The Instigator
Zdawg
Pro (for)
Tied
2 Points
The Contender
Ozzyhead
Con (against)
Tied
2 Points

9/11: All conspiracy theories about 9/11 are painfully false.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2014 Category: News
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,572 times Debate No: 61721
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

Zdawg

Pro

If anyone out there believes an alternate reality of the events of 9/11 and thinks they can prove it, I challenge you. If you believe the US government was behind it, it was a controlled demolition, there were no planes, it was a space beam, Larry Silverstein did it, or it was done so we could go to war in the middle east, or any other crazy theory, please prove it.
Ozzyhead

Con

The events of September 11th, 2001 on the face seems like a horrible attack carried out by the most evil terrorist group on the planet (ISIS is starting to take that role...), Al Qaeda. While I believe 2 planes were involved, I do not believe 4 planes were involved. Let's start my arguments with the events in my home state of New York

In New York, 2 airplanes flew in to two symbols of America: the Twin Towers that made up building 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center. For me, this would have been enough for me to believe that this was a terrorist attack. However, three buildings imploded, all at free fall speed, in the same style as a controlled demolition. How could this be possible? All 3 buildings pancaked right down, doing minimal damage to the buildings surrounding them. Each floor was bolted in to place by about 10000 bolts and nuts. This means all floors of all three buildings had to have been weakened. This is highly unlikely because heat travels upwards, not downwards, so there should have been some sort of stopping towards the bottom of the buildings. But instead, we've got a dust pile at the bottom. Also, people who just barely made it out heard explosions from the twin towers before they started to fall down. Were these the floors banging in to each other? Possibly. I wasn't there, so I cannot verify this, but from what people said, it sounded like explosions.
When asked about a picture taken of one of the planes, Boeing said that the second plane to hit did not fit the design of any of their planes. Many witnesses said it looked like a military plane, having no windows on it.
So, why couldn't have just been fires that brought the buildings down? Well, if you revisit the film from that day, you will notice both buildings billowing an insane amount of smoke. Smoke means that the fire is weak. A strong fire would have had a lot of visible flame and sparks and little smoke. If you take the burning temperature of jet fuel, and take the temperature that steel starts to get fatigued, you will see how it is unlikely that the buildings fell do to fatigue, as the fatigue in metal doesn't start until way after the burning point of jet fuel.
Also, if fatigue was the answer, than only the floors that received the heat should have collapsed not the otherwise sturdy floors.
Let's look at that third building that everyone seems to forget about. The leaser of the building is quoted saying to the fire chief to "pull it", a term used in demolition to set off charges to demolish and implode a building. This building was also not directly hit by a plane, only debris. If you look at the footage of a few new reports of the building as it falls, you will notice what seems to be explosive charges of a controlled demolition going off.
The building also fell down in the exact way a demolished building would fall. If you notice, like a controlled demolition, the middle of the building started to fall first. This is done so that the building falls inward, doing minimal damage to it's surroundings.
A person inside said building also said he heard and saw explosions coming from inside the walls. After he made this claim, a week later he was hospitalized and died of unknown causes.
Let's revisit the two planes. So, how did we find out who were in the planes that hit the buildings? We found their passports. But, we couldn't recover a blackbox? a Passport, a tiny booklet that should have died with the suicide bomber was found in the wreckage... but not a blackbox designed to stay intact for reasons like these attacks.
Now, why don't I believe that there were 2 more planes involved? The lack of debris and bodies. There was not enough heat to burn up so much metal and people and turn it in to nothing but tracks. In the Pentagon, some parts of the plane should have been visible, but they were not. Also, take a measurement of the hole and the plane. They are not a match. Also, if you look closely at the wreckage, you will notice there are perfectly intact papers and books. Why? Why don't we see fire or ash? In fact, looking at the footage of the date, you will see there was very little fire. Again, only smoke shows. Also, surrounding businesses had surveillance cameras that had footage of the area of the pentagon that was damaged had the recordings taken away short moments afterwards by FBI, only to be destroyed later.
There are also many unanswered questions about the events. Was the events of September 11th caused by terrorists, or the United States government? I will not speak in absolutes. I cannot say yes or no. Look at the evidence yourself, though.
Debate Round No. 1
Zdawg

Pro

Sadly I could not address every point con makes as I only have 10000 characters. I'll try next round though. Links at bottom.

