Was 9/11 an inside job?

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikidebate logo.png Resource type: this resource is a wikidebate.
Simpleicons Business sand-watch-with-content-falling-inside.svg Subject classification: this is a history resource.

The September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City forever changed the landscape of American culture and geopolitics around the globe. Is the official explanation of who conducted the attacks accurate and reliable? Is it possible that some government agents had inside information or even planned the attack itself?

9/11 was an inside job[edit]

Moment of the collapse of the 7 World Trade Center.
  • Argument Argument Besides the twin towers, one more building in the World Trade Center complex collapsed, namely the 7 World Trade Center. This building was not hit by any plane, nor did it receive much more debris damage than any of the other buildings surrounding the twin towers. It did catch on fire and burn for some hours, but not nearly enough to make the building collapse as completely and as fast as it did. But if the fire didn't cause the collapse, then the only remaining explanation is a controlled demolition, which would implicate high-level government officials. As extra support, some suspicious "drills" were reported that day on the building.[citation needed]
    • Objection Objection If it received damage from falling debris and was on fire for several hours, how can you argue that it did not receive enough damage to collapse? I would argue that this is clearly evidence of severe damage to the building, so there is no basis for you to say that the only explanation is controlled demolition. Also, the building did not collapse in an instant, it was slowly collapsing as the fire went on and eventually there was a catastrophic failure which caused a visible dust cloud. However this does not mean the building 'suddenly' collapsed.
      • Objection Objection It isn't as if the entire building was on fire. You are talking about a 47 story skyscraper. There were certainly local fires which involved several floors, but it is a vast exaggeration to suggest this could have caused the entire building to spontaneously collapse. Prior to 9/11 no steel-framed high rise building had ever collapsed because of fire, so the mathematical odds of it happening three times in one afternoon are astronomical. It is a narrative built from pure fantasy.
        • Objection Objection It's true that a small part of the roof (a penthouse) fell off first, but it's just nitpicking to say that this means the building did not suddenly collapse. In fact, the building was collapsing at free fall speed for the first few seconds of its collapse,[1] and the remaining time it was still near free fall speed (this would happen in a controlled demolition anyway because of the delay caused by floors colliding with other floors). Fires simply don't knock out all of the supports of a building at once the way that is required for this collapse. It's unheard of, and you cannot find any example of a collapse similar to this one caused by fire.
          • Objection Objection That does not respond to the point being made, which is that the building was collapsing on the inside from fire for hours. The fires did not knock out all of the supports at once. They weakened the supports around column 79, causing floors 8 to 14 to collapse in the inside of the building. This then led to column 79 failing, causing the east penthouse to collapse, damaging surrounding columns. This set off a chain reaction of columns failing from the east side to the west side. This meant that the full weight of the building was loaded onto the perimeter support, which buckled between floors 7 and 17 eight seconds after the east penthouse collapsed, causing the remaining exterior of the building to collapse as a single unit.[2] So the collapse was not instant and can be explained by fires. You then say that this is unheard of and I cannot provide an example of a similar collapse. That's absolutely correct. It was completely unheard of for a high rise to have its lower floors on fire for many hours without firefighters stopping the fire. But it happened on 9/11.
            • Objection Objection You are not making a point by unilaterally declaring, "the building was collapsing on the inside for hours". This is your own speculation which is not supported by any demonstrable facts. It is also (wild) speculation that the severity of the fires in WTC 7 was significant enough to cause a total vertical collapse. Other, more rational explanations (i.e. controlled demolition), were not properly investigated and/or ruled out in accordance with standard investigative procedure. No tests were conducted for the presence of explosives residue and operational protocol (not to mention basic common sense) stipulates that these tests should have occurred. Without either being inside the building or having video footage of the interior of the building at the time, there is no reliable way for you to reach the conclusions you have reached, making the specificity of your claims outright preposterous. You are certainly correct that there was a chain reaction; however, this chain reaction was caused by the building's resistance to gravity being compromised by explosives. The exact same principle also applies to the other two buildings which collapsed/imploded.
  • Argument Argument The September 11th attacks were a thinly-veiled excuse to invade Iraq in order to establish American dominance, get oil, and to vindicate the first Bush Presidency's defense of Kuwait in the 1990s during the first Persian Gulf War.
    • Objection Objection Although the United States may have used this terrorist attack as a pretense for empire-building, that doesn't mean they caused it or allowed it to happen with prior knowledge. It's possible and even plausible that once the attack occurred they simply saw an opportunity and took it. It's also reasonable that different actors in the federal government had some complex motivations including retribution for the attacks as well as expansionism.

9/11 was not an inside job[edit]

  • Argument Argument Any possible motive for the government to do this would not need to be executed in this way.
  • Argument Argument The events of 9/11 can be explained far more simply as terrorist attacks than a complex conspiracy with unclear motivation. There is no evidence of explosives. There is no evidence of members of the conspiracy, even though this would require the perfect silence of a large amount of individuals at different levels of government, when the government has a difficult time keeping far less scandalous secrets hidden. Such theories strain credulity and there is simply no reason to accept them other than the desire to believe them.
    • Objection Objection You haven't provided an argument here so much as an abuse of language. What the US government claimed happened was a complex conspiracy involving an international terrorist organisation. The US government has so far been unable to prove this is what happened, making it a theory. Somehow, many people in America (and worldwide) seem to have been convinced that critically questioning the US government's theory about an al Qaeda conspiracy makes one a conspiracy theorist. The very logic of language itself reveals the lunacy in slandering those who dispute the US government's 9/11 narrative with egregious smear attacks like, "conspiracy theorist" or "twoofer". These are just simple lawyer's tricks, purpose-built to attack the credibility of the opposition.
      • Objection Objection On the contrary, the motivation became clear soon enough: justifying an invasion to the Middle East to secure access to cheap oil.
        • Objection Objection The USA imports little oil from the Middle East, with around 50% coming from North America and less than 15% from the Persian Gulf. It is not cheap oil if it requires shipping across the 12,000 miles between the two locations, and so Oil is not a good explanation for the attack to have been planned.
  • Argument Argument Soon after the event, Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack.
    • Objection Objection This is simply false. Whoever perpetrated the attack tried to fabricate evidence implicating the leader of al Qaeda in the form of a video tape. This video tape has been declared fraudulent by numerous scholars, including Professor Bruce Lawrence who, according to the Daily Mirror (UK), is the world's "foremost authority on (Osama) bin Laden". The actual Osama bin Laden gave two public interviews after 9/11 occurred in which his identity was confirmed. He categorically denied all involvement in both. The solitary link the US government has between al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks is the written confession of a man claiming to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who provided his confession after being waterboarded a reported 183 times at Guantanamo Bay. Moreover, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was reported by the Asian Press to have died during an ISI raid in Karachi in 2002. There is literally no proof the man being held in US custody is even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the first place.
      • Objection Objection Al-Qaeda are probably not above claiming responsibility for something they didn't actually do if it furthers their organisation's goals. If 9/11 were an inside job, Al-Qaeda would probably claim responsibility anyway either unprompted or at the suggestion of whatever secretive cabal really did it.
  • Argument Argument It would be impossible to keep a conspiracy this large secret. Someone would have leaked reliable and verifiable information at some point and every journalist in the world would be keen to break the biggest story in the 21st century.
    • Objection Objection The conspiracy that official story says committed the 9/11 attacks was a single Al-Qaeda cell, why should the conspiracy that really did it necessarily be much bigger to the point that discovery is inevitable?

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]