I thank Pro for this debate. I believe that 9/11 was not a inside job. If I prevent Pro from proving 9/11 was an inside job, I win. When I say "inside job", I mean that the American Government had a direct hand in bring down the WTC, planned them, carried it out and then covered up any evidence. I believe this should be a fair definition. Also Pro copied and pasted from here:
https://anton-dion.blogspot.com/2016/07/10-solid-facts-about-911-that-cannot-be.html. So make that of you will.
Reading through his round, I have come across a hand full of broken links. And more are untrustworthy. But no matter. Here, I will list my cross examination of Pro's list.
1) Pro says that the FEMA metallurgy report says that it was attacked by some form of munition. Pro gave a broken link (though this was a result of the typo, and it was the same report that I found) , but I believe I found it on my own. Nothing in that report suggested the WTC was brought down by bombs, or whatever. Pro claims that because it was odd shaped it must have been a bomb, but this is speculation.
2) This is just government incompetence. What does this entail? That a low level government worker was on in the conspiracy?
3) American/Taliban relations were strained, but this does not indicate 9/11 was an inside job. From the source given:
US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
America had every reason to react against Al Qaeda, for example: the 1993 WTC bombing, or the general acts of aggression.
4) Another broken link. Thermite was something I expected when I accepted this debate. A charge is loud [1] and the WTC fell relatively quietly. From my source:
"And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.
Also, Pro's source is dubious at best. I am sorry for the wikipedia source, but it appears [2] that only one study found thermite, no one else did, and the study itself is dubious at best. And even if we take this source as truth, thermite is not very effective at demolition at the scale Pro is suggesting. Thermite burns slowly, and doesn't explode. Further research makes it apparent that Pro's study is bogus. If you look up his study, it appears Jones isn't qualified at all in this subject and that Jones never been to the WTC. He basically received some samples that were said to be from the WTC. The editor of the journal Pro's study was published in resigned as a result of the study being published. Harrit, among others, co-wrote that study. Again, to my knowledge, no other study, or paper, or any reputable expert came to the same conclusion as that study.
Also, it is obvious the WTC collapsed top down. Any video should sufficient in proving that. So what does that mean? Well, normally, we don't demolish building top to bottom. It is always bottom to top, so the bottom is destroyed, then makes its way to the top. However, the WTC collapsed in the opposite way.
5) bin Laden's tapes.
Pro claims that the tapes are fake, and that bin Laden had no connection to the attacks, however, the mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, behind the attacks himself said that bin Laden supported. Nothing contradicts this as what happened. There is also the whole "fatty" bin Laden thing, but with some research, its a video quality issue. The Middle East uses PAL (576 lines) format, while America uses NTSC (480 lines). When you convert the NTSC video/pictures to PAL, the issue disappears.
6) I believe I can disregard this as anti-Semitic non-sense. It also appears to be a urban myth. And I assume Pro is referring to celebrations held in America.
7) Pro seems to think that the Twin Towers could survive having 17 floors crash into the floors under them, it could not, and that's why the WTC collapsed. Due to how the Twin Towers were designed, when the planes crashed into the towers and damaged the support beams and various over structural damage, plus the explosions caused by plane fuel that weakened the towers even further. The idea that the 17 floors would fall off is absurd, although the tower did tilt when it collapsed. In short, heat happened. We all know the "steel beams" meme. To get my point across, grab a stick of butter and warm it up. If you ever did baking before, you'll know that butter can be very soft if it warms up. The same concept applies to steel. Steel on the WTC didn't need to melt, just warm up. After that, gravity did it job.
8) A lot things here. Pro says that Cheney ordered the stand down, however, Cheney arrived at the PEOC at around 9:58, after the Pentagon was hit[4]. The 9/11 Commission agrees[5]. You can Ctrl + f "9:58" to find it. This is, again, after the Pentagon was hit.
9) Certainly not oil prices after 9/11. or stock prices. There is also all the various other expenses like lost of life and damage to NYC itself. Oil prices, for example spiked up in price.
10) Evidence suggests that Marshall killed his family [6]. As detailed in the article, there is no evidence that any bodies were moved, indicating an altered crime scene. Marshall also left some threatening voice mails and was apparently bipolar. Other evidence suggests Marshall killed his family, like how his children had alcohol in their systems.
[1] https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3544/4278927/
[6] https://www.uniondemocrat.com/csp/mediapool/sites/UnionDemocrat/LocalNews/story.csp?cid=3801209&sid=753&fid=151
Why would they isolate us out of the gajillion people who talk about 9/11 on the internet.
They will not.
I have my reasons and I will not vote on this debate. I am just saying I will read it in detail but I will not say who I think won or why. This is a real thing they will detain you over.
I will not speak more about this one event tbph ever on the Internet and luckily I never did that in any public way did I focus on it.
I can admit I think it was an inside job but I will never ever prove it. I do nto want to imagine what can happen to Pro here or people like him if they prove it well enough.
Its not a journalist. I even link where Pro got his round from.
For reasons of personal safety I will not be voting on this debate.
I have strong feeling Pro is correct but I will not say definitely.
Pro, which journalist are you using?
Tough bananas buddy. The spelling and grammar aren't even mine and on top of that the spelling and grammar is pretty much flawless, so if you want to vote against me just because you can't read then that just makes you gay.
I don't know if you can edit an argument once it's posted on this site.
Srsly Type1, those walls of text are just handing your opponent the grammar and spelling point.
Can you fix them?
I just checked, only a couple are broken. The first one doesn't work because the A at the end isn't supposed to be part of the link.
Your links are broken