9/11 - What is true about it?

[UM-Debate-Bot]

MrRandomGuy vs checktheevidencedotcom

This is a formal 1 vs 1 debate, full details on how the debate system works can be found in our Debates FAQ. The debate will begin with an introductory opening post from each participant followed by 4 body posts and finally a conclusion.

The computer has randomly chosen MrRandomGuy to post first.

MrRandomGuy is arguing in favour of What we were told is true

checktheevidencedotcom is arguing in favour of What we were told is a lie

Once the debate is complete the thread will be open to member comments.

[MrRandomGuy]

Introduction

September 11, 2001 was a tragic day for many people. While it is accepted by the public that what we were told happened is true, there has always been someone that stands up and yells "conspiracy!" While there may have been some trivial untrue statements made by the government or other people about what happened, the basic sense of what we were told is true. Commercial planes crashed into the WTC, Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania because Muslim extremists hijacked them in order to attack America with their misguided interpretation of Jihad (Holy War)

Throughout this debate, I will go over the evidence and just basic common sense that the above did happen. With that, I give the floor to my opponent.

[TK0001]

I'm going to have to give the win to MrRandomGuy on this one.

[Paranormalcy]

I concur, seeing as how checktheevidencedotcom didn't show up - its almost like it was a conspiracy to get people to go to a site...

[Q24]

I'm going to have to give the win to MrRandomGuy on this one.

I agree… which goes to show that you don’t always have to be right to win a debate

[Pseudo Intellectual]

MrRandomGuy is arguing in favour of What we were told is true

checktheevidencedotcom is arguing in favour of What we were told is a lie

Doesn't that mean they're both arguing in favor of the same thing?

[TheFreedomThinker]

Doesn't that mean they're both arguing in favor of the same thing?

i would like to know the evidence

[Guest Claire So....Strange]

I think that the anti-christ (george w bush) set up 9/11 to profit from insurance policies with some tycoons he knew that owned the building.

And a few people he may have wanted to dissipate probably happened to be in the building at the time?.

Or maybe the Bush Administration wanted evidence in the building against their corruption distroyed?.

Or maybe Bush struck a deal with the militants and gained something from giving them clearance to hijack planes, maybe oil?.

[TheResearcher]

I think that the anti-christ (george w bush) set up 9/11 to profit from insurance policies with some tycoons he knew that owned the building.

And a few people he may have wanted to dissipate probably happened to be in the building at the time?.

Or maybe the Bush Administration wanted evidence in the building against their corruption distroyed?.

Or maybe Bush struck a deal with the militants and gained something from giving them clearance to hijack planes, maybe oil?.

People like you are worrying

[Saru]

Debate status changed to [Open] due to one participant failing to show up

[Igorokk]

I think that its pretty bad right about now, the economy. Instead of being afraid of the market right now, people should be spending more into retailers etc. Which will keep them alive, and encourage growth in times like these, even. With people pumping money into the econmy, its got no where to go but right back to them. It takes everybody together to get out of this slump, and with people not being useful when it comes to spending, it will just get worse. The more money being spent, the more tax money being generated, and, it going back into the companies, which levels out everything. We shouldnt depend on the government like we have been for them to take care of the companies

[Agent X]

i would like to know the evidence

Then I'd suggest starting here:

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

This is a bunch of links that is devoted to the debunking of 911 "Truthers" (how ironic) conspiracy junk.

[jordiver]

After JFK i wonder why can u still believe in anything the US goverment has to say.

Edited July 13, 2009 by jordiver

[Agent X]

Hey, you're the government stooge spreading the disinformation, not me.

[*Quinn*]

After JFK i wonder why can u still believe in anything the US goverment has to say.

Just shows how little most people care.

Even worse, there are those that believe the government played a role in the murder of JFK, yet they'll still act as if it was "so long" ago that it's not a big deal anymore.

And oh, the fact MK-Ultra was real, and the government has acknowledged it, is no big deal to most people either. You know, who cares that they experimented with mind control on unwilling and unknowing citizens.

Yet people still think the government is trustworthy and are willing to overlook these occurences. It's sad.

[natedogg]

Every major problem society has had to deal with in recent history has always had a group of people saying "the governement did it". This makes sense because in nearly every situation the government can make gains if looked at at the right angle. That being said, there are a whole bunch of coincidences that conspirators drawn on in the years prior to 9/11 and beyond. Even if you are a full believer in what the media, government, etc., has told us, which is just fine, i encourage you to watch at least one of the following. They are long but that's not the point.