Con states that the towers were brought down "in the same style as a controlled demolition". While at quick glance this might seem true, if you ever look at footage of a known CD, you will see some major differences between the two. A real CD rigs the buildings main structural supports, and then sets them off in a pattern to make the building fall nice and clean straight down into itself. Real CD's begin with a very loud succession of explosive bangs that can be heard at great distances. They also start from the bottom of the structure. Link (1) is a known controlled demolition of a roughly 50 story building. Link (2) is video of the collapse of the South Tower. There are some major differences. One of the biggest differences between the two is the starting point. The controlled demolition begins at the bottom of the structure while the Twin Towers coincidentally start from the point of impact by the airplanes. Con states that the towers "imploded", but if you look at the footage, you can clearly see the towers did not come down in upon itself. Debris was tossed far outside of the perimeter of the building creating a giant mess, unlike the video of the known controlled demolition where the entire building falls nice and neat down into itself. In link (3), you can literally see the building twist, buckle and collapse. And the other glaring difference is the absence of any explosive noises coming from the towers. There were many people in the area of the towers that day, and many that were well within range of being able to hear if anything was going off, yet no one heard and no video camera picked up anything that even remotely sounds like a real CD. There were 16 people that survived inside the North Tower's B stairwell, and while they report being able to hear the floors hitting each other, they did not report any pattered explosive sounds.

Con states that the Towers fell at free fall speed. This is also not true. They did fall fast, but not at free fall. Evidence of this can be seen in link (4). What we see in link (4) is debris falling faster than where the building is during the collapse. This debris was loose debris that came off of the top of the towers, debris that was no longer attached to anything thus it was falling at free fall speed. But the towers are lagging behind the debris. How could the towers be falling at free fall speed but be so far behind the loose debris? Was the loose debris falling faster than free fall speed some how? If the towers were falling at free fall, they would be neck and neck with the debris, but it wasn't.

Con states "this means all floors of all 3 buildings had to have been weakened." I think what con is saying is the only way the upper part of the building could collapse the lower part of the building all the way to the ground is if the floors were weakened. While con did not say this, I have heard many in that movement ask the similar question of "how can the top 1/5 of the building crush the bottom 4/5 of it?" I think that relates. Well the answer is simple, that top 1/5 did not need to crush that bottom 4/5 in the same instant, it only had to crush one floor at a time. Floors 92-110 crushed floor 91, now we have floors 91-110 crushing 90, now we have 90-110 crushing 89, and so on. This sequence did occur quickly, around 10 seconds or so, but it wasn't like when me or you jump on top of an empty soda can.

Con states "When asked about a picture taken of one of the planes, Boeing said that the second plane to hit did not fit the design of any of their planes. Many witnesses said it looked like a military plane, having no windows on it." There were thousands of witnesses for when the second plane hit, and I don't know how well a witness down on the street, with the sun, is going to be able to see the planes windows. This plane was going about 550 mph after all. One person who got a extraordinary view of that second plane was a man named Stanley Praimnath. He worked on the 81st floor of the south tower. Stanley was at his desk when he noticed a plane coming his way from the Statue of Liberty. The plane went on to strike very close to Stanley, but he lived, and he reported afterwards seeing the United logo on the plane as it hit. And lets also ask that even if this was some grand conspiracy, would they be stupid enough to use the wrong plane in full view of the entire world? As for the Boeing comment, I'm not sure what to make of that. I have never heard that before. I would have to ask for a source on that because Boeing makes quite a few planes.

Con states "Smoke means that the fire is weak. A strong fire would have had a lot of visible flame and sparks and little smoke." This is also not true. Lets take a look at link (5). Link (5) is a fire at a skyscraper in Turkey. As you can see there is plenty of both fire and smoke. Does it look like the fire is weak? We also had dozens of people that were in the area of the fire, both above impact and below, that reported seeing a lot of fire. And I am not sure how people outside of the towers would be able to see a lot of the fire that was inside the building. There is however video footage that is zoomed in showing entire floors engulfed in flames.

