avatar
36 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @gchon10 The hole in our National Security as I pointed out and the documentaries I referenced in the debate, was intentional and is considered criminal negligence. The reason I point these holes out, is the fact that Al Qaeda could not have created them or ordered a stand down order on the interception of the planes. Furthermore operations like Able Danger, which I did not have time to get into are further evidence of this "coordinated gap" in our National Security. See the films I referenced by James Corbett for further documentation of this or see the work of Ryan Dawson a qallout debater on this topic.

      Dr's in name only???? What research did you do? Dr. Eugene Mallove biography:
      "Eugene Mallove held a BS (1969) and MS degree (1970) in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from MIT and a ScD degree (1975) in environmental health sciences from Harvard University. He had worked for technology engineering firms such as Hughes Research Laboratories, the Analytic Science Corporation, and MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, and he consulted in research and development of new energies."

      So you are saying this a Doctorate of Science degree from Harvard University does not qualify as being a Doctor in his field?????? ROFL LULZ

      You read the evidence in Dr. Judy Wood's book, as you stated so what part of that evidence which i presented would you like to debunk?

      - 1400 toasted cars?
      - Seismic Readings that show no collapse
      - WTC Bathtub remaining intact
      - Sounds of Explosions from Scott Paks exploding
      - Firefighters reporting Scott Paks exploding outside the building
      - Testimony of 14 people by the BBC that the building turned to dust over their heads
      - Photographic evidence of the WTC towers turning into dust.

      Please feel free to address the evidence presented, rather than to merely say well, it's too big a conspiracy therefore the guy with no evidence and no rebuttal to the evidence wins. You clearly did not actually research my evidence, for if you did you would not call Dr. Eugene Mallove a "dr in name only".

  • 2 years ago

    @imperatortruth @newman2580
    Between community votes favoring PRO and 1 Judge voting for CON we have a tie! We'll bring a second judge soon to make the final decision.

  • 2 years ago
    • a year ago

      @ninadabit Did you ever read the document that I referenced "Project for the New American Century", as I outlined that documents intent from the same parties I showed displayed criminal negligence. The evidence I presented stands for itself, and I talked about how the video you can see for yourself clearly shows the buildings turning into dust as they fall. This is backed up with the seismic evidence I also referenced. So please tell me how you can decide to vote for "con" when neither of you the debater or you the judge can explain ANY of the evidence I presented? I showed you clear intent, I showed you who was involved that let this happen, and I showed you how they did it, and why that could not have been men in caves armed with box cutters. The official narrative of 9/11 is the conspiracy theory. I guarantee you did not check any of the films, books or evidence I referenced did you?

    • a year ago

      @imperatortruth Sorry I've been traveling and couldn't get to this comment earlier. As a judge, what I'm judging is what you actually do in a debate itself. If I need to go and read an outside document in order to get your point then it's not being summarized and argued sufficiently in the debate to play into this idea of who's making a better case and/or speech. This is not a matter of what I believe or explaining evidence provided, it's a matter of who made the better, clearer, and more convincing case. I did not go check the evidence, books, and films because they're not part of the debate round and this is about argumentation not which side can give me the best homework to do to decide a round afterward. As long as evidence appears to be from a reliable source, it should be fine to use in-round without an adjudicator having to become fully informed on the topic.

      Because this comes so late after, I refer to my flow and it appears that the issue I took with your case is that you don't provide a cohesive case to prove an inside job, just that it maybe wasn't what the traditional narrative is as told by wider media and politics. You needed a clear advocacy for what you were necessarily saying it actually was, and that wasn't given in the debate while con is able to tell me what determines an inside job.

  • 2 years ago

    @imperatortruth @newman2580 The judges have spoken!
    @newman2580 Congrats for advancing to the next round!
    @imperatortruth Always well prepared to defend your views :-) In case you are interested,we are starting October's tournament next week - registration is now open:
    https://www.qallout.com/tournament

    • 2 years ago

      Hey, it's the #pizzagate dude!

      *grabs popcorn*

      • 2 years ago

        Attempt #2 to post..
        I had no need to bring in books and articles or the like. I have Millions of witnesses, including myself, I have science, I have pictures, videos, news feeds. What the Protozoan has is half truths, theoretical science and conspiracy theory all of which are his cited references. I believe the Pro has confused “inside job” with ineptitude and delayed action. But ineptitude and delayed action dies not equal inside job.

        • 2 years ago

          *does

        • 2 years ago

          @newman2580 What I showed was not "ineptitude and delayed action", it was criminal negligence with documented foreknowledge of the event, and scientific proof based on evidence from the official sources.