The 9/11 Ripple Effect

Loose Change 2nd Edition

Loose Change Final Cut

And skeptic or not, ALL of you should take a look at this site at History Commons. It is a complete compliliation of events, big and small, related to 9/11. Some of them are in great detail too. History Commons 911 Timeline

In these videos and sites there are information that should set you thinking. Learn with an open mind and don't make a decison till the video is completely over or you have read the whole article. Obviously, the videos are presented in a bias way, but the facts still remain.

Feel free to debunk after viewing.

[+DieChecker]

The only point I would make is that if the government created the collapse of the Twin Towers by manipulating those muslim terrorists and planting explosives in the buildings, then why were they not able to find Weapons of Mass Distruction only a year latter? You would think if the gov was able to manipulate and command what must have been thousands of people into a coverup, they would be able to air lift a couple hundred chemical and bio WMD to Iraq to plant as evidence.

How could the same gov be A+ smart on one operation and F- on another?

Edited September 7, 2009 by DieChecker

[Dr. D]

The only point I would make is that if the government created the collapse of the Twin Towers by manipulating those muslim terrorists and planting explosives in the buildings, then why were they not able to find Weapons of Mass Distruction only a year latter? You would think if the gov was able to manipulate and command what must have been thousands of people into a coverup, they would be able to air lift a couple hundred chemical and bio WMD to Iraq to plant as evidence.

How could the same gov be A+ smart on one operation and F- on another?

So you're saying that if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy then the Bush Administration deserves an F- for its dealing with the mythical WMDs?

[aquatus1]

So you're saying that if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy then the Bush Administration deserves an F- for its dealing with the mythical WMDs?

You got it backwards. If 9/11 was a conspiracy, then it was an A+ performance. Such that when the had to deal with WMD's, they failed utterly. In other words, they set the bar high with the first one, and dropped the ball utterly with the second one.

On the other hand, if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, then their competence during 9/11 isn't all that different than their competence during the WMD hunt. I personally7 grade them a C average on both.

[onesliceshort]

As regards exactly WHO pulled off 9/11 or the reasons, the discussion will go round in circles ad infinitum as it has done from 2001.

But if you are talking about actual PROOF that has been documented, corraborated and verified by people who were actually there that day at one of the four events check this press release out:

My link

Please look carefully at the information presented with an open mind. Watch the video presentation of this evidence:

My link

Please follow any links given at the former link BEFORE discussing it with me. It is vital.

Thanks.

[onesliceshort]

You got it backwards. If 9/11 was a conspiracy, then it was an A+ performance. Such that when the had to deal with WMD's, they failed utterly. In other words, they set the bar high with the first one, and dropped the ball utterly with the second one.

On the other hand, if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, then their competence during 9/11 isn't all that different than their competence during the WMD hunt. I personally7 grade them a C average on both.

´A+ performance´?

It wasn´t THAT good a performance if they left so many holes in the official story. Continually caught lying and asking us to believe physics had changed for the day in all four episodes.

A+ for the military operation maybe.

The WMD episode? I truly don´t believe they gave a rat´s @ss if this shambles was discovered or not. They got their war. What is anybody going to be able to do about it? If they got away with 9/11 why would they possibly care?

The worldwide bank fiasco has come and gone...what has changed?

The true fact of the matter is ordinary people have no say. Politicians are puppets. We are insignificant in the scheme of things. We have been for decades and especially since 9/11.

Maybe THAT was the real reason behind the massacre?

[aquatus1]

´A+ performance´?

It wasn´t THAT good a performance if they left so many holes in the official story. Continually caught lying and asking us to believe physics had changed for the day in all four episodes.[/quotes]

If it was a performance, it was a performance for the fit audience, though few.

A+ for the military operation maybe.

If you like. I personally can't see the military pulling off a performance like that.

The WMD episode? I truly don´t believe they gave a rat´s **EDIT** if this shambles was discovered or not. They got their war. What is anybody going to be able to do about it? If they got away with 9/11 why would they possibly care?

If this was a performance, they went through an incredible (I would say unbelievable) amount of effort to keep it from being uncovered. To the point that people advocating these theories have to stretch out to ridiculous lengths to find even the most tenuous links after 8 years of "investigation".

The worldwide bank fiasco has come and gone...what has changed?

