September 11 Was a Hoax

I will admit that this is a surprising approach that no doubt involves more research than your typical conspiracy nut's argument (not to say that my opponent is a conspiracy nut of course). In any event, I'll address the points he brings up... I don't know if it makes any difference in the scope of the argument, but I was hoping more for things about thermite and the melting point of steel... ;) *********************************** My opponent's source (911Truth.org) is not very easy to work with, as it just lists claims concerning the attacks and none of the sources that are used to back up the claim... so many of my responses are based on what I've found about the subject that was NOT on 911Truth.org... On Notice of an impending attack. Many of the "notices" of the impending attack were not actual notices, but more "general threats" and vague details. And by the way, "The Big Wedding" is the name of a conspiracy theorist's book written ABOUT 9-11. For example, Putin (and Russian Intelligence) is cited as a common source for detail - however, Putin's own statement revealed that he was talking about IRAQ and "terrorist attacks... beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets. But we did not have information that they [Saddam's Regime] were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things." As one can see in the third link below, which outlines several different pieces of "forewarning" - many of the tips were incomplete, too vague, delivered after the fact, did not come from reliable sources, or were delivered far before 9-11-01. The amount of raw intelligence, combined with the task of sorting through what was credible and what was not produced a situation that has been described as containing no "actionable intelligence." Furthermore, the nature of this claim does not actually pertain to the resolution - It is a claim that there was a government cover-up, not that the government was somehow behind it. Furthermore, in my opening argument, I clearly state "The proposition on offer is that the events of September 11, 2001 were in no way a government (US) hoax, conspiracy, or other attempt to fool the American people." As far as the people being told not to fly, I can't find any reliable evidence of these being in any way related to 9-11. Furthermore, one of the persons (Willy Brown) described his imformation not to fly as being "...not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful," and that the call came from "my security people at the airport." (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) (http://news.bbc.co.uk...) (http://www.foxnews.com...) (http://www.fpp.co.uk...) On Evidence it Was Staged. My opponent contends that "terrorists are trained professionals who leave behind them as little evidence as possible" - this doesn't make much sense... terrorists are suicide bombers and the like, who are concerned with the destruction of their targets - spies are concerned with evidence. Terrorists are concerned withblowing up civilians. The most concrete evidence is not "miraculous" in any way. Take for example the "unscathed" passport (http://www.historycommons.org...) - it's not really that miraculous considering it was inside an airtight cockpit module that exited the far side of the building, and presents VERY good evidence about who the hijackers were. Furthermore, one of the designers of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has publicly stated that he designed the attacks and sought funding from Bin Laden. Furthermore, the identities of the hijackers have been discovered - their names and flights were: UA Flight 175: Marwan al-Shehhi, Fayez Banihammad, Mohand al-Shehri, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Ghamdi. AA Flight 11: Mohamed Atta al Sayed, Waleed al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, Abdulaziz al-Omari, Satam al-Suqami. UA Flight 93: Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ahmed al-Nami, Saeed al-Ghamdi. AA Flight 77: Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi. (http://www.9-11commission.gov...) (http://news.bbc.co.uk...) On The War Being Staged. My opponent reasserts that the identities of the hijackers are unknown... See the above list. None of this is omitted from official investigations and is readily available with a simple Google search. Here is a list of other people who may have been alternates or doubles: Zacarias Moussaoui, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mohamed al-Kahtani, Fawaz al-Nashimi, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Tawfiq bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mushabib al-Hamlan, Zakariyah Essabar, Saeed Ahmad al-Zahrani, Ali Abd al-Rahman al-Faqasi al-Ghamdi, Saeed al-Baluchi, Qutaybah al-Najdi, Zuhair al-Thubaiti, and Saud al-Rashi. My opponent also asserts that it was determined that the hijackers were Iraqi... However, in truth, it was determined the the hijackers were Saudi. And on top of that, Bush didn't even propose invasion of Iraq for more than a year after the attacks, and the actual war with Iraq didn't begin until 2003, more than 18 months after the attacks. >> "How convenient then that eight months into his first term George W. Bush was able to declare a state of national emergency and plunge our country into a long and bloody conflict with Iraq." This is false - the invasion of Iraq began in the THIRD YEAR of Bush's term. >> "The reasons for this have been many and varied, first the WMD's, oops sorry there were none." This is also false. Nuclear weapons are not the only type of WMD. There are four types of WMD - Chemical, Radiological, Biological, and Nuclear. Iraq has been known to have chemical and biological weapons at least since 1992 when they used them in a war with Iran. ****************************************** My opponent's most poignant argument seems to be that the government used 911 as a convenient excuse to launch the US into Iraq. However, I have provided evidence that there were indeed WMD's in Iraq, and that the hijackers were determined to be Saudi long before Iraq was invaded... Much of my opponent's argument is pitched towards showing that the US had forewarning of the attacks. However, this does not indicate that the attacks were a hoax. Also, the fact that the lump of forewarning tips were not salient enough to be considered reliable provides evidence that the government was not involved in trying to fool the citizenry of the US. I await my opponent's further points, as I have rebutted those he has put forth.