          I never said planes did not hit the towers, nor would I have. I said that the government officials responsible for the shoot down order were documented & proven to be criminally negligent and to have motive and foreknowledge to have allowed this to happen and are the prime suspects of this tragedy.

          See the films by James Corbett, one of the best 9/11 investigative journalists period that provide further evidence of this, from "9/11 Trillions Follow the Money", "Who was Really Behind the 9/11 Attacks", and his series of short films on the 9/11 Suspects. These films provide more documentation & evidence of everything I said.

        • 2 years ago

          @imperatortruth and you just admitted that your pro was not that it was an inside job, it was negligence.

        • 2 years ago

          @imperatortruth you said it was cold fusion and then that it wasn’t a Direct energy weapon...

        • 2 years ago

          *was

      • 2 years ago

        Anyway you see this, do the towers really have to crumble some way for an alternate motive to be true? If I had to pick a winner I would pick Pro because he kind of hinted toward an alternate motive and cons dismissal seemed to be that he’s a republican... although most of its at the end when Pro has more time. But Con certainly defeated the other theories that were also not related to motive. So no, I don’t feel either argument was really better.

      • 2 years ago

        Here’s the crux of it.. Pizza guy argues that it was an inside job, but doesn’t ever get close to proving that argument. First he tried claiming cold fusion and seismic inactivity, which I debunked, as cold fusion is a THEORY not actuality. So that wasn’t working and decided to go with Directed Energy Weapon.. this suggests that there were no planes.. all of us old enough can tell you, there were planes. In the comments he suggests he would never say such a thing, but the video doesn’t lie. So now that he admits there were planes, let’s thtow out all the silliness about dust and seismic activity and Cold Fusion. Now let’s talk about if it was an inside job (was actually the question). Pro never says it was an inside job.. he said the government was horribly negligent in their duties and that led to 9/11.. I can’t argue with that.. but ignorance, Ineptitude, inaction, negligence, ostrich head in the sand; none of those equate to inside job.. not even close...

        • 2 years ago

          @newman2580 >"So that wasn’t working and decided to go with Directed Energy Weapon.. this suggests that there were no planes.."

          No, it doesn't this is some assumption you made and never backed up, it is a non sequitor fallacy you are making. I never talked about the planes in NYC nor does planes have anything to do with the evidence of DEW's. Sorry.

          "So now that he admits there were planes, let’s thtow out all the silliness about dust and seismic activity and Cold Fusion"

          The fact that planes hit the towers does not affect my argument in any way shape or form. Nor does it discount the official seismic records on that day, nor does it debunk Low Energy Nuclear Reactions commonly miscalled Cold Fusion. I can provide sources for both and did so in the argument, you have not debunked anything.

          Merely saying something is debunked does not make it so if you never cite any source or evidence that debunks it. You just make claims that have no backing.

          Lastly I am not the "Pizza Guy" this is more ad hominem from you and I am sick of it. I held my cool during the debate despite you constantly acting like a fucking child and using "tin foil" about twenty times. Just makes you look like a fucking asshole who can't debate. So you can take your "pizza guy" comment and shove it up your ass you dumb fuck.

        • 2 years ago

          @imperatortruth I also used conspiracy nut.

        • 2 years ago

          @imperatortruth also I missed saying that Your Jesse Ventura Arguments are tired and weak. Your books are written by liberal lackeys who hate the government and would say anything for 20 minutes in front of Any camera, and you dishonor the people who died needless at the hands of terrorists just to push your Alt Left Agenda.

        • 2 years ago

          @imperatortruth you also use $2 words where you can use simple terms. It’s not ad hominem it’s being an asshole. It’s not Sequitor (sic) fallacy (you were going for Sequitur, sorry) either, DEWS and COLD FUSION have nothing to do with 9/11, there’s no evidence despite your books “theories” and the government is certainly culpable because they were inept, not because they wanted Americans to die. Your a disgrace to America, have s good day. I hope your work day improves tomorrow, sounds like you got the ol’ Square peg-asshole treatment today.. wait.. is that right?

      • 2 years ago

        Pro CRUSHED Con into dust....

      • 2 years ago

        Wow Trump boy got smoked ~~~###XXXXXXXX> Good job Titus you "crack pot tin foil debunked debunked debunked"

        • 2 years ago

          @qallout are we getting close to a determination?

        • 2 years ago

          Damn, I left my cold fusion ray gun rebuttal file back in the van!

          • a year ago

            Dr Judy Wood is complete garbage and i cannot believe this was used as a point of argument.