Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago


    Thank you for having this discourse with me, i am always at yours service in discussing this issue and with anyone else for that matter.

    • 2 years ago

      So what exactly is his position on the 4 planes. I'm still not clear?

      • 2 years ago


        He was unsure actually, he is on the fence when it comes to 9/11 and what happened. Which is good, but i dont want him to simply just believe me but do his own thinking and research what i say.

    • 2 years ago

      The actual topic doesn't get a lot of play, clearly Pro lays out why we should think that 4 planes were hijacked.

      Pro does a good job sharing useful information, and mostly encourages Con. Though con makes a lot of assertions that are pretty shaky and deserve some rebuttal/analysis that Pro doesn't bring up.

      I can understand why, its largely off topic, but still I think it would be good to clash on some of that.

      Example: Rumsfeld's "missing 2.3 trillion" is not about missing money at all. Its him complaining that the pentagon needs a better accounting system. He's saying that you can't easily track exactly how all the money is spent and that over the course of time, there is a lot of money spent, where you can't say exactly what it was spent on because the records are disorganized. He was arguing for more money to improve accounting systems.