Con states "If you take the burning temperature of jet fuel, and take the temperature that steel starts to get fatigued, you will see how it is unlikely that the buildings fell do to fatigue, as the fatigue in metal doesn't start until way after the burning point of jet fuel". The buildings fell as a result of both the fire and the plane hit, which severed several columns. Structural steel begins to soften around 450C and loses half its strength at 650C. The WTC fires were thought to top out at about 1000C.

As for WTC 7, con states that Larry Silverstein, the person that owns the lease to the WTC, said to a fire chief to "pull it", a phrased used in the demolition industry. But if you listen to the quote, what he actually said was "and they made the decision to pull it". He was referring to the emergency workers, and that it was there decision, as it is in these types of situations. It is not up to Silverstein to direct emergency workers during circumstances such as this. And this is also a quote made over a year later that was taken out of context. Silverstein saying "pull it" is not proof of a controlled demolition. Con states that you can either hear or see explosives going off in the video of the collapse, yet none of the hundreds of emergency workers who were actually there reported anything. WTC 7 has been explained many times. One of its vertical columns lost horizontal support causing it to buckle, taking the building with it. Most of the footage people see is of the north face, where not much is visible, but again, workers who were actually there and could see the south face reported heavy fire on some of the lower floors. They also reported hearing the building creaking and groaning, in fact they were so worried of this building collapsing, they evacuated the site several times that day. The steel in WTC 7 had a fire rating of 2 hours, yet was allowed to burn for 6 or 7. And the collapse of the Twin Towers damaged the water main, making it so firefighters didn't have a water to fight the fire with. And by the time they did get water (from a pump boat in the river) it was to dangerous to fight.

Con states that "at the Pentagon, some parts of the plane should have been visible, but they were not". This is also not true. A simple Google search brings up several photos of plane debris in the yard of the Pentagon. But lets not forget, the plane crashed into the building, so a lot of the debris would have been inside the building. And the part of the building where most of the debris would have been collapsed. And it would have been difficult to distinguish parts of the plane when it was among so much rubble from the building. But unless you were allowed inside of the building, you would not get a chance to see a lot of the debris. And lets not forget that a lot of the plane was aluminum, which could have easily melted in the temperatures produced in the fires. And lets also not forget that 130+ people witnesses the plane come down and crash into the building. This is a very busy area, there is a busy highway that runs along that side of the Pentagon, there is no way there wasn't anyone around to see what happened. And you can also argue that even if this was the work of the US government, why wouldn't they just use a plane. As for the size of the hole at the Pentagon, let us remember that this was a concrete building that had 1.5 inch rebar rods strengthening its frame. And we had a mostly aluminum plane crashing into it. It is hard to imagine the end parts of the wings being able to penetrate that type of material. Plus, there was a plane that crashed into the Empire State Building decades ago. The hole that was produced was far smaller than the wingspan. As for the paper and books, look at photos of the building that was attacked in Oklahoma City, you will also notice similar scenes. It is just random, some things get it, some things don't. An explosion does not mean automatic obliteration of everything it touches. As for the lack of release of better video of what happened, you have to ask yourself why would they release it? The government isn't in business to satisfy conspiracy theorists. Plus this is a video of people dying, these people had families, I wouldn't want it out either. But the 130+ witnesses and the photos of debris are more than enough to show this was a plane.

(1) https://www.youtube.com...
(2) https://www.youtube.com...
(3) https://www.youtube.com...
(4) https://www.youtube.com...
(5) https://www.youtube.com...
Ozzyhead

Con

I skip this round so my opponent can get all points across
Debate Round No. 2
Zdawg

Pro

I will finish addressing con's points from Round 1.

Con states that "people who just barely made it out heard explosions from the towers before they started to fall down". Lets not forget that "explosions" does not always equal "explosives". There was after all a massive fire going on with all sorts of things inside of it. Ask any firefighter, things happen during fires. There were also fires on the ground as well. Flaming debris from the impact points in the towers fell to the ground sparking car fires among other things. There is a chance that might have caused some of the explosions.