Irrelevant

The true fact of the matter is ordinary people have no say. Politicians are puppets. We are insignificant in the scheme of things. We have been for decades and especially since 9/11.

You keep thinking that. It makes life easier for the rest of us.

Maybe THAT was the real reason behind the massacre?

To make ordinary people insignificant for decades past?

Great planning. A+.

Alternatively, maybe the government isn't hyper-competent, maybe it just wasn't paying attention in the right place and the right time, and got mugged walking down the street. Infuriating, and humiliating, and unlike a hyper-professional organization, they reacted in a rather emotional manner, attacking anyone in their way.

Edited September 7, 2009 by aquatus1

[The Silver Thong]

You got it backwards. If 9/11 was a conspiracy, then it was an A+ performance. Such that when the had to deal with WMD's, they failed utterly. In other words, they set the bar high with the first one, and dropped the ball utterly with the second one.

On the other hand, if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, then their competence during 9/11 isn't all that different than their competence during the WMD hunt. I personally7 grade them a C average on both.

Why did there even need to be WMD's? War was declared and that was the goal to start a "just" conflict in the ME. WMD's didn't matter the war is still goin on man. So WMD's become irrelivant, found or not found, made no difference.

[Dr. D]

You got it backwards. If 9/11 was a conspiracy, then it was an A+ performance. Such that when the had to deal with WMD's, they failed utterly. In other words, they set the bar high with the first one, and dropped the ball utterly with the second one.

On the other hand, if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, then their competence during 9/11 isn't all that different than their competence during the WMD hunt. I personally7 grade them a C average on both.

Considering that the administration publicly announced that bin Laden was a principal character in the 9/11 attack and then promised to bring him to justice, I think the question of the real cause of the incident is moot and the administration failed miserably to resolve the issue just as it failed to prove or find WMDs in Iraq. **EDIT** on all counts.

**The profanity filters are there for a reason.**

Edited September 7, 2009 by aquatus1

[onesliceshort]

If this was a performance, they went through an incredible (I would say unbelievable) amount of effort to keep it from being uncovered. To the point that people advocating these theories have to stretch out to ridiculous lengths to find even the most tenuous links after 8 years of "investigation".

Exactly WHO has run the ¨investigation¨ into what happened that day? Are you going to tell me that the whole episode was investigated in an unbiased fashion?

The whole process was worked backwards. First with the conclusions already predrawn and information woven in to fit said conclusion.

Testimony and evidence was cherrypicked and/or completely dismissed depending on whether or not it fitted neatly into the 9/11 commission´s findings.

Even the authors of the 9/11 commission have distanced themselves from the report on the grounds that their ´hands were tied´ in some areas of CIA contributions and demands of the government.

The official story (´story in every sense of the word) has become ´tenuous´ to say the least.

I´m not a proponent of all 9/11 theories that have surfaced but have found the aforementioned links in my other post to be VERY intriguing.

Irrelevant

The banking fiasco was given as an example of how much the present regimes can get away with.

You keep thinking that. It makes life easier for the rest of us.

When I said that we are insignificant as a people, I meant in the scheme of things, that we are increasingly finding ourselves incapable of affecting change or for airing our grievances.

I do not see myself in the light that you presumed I painted. Far from it.

To make ordinary people insignificant for decades past?

Great planning. A+..

Human rights have been eroded for decades. After 9/11 they wrote it into law.

The US Constitution?

Draconian laws introduced to enable secret services and police more control and powers to invade our private spaces

to a degree where everything is covered under the guise of ´national security´, whether it be tapping our communications or censoring information. Arrest and detention. Free speech. The list goes on.

Alternatively, maybe the government isn't hyper-competent, maybe it just wasn't paying attention in the right place and the right time, and got mugged walking down the street. Infuriating, and humiliating, and unlike a hyper-professional organization, they reacted in a rather emotional manner, attacking anyone in their way.

How the government handled the aftermath has nothing to do with it. Certain people were obviously paying attention as can be seen through the ´Able Danger´report, the coincidental wargames scheduled for that day, the incredibly irregular share movements that day on the very businesses that were affected, the fact that major players and politicians were advised not to fly commercial that morning, the payment of $100,000 into the account of Mohammad Atta by Pakistani intel, warnings from French, Turkish, Syrian, English and Italian intel agencies (and the CIA knew nothing?)

So no, I don´t believe that they were caught unawares. Not for one minute.