's too easy to demonise Con as not caring about what happened. Bush Jr. did filthy things to justify revenge for his father's legacy against Saddam Hussein (the most overt high-ranking opposer to American influence to the Middle East), you can believe what you want.
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/attytood/The-10-unanswered-questions-of-911.html
https://www.globalresearch.ca/all-you-need-to-know-about-9-11-to-prove-it-was-an-inside-job/26517
Oh. I don't think people should make fun of others for believing in conspiracy theories, but it's your right, I guess.
I'm asking him because he believes in a lot of conspiracies and seems to be one of the few potential people willing to take this topic.
Sounds like your making fun of RM. Try not to do that.
are you CON on this topic as well?