Con states that "all three buildings pancaked down, doing minimal damage to surrounding buildings". This is also not true. WTC 3 and 5 either collapsed or were completely destroyed, WTC 4 and 6 were partially collapsed, and 11 other surrounding buildings had major damage. The third tower that collapsed that day that con speaks of is WTC 7. The south face of WTC 7 was damaged by the collapse of the north tower. Many emergency workers there that day confirmed this. The north tower collapse also sparked fires in WTC 7 which ultimately led to its collapse, so I would not call that minimal damage. Link (1) is a map showing a very basic assessment of the damage caused. And I would like to bring back up cons point that "these buildings imploded and were brought down using a controlled demolition". As you can see by the damage map, the towers had debris flying everywhere. If this was a controlled demolition, it would be the worst one in history, CD's don't damage neighboring buildings like the towers did.

Con asks "how did we find out who were in the planes that hit the buildings? We found their passports". We know who was on the planes because of the passenger manifests the airlines had. They have documentation of everyone who purchased a ticket and walked on the plane. Con points out that we found their passports. This is half true. We did not find multiple passports, we just found one, which happened to be from one of the hijackers. While this is an extraordinary occurrence, it is not out of the realm of possibility. Some of you might remember there was an airship called the Hindenburg that caught fire and crashed to the ground in 1937. The fire was massive and the entire thing went up in flames, but miraculously a postcard survived the inferno, a postcard made of paper. As for the passport, all I can say is things happen, a plane crashing into the building and the way in which its debris disperses is not a science, it is merely random. I would also like to point out that a lot of paper survived the crash that day as shown in all the videos with countless pieces of paper flying around in the air. And the passport also might not have been on the hijacker himself in the front of the plane. It could have been anywhere on the plane. Maybe it got thrown to the ground during the hijacking leaving it unencumbered to fly wherever. You would also have to ask yourself what point is trying to be made here. Is con trying to say this passport was planted on the street? In the middle of this chaos some government official decided to place it there?

As for the black-boxes, they are indeed made to survive the most extreme of conditions, but that does not mean they cannot still be destroyed. The force of the plane crashing into the building might have does quite a bit of damage and then the building collapsing could have finished it off. When the buildings collapsed, they were essentially giant blenders made up of all sorts of things. This blender destroyed just about everything in the buildings. And while manufacturing the black-boxes, I highly doubt the makers put them through a test of what happened at the WTC with the crash and collapse, so we don't really know what should or could have happened to them. There is also the possibility that they did in fact find the black-boxes but just did not tell the public. But if that is the case, it still doesn't mean the US government were the conspirators.

Now for my points on why I believe there was no controlled demolition at the WTC. First lets go over the basic layout of the towers. Link (2) is an overhead shot of a basic floor in the Twin Towers. Unlike most skyscrapers that have most of its supporting columns inside the building, the Twin Towers moved their structural steel to the perimeter of the building, creating the facade we see outside in both buildings. Both buildings also had a traditional rectangular core that was made up of 47 columns. The two were connected to each other using floor trusses, which created the floors of the building as well as providing horizontal support to the vertical perimeter and core columns.

When they rig buildings for a controlled demolition, they rig the buildings structural support columns, which in the towers were the outer walls and core columns. So if the Twin Towers were brought down using a controlled demolition, the explosives would had to of been in those two spots. If you watch videos of the collapse of either tower, you do not see any explosives going off on the perimeter walls before or during the collapse. If there were some, they would be very obvious. Plus what would it take to put explosives on the perimeter walls? Some secret crew would have to sneak in everybody's office at night, cut the drywall, place the explosives in there on the columns, then fix the drywall by filling in the hole, sanding it, then painting it so the person whose office it was wouldn't notice it. And I don't know if you have ever seen a piece of drywall that was fixed like that, but it is almost always still noticeable. My point is that someone surely would have noticed this if it was done in their office. So that only leaves the cores of both buildings as the only viable place to put the explosives. The problem with that in the towers is that huge portions of the cores of both buildings briefly survived the collapse, for maybe 10-15 extra seconds, while the rest of the building collapsed down around it. What does this mean? Well if the explosives were placed in the cores of the buildings, the cores would not have continued to stand after the rest of the buildings collapsed, they would have been the first thing to go if that was indeed where the explosives were. Plus, there was no sign of any controlled demolition in the debris. If these buildings were rigged, there would have been some kind of remnants left over. This debris was meticulously gone through to try and find human remains, they would have found something, but they didn't.

