As always, I would like to extend greetings and appreciation to chissler, our fellow readers, and judges who have chosen to join us in this debate
final. If there were any marbles, this engagement would surely be for all of them. Also I would like to extend an earnest nod of respect to
, for he is surely a formidable and worthy adversary.
The topic for this debate is "The Amount of Circumstantial Evidence Proves That 9/11 was a False Flag Operation."
and I will be arguing the
Allow me to express a personal yet topically relevant foreword before I begin outlining my debate exposition.
The events of September 11th 2001 are ones that due to my own personal proximity/connection to that fateful day, have been ones that I have mostly
avoided delving into for the last eight and a half years. A then West Village (NYC) resident, like many I lost many friends and neighbors that
morning. The emotional and psychological consequences of the days, months, and years that followed made it difficult if not impossible to manage a
sustained discussion of the topic from my end for a very long time. Without wishing to infuse personal emotion into the debate, for my personal
experiences are surely outside the scope of such, I will link
for the record the one
thread I have done on the subject for the sake of personal disclosure.
I do so not to engage in any emotional pulling of strings, but to note the following … I come into this topic with a clean slate. That is to say
that this debate is the first time time I have attempted to pursue my own curiosity as to the events of that day, those that preceded it, and those
that were triggered as a result and in any detail. I am indeed a novice to a topic that a great deal of people and many ATS members have dedicated
much of their time and energy to investigate.
The topic is vast. Too vast to include all its scope and related/relevant information into a mere seven debate posts. Too vast for me or anyone new
to it to grasp within a few days of preparation for this debate. So I whilst I am secure in the fact and knowledge that once I have put before you
the primary and overwhelming evidence to sustain and prevail in my debate position, I must also ask of those who have made it all but their life's
work to pursue the truth as it relates to 9/11, that they forgive my academic ignorance on the matter and do not begrudge my apprentice like approach.
Simply said, I am not an expert and will learn as I go.
I don't know what a 'truther' is exactly for the nomenclature seems to indicate that somehow the search for truth bears some insult within it. I
have no emotional position as to which version of events would be more agreeable to me. Perhaps this lack of personal involvement into the 9/11
conversation to date will serve me well in this undertaking. It might not be the most comprehensive but I assure you it will be honest. For I would
surely prefer to lose this debate that to be disingenuous to this topic of paramount importance.
With those personal notes in mind and behind us, let us begin in earnest.
False flag operations are covert operations which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are
being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other
than one's own.
Legal Burden of Proof
Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or
nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.
In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury
may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme
Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own
position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.
Most debates within this forum are undertaken under an adversarial premise. This premise usually dictates a point counterpoint structure to the
debates. Whilst this element will not be absent from this debate, I am comfortable disclosing at the outset, that I will for the most part not engage
in much of it.
My intention is the following … there is simply too much evidence to be presented, evaluated, for multiple locations, historical context,
geo-political considerations, and all the elements that the topic commands to be addressed for my opponent and I to engage in semantic play, and
As such I shall present my work in the form of a theses. Each post shall be exclusively dedicated to either a location or aspect of my argument and
once expressed I shall move on to the next one. It is my hope that by the end of the debate, the body of work presented before the judges will speak
for itself. I see this process much like two lawyers arguing their position before a panel of appellant court judges, both sides have allotted time
to make their case and the judges decide in one or the other's favor.
In fact, as the above outlined definitions of the terms of the debate title clearly dictate, this debate is precisely analogous to the court case
metaphor and as such it is in my view the best method upon which to proceed.
At this juncture allow me to state my interpretation of what it is that I have to argue before this 'court' …
My debate position is that "The Amount of Circumstantial Evidence Proves That 9/11 was a False Flag Operation."
Please note that I am neither required to provide physical evidence, a "smoking gun," or to prove that 9/11 was an inside job. Though much of the
evidence to be presented before you might lead one to the latter conclusion, namely that 9/11 was
an inside job, such conclusion would be
beyond my own evidentiary requirements. Indeed, all I have to argue to prevail in this debate is willful negligence.
If it is evidenced by me
that ANY deceit or obfuscation was involved in the events of 9/11, those preceding them and subsequent to them, from the US government and its
agencies, the debate has to be awarded in my favor.
Let me be clear, I am not talking about incompetence. If all I can prove is that the US government was acting, or rather not acting out of plain
incompetence, that would not constitute a 'false flag' operation on their part. But any action or inaction, from organizing the events of the day
themselves, or simply allowing them to happen unimpeded to achieve an end
, would constitute a clear 'false flag' operation.
Ultimately that is what this debate is all about. Was there willful intent from the 'powers that be' to either orchestrate, facilitate, or simply
allow 9/11 to take place. Clear evidence as to ANY of the above permutations is a clear win for my side of the debate!
What is a stake, what clear causal paths were set in motion on that day?
- Thousands of lives lost on September 11th 2001
- Tens of thousands of soldiers' lives lost in two wars
- Hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost in two wars
- Trillions of tax payer dollars spent
- Trillions earned by multinational corporations and the military industrial complex profiting from the war
- Loss of personal freedoms from such vehicles as 'the patriot act' and fear based population manipulation through the contrived threat of
- Elections won and lost, balances of power affected.
- Global financial markets altered
- Oil Oil Oil!
- Etc, etc, etc …
We were told that the world "changed" on 9/11 … what does that mean if not that a new old order is now before us. And all this we are to believe
because twenty or so guys who could barely cope with flying classes managed to pull off the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. And
these events that "changed our world" were investigated at a grand budget of fifteen million bucks!
None of the above is direct evidence of course, rest assured such will be provided in amplitude in subsequent posts. Context however is
fundamental aspect of circumstantial evidence and as such, must be considered.
In the end, when all has been presented before you, there will be no doubt that "The Amount of Circumstantial Evidence Proves That 9/11 was a
False Flag Operation."
I thank my opponent, chiseler, the readers, and judges for their patience in commencing this debate and leave the floor to souls