(1) http://www.tenantwise.com...
(2) http://algoxy.com...
Ozzyhead

Con

I appreciate your arguments.

Although the arguments are very sound and source traced, I wonder the validity of these sources. That is, some of the sources, or the sources where my opponent's sources came from, may have been either made by government funded researchers to purposely aid in covering up the true facts. My sources are directly from the manufacters of the steel used in the buildings, the manufactors of the airplanes, expert demolition crew members, and eyewitnesses. The manufactors of the steel said that their beams were tested to take in excess of the peak temperatures of the fires inside the world trade center buildings. Boeing says that the pictures and videos of the second WTC plane did not fit the appearence of their airplanes. Expert demolition crews say that a controlled demolition would look very similar, and a few things can be done to completely destroy, or keep something in tact.
Also, consider this: Since the 1993 bombings of the WTC, there has been bomb sniffing dogs patroling the buildings every night. A few months before, parts of the buildings were closed off inside for construction. The areas of construction changed for those few months. And a couple months before the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, the bomb sniffing dogs mysteriously stopped, not doing a single patrol.
Also, the four planes involved all have a documented landing on the days of the attacks with a no incident report for each one.
Also, some of the supposed planes in the attack were big planes, but with a small amount of passangers. When airlines have a low amount of passangers, they will not fit them in a plane that is meant to take double the capacity of the plane. They would compensate and make them smaller.
Debate Round No. 3
Zdawg

Pro

Zdawg forfeited this round.
Ozzyhead

Con

I skip this round, for a family emergency has knocked me out of this round
Debate Round No. 4
Zdawg

Pro

Zdawg forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zdawg 2 years ago
Zdawg
Yeah this debate kind of fell apart. I was moving from the west coast to the east coast so my time was consumed by that the last week or so.
Posted by Zdawg 2 years ago
Zdawg
I didn't get time to do round 4, but if you want to make whatever remaining points on your end I'll sum up my argument in round 5.
Posted by Zdawg 2 years ago
Zdawg
Yeah I guess go ahead and skip it if it's cool with you. I'll respond to the areas I didn't get to and bring up a couple points of my own.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
I covered all points I wanted to. If you want me to skip I will refute your rebuttals in the next round
Posted by Zdawg 2 years ago
Zdawg
I just realized what Garsot down there was trying to say, sorry if I came off as sounding rude or anything, I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
Posted by Zdawg 2 years ago
Zdawg
Hmmmmm, thinking, thinking, thinking, We can do that I guess. The only things I didn't post was the stuff about witnesses hearing explosions, the collapse doing minimal damage to the surrounding buildings, and the stuff on the passport and blackbox because I thought the other areas were a little more important.Well let me ask you this, is there any areas that you did not bring up in your round 1 that you will go into in the next round? Or is it all rebuttal?

And sorry for the length, I have a tendency to try and over explain things. I'll try and get the next one done quicker also.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
I would be more than okay to skip my round 2 so you can cover all points and I will refute all points in my round 3
Posted by Zdawg 2 years ago
Zdawg
I guess I cannot edit my first round after we already started so I guess it is up to you as to what points you want to bring up. Anything goes as far as I am concerned. Up to you.
Posted by Zdawg 2 years ago
Zdawg
Sure why not. I will tell you that this will be my first debate (not counting the arguments on YouTube), but I think I can do it. But I am very happy you finally saw the light! So let us begin. Good luck.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
I used to strongly believe it was a conspiracy theory. I don't anymore, but I know how to present the arguments in a sincere way. Would it be okay if I accepted it?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
ZdawgOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Disappointed by Pro's forfeiture. At the very least Con posted a short reason for not responding. Definitions were thoroughly unclear in my opinion. Does the resolution imply that the official version is absolutely correct? In that case, all Con had to do was point out flaws in the official version. That would imply that a version exists that is closer to reality than the official version (and therefore "truer" than the official version). Conduct goes to Con. The arguments were not useful on either side in my opinion. Neither used sources.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
ZdawgOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture