The Instigator
Revid
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
scorpionclone
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points

9/11 was an inside job.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,479 times Debate No: 4152
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (45)
Votes (17)

 

Revid

Con

9/11 was NOT an inside job. There isn't one shred of evidence that says it is. I would like scorpionclone to pick one, two, or three topics or facts that point to 9/11 being an inside job. I will then attempt to point out why they are incorrect, skewed logic, or fallacious arguments.

If you accept this debate, I thank you.
scorpionclone

Pro

By arguing that 9/11 was an inside job I assume that my opponent who did not explain himself much is talking about the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania. In order to save space I will focus my argument on the World Trade Center first and then if time allows discuss the pentagon attacks.

<>

My opponent feels that there isn't "one" shred of evidence to prove that 9/11 was in fact an inside job. This makes my case very easy, because all I have to do is prove that there is at least one shred of evidence that there is proof of an inside job and leave enough doubt in the audience's mind that there are at the very least some unanswered questions that point to an inside job.

The official story is that the towers got so hot that it melted the steel causing a structural failure hence the pancake collapse and utter destruction of the pulverized concrete that followed.

Now I can use the argument that Beemor used on me to try and prove an inside job, but it's so much more fun to actually show the physical unanswered questions that point to some serious questions about this administration and their actions on 9/11.

1.Steel doesn't melt at 800 degrees. It is a scientific fact that steel does not begin to melt and loose strength until it burns at temperatures above 2000 degrees. Video clips and footage from the burning towers show a red and orange flame burning in the buildings and black smoke (Evidence points to the fact that the towers never got hotter than 800 degrees). This is evidence of a starving fire, or a fire with little fuel to keep it burning. In fact most of the fuel burned up on impact. According to official reports, Popular Mechanics and government agencies the fire never burned hotter than 800 degrees.

For Example: If you put a pan on the stove and light the burner. You will see that the pan becomes hot. However, you can keep the flame on the pan all day and the pan will not loose shape or integrity, no matter how long you burn the pan for. The reason, is because the pan must get hotter than 2000 degrees to compromise the steel.

2.This is important because if the fire never burned hotter than 800 degrees and the steel's integrity was not able to be compromised, than how did the towers collapse? Unanswered Question / Shred of Evidence #1

3.The Pancake theory: The pancake theory states that the top floors of the towers became too hot and mutilated. The floors below (which were not on fire: radio calls form firemen inside the towers said the fires were isolated) were not able to support the upper floors causing a pancake collapse. Explaining that the complete destruction that left nothing in wake was the result of the pancake collapse

a.Problem: Lab tests and computer simulations of the collapse prove that in order for this theory to be true, the towers would have taken at least 1:30 to completely collapse. That's ONE MINUTE THIRTY SECONDS FOR THE BUILDINGS TO COLLAPSE.Official reports show and video footage show the buildings collapsed in 9seconds and 10 seconds respectively. Unanswered Question / Shred of Evidence #2

4.In addition if you were to take a billiard ball and drop it from the 110th floor of the WTC it would take exactly 10 seconds for it to reach the bottom and hit the ground, with nothing inhibiting its path, with nothing in the way. That's total freefall. Yet, the towers had a tremendous amount of steel, concrete, carpet, rivets, bolts, elevators, computers, people, windows, chairs, phones, drywall, tables cubicles, desks, doors, metal, toilets, sinks restaurants, cables, wiring air conditioners, heater, aluminum…………etc………….. in the way. It was able to accomplish this same task in about 10 seconds??? Right, you really got a case for this one.

5.Pulverized Concrete: Even if you are able to explain the questions above, how do you explain pulverized concrete? What is strong enough to pulverize concrete and everything else in the towers? The largest item they found in the tower was half of a keypad from a telephone. How is this possible? Even if the towers collapsed due to the impact and fires from the planes (which I have already proved they didn't, they would not be able to pulverize concrete to point of unrecognizability). The only thing that can pulverize steel and concrete are implosion devices, explosive devices, dynamite, and THERMITE etc. Unanswered Question / Shred of Evidence #3

6.Assuming you can explain all that, how do you explain the force at which steel columns were thrown outward in the midst of the collapse? Based on the official story this is not plausible or possible. Steel columns were thrown outward and lodged into the surrounding buildings with such an extreme force that it cannot be explained based on the government supported theory. Unanswered Question / Shred of Evidence #4

7.Squibs: When viewing the footage of the collapse, it is noted and has been documented by professional demolition expert's evidence of squibs. Squibs are puffs of smoke or explosions that can be seen on the sides of buildings prior to collapsing when demolition experts demolish buildings. Unanswered / Shred #5
http://video.google.com...=#

I think it's pretty clear that the government is at the very least not supporting the investigation of the truth and what really happened on 9/11. This evidence points to at many unanswered questions that lead us to reasonable doubt that the government is hiding something.

Add that together with the propensity of this administration to lie, pervert the truth, twist the truth, start unconstitutional wars, violate our longstanding moral authority in the world to not torture and you can pretty much see that it's more likely than not that we have some inside jobs going on, 9/11 is just the most visible one, not the only one.

I can't wait for your response
Debate Round No. 1
Revid

Con

My opponent starts off by stating that I was too vague with the subject being 9/11. He then supposes that I mean the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania. Of course this is what I am talking about, I don't think the audience would be confused and think I was looking to debate September 11th, 1744.

He then says that his case is easy to prove since I stated there is not one shred of evidence that proves and inside job. Then he goes on to say that all he has to do is leave doubt in the audience's mind that there are at least some unanswered questions. Well, which is it? Proof or unanswered questions?

I asked for up to 3 topics. This is for the benefit of the audience. For example, if the Pro side were to just list 40 claims/questions it would not allow us to delve into each topic in detail. He has a list of 7 with 5 "unanswered questions", I will cover the first three "questions". If he thinks I am dodging the other ones we can cover them at another time.

I will now show that his claims of 9/11 being an inside job are unfounded. I will use logic and actual facts. I noticed he has not used any citations, this does not benefit the audience, please correct this in the next round.

#1
<>

First, lets clear something up. There is no "official story", there is however a general consensus of what happened that day by the public and experts. If you are just using this term to imply that, then I will do the same but I just want the audience to know that the government has not released an "official story".

Second, I don't know anyone who thinks that the reason the towers collapsed is because they "got so hot that it melted the steel causing a structural failure". The NIST report is 10,000 pages long so I don't expect most people to read it but here is a link to the FAQ - http://wtc.nist.gov... - you can read here what they believe the mechanism of collapse was. Here are some quotes that pertain to this topic:

"NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

This in no way mirrors what you claimed the "official story" states.

<>

Who said it does?

<>

First, we should let the audience know if we are using Celsius or Fahrenheit. From here on I will use Fahrenheit. NIST reported temperatures as high as 1800 degrees. You just say "evidence" points to.... please cite this evidence. My citation is within the same page I provided above, the NIST FAQ.

The steel did not have to melt, it just had to be weakened to initiate collapse. At 1800 degrees steel only holds 10% of its room temperature strength.

#2
I already showed that NIST for one does not subscribe to the pancake theory as a cause of initiating collapse. However I will point out how illogical it is to expect the towers to have taken a minute and thirty seconds to collapse. Even if it was a pancake collapse it would not stop at each floor for over a second, that is ridiculous. Also, don't just say "lab tests and computer simulations", you should actually cite these.

#3
<>

Free fall speed from the top of a WTC tower would be 9.23 seconds. According to Dr. Frank Greening's paper ( http://www.911myths.com... )the maximum time to strip off a floor is .110 seconds. No one knows the exact time it took each tower to collapse as it was covered in dust. Some estimate 10 to 16 seconds. The purpose of Greening's paper is to show that the time it took to collapse is not out of the ordinary. Your flawed logic is that it would take around a second on each floor. Where did you get these numbers and how do they calculate them? Also, I would like to add that an easy way to see that the towers did not collapse at free fall speed is to watch a collapse video and see that debris falls at a faster rate than the rest of the collapsing tower.

What we shouldn't do is just assume how something should happen but actually delve into that assumption and do the appropriate research/calculations.

<>

Answer: A 110 story skyscraper collapsing. Not all of the concrete was pulverized like you say, but yes a lot was, is this not expected? Each towers mass is estimated at 990 million lbs. ( http://hypertextbook.com... ), how much energy might that produce during collapse? Some estimate near as much energy as a small nuclear weapon (or 272 tons of TNT) ( http://www.debunking911.com...). After knowing this, is it any wonder that a lot of concrete was pulverized during the collapse?

<>

Or similar kinetic energy such as the collapse itself. Controlled demolitions are not intended to destroy the building they are used to initiate collapse, gravity is what actually brings it down. The majority pulverization of materials happens during the actual collapse, not when the explosives detonate. Also, Thermite is not an explosive, it is an accelerant, if you think this can pulverize anything you are mistaken.

I believe I have shown that my opponent has done very little research on this subject and therefore his claims are easy to refute. Still not a single shred of evidence that would prove 9/11 was an inside job.

I await your response.
scorpionclone

Pro

By narrowing down to the debate to the WTC, I meant only to point the debate in a certain direction; obviously we are all talking about 9/11, but which event? Since your new here let me help you out, the Instigator usually clarifies the debate as much as possible. Attacking me does not give you a stronger position; it just makes you look more ignorant. But I digress,

How can the debate be spirited if you don't respond to all my arguments, as this obviously slows the debate and doesn't allow for enough time to argue the matter? Let me respond to your 3 rebuttals.

1.
<< First, let's clear something up. There is no "official story"; there is however a general consensus of what happened that day by the public and experts. If you are just using this term to imply that, then I will do the same but I just want the audience to know that the government has not released an "official story".>>

-It's called the 9/11 Commission Report. You haven't heard of it? It's the official story since it was commissioned by the President of the United States. Maybe you should really do some research before you try and debate a topic like this. You didn't know that there was a 9/11 Report, commissioned by the government and they actually have an official story? Wow this is really enlightening.

2.
<>

Then you quoted the NIST report that said:
<< (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.">>

Isn't that the same as "got so hot that it melted the steel causing a structural failure???"

You just contradicted yourself big time.
Just to be sure we are clear again:

"The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.""
http://physics911.net...

3. More than 80% of the public believe the government was behind 9/11
Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%"

We all know the official story of September 11th: four jetliners were hijacked by groups of four and five Arabic men armed with box cutters, who proceeded to fly three of the four jets into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Subsequently the World Trade Center Towers, weakened by the impacts and fires, collapsed into piles of rubble.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov...

Let's just be clear the official story according to the NIST report cited by my opponent and the 9/11 commission report both state that the tower collapsed due to fire.

3. Evidence of Thermite(Used in controlled demolition) was found at the scene of the crime. The official Story however says:

"In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."

"A thermite reaction generates extraordinarily high temperatures (>25000 C) and provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com...

According to this source with photo evidence, thermite and evidence of temperatures reaching over 2500 degrees is noted.
This proves that your official NIST report has holes. Please do not cite government sponsored studies (NIST) as I have just shown they are not credible.

4. I think this pretty much debunks any evidence my opponent has cited from government sponsored studies.

5.
"Anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down"
Peter Jennings, ABC News 9/11/2001.

The problem with my opponents line of thinking is that the basement, parking garage area (Foot Print) of the building would have to have been prepared, or blown up in order for the building to fall into it's footprint. Otherwise the building would have tipped over. My opponent still has not responded to the claims that there were squibs, steel columns flying outward as projectiles from explosions.
6.
"We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like %^$#$%, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again." [James McKinley - E.M.T. (E.M.S.)]

"I was standing next to 1 World Trade Center and then all of a sudden I heard rumbling and we all started running away from it. The glass like blew out and threw me onto the sidewalk ... and I couldn't see for like twenty seconds..."
WMV video download (513kB)

Here are eyewitness accounts (not government reports) that they heard eplosions in the base of the building. Did a plane fly into the basement??

7.
And what about WTC7, it was never hit by a plane, yet it also collapsed. Never in the history of the world has a building collapsed because a building nearby has collapsed.
Again if you refer to the http://video.google.com... video I have cited here, you will see that WTC7 collapses in exactly the same fashion as a controlled demolition. You see the crease in the middle of the building, everything. The NIST report did not say or mention anything about this building.
In fact official reports say: According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), "the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time." (Really?)
The owner of the building is reported to have said this about WTC7 and its collapse:
WTC7 leaseholder Larry Silverstein on 9/11/2001: Silverstein states, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
"To Pull it", is a demolition term for demolish or controlled demolition, again also on the vide

I cited http://video.google.com...,

Problem: Why did this building collapse? Because the owner gave the order to "pull it"? How long does it take to rig a building for collapse? How many hours, days, weeks?

I will let my opponent respond since I'm out of room.
Debate Round No. 2
Revid

Con

I understand that you meant which location we should focus on within the subject of 9/11. I agree with you that we should narrow down the subject, However, you say:

<>

First, you recommend I clarify the debate as much as possible, yet now you would like me to respond to all of your arguments. I wanted to stick to three topics to clarify the debate. If you just rattled off 20 claims, 1 sentence each, how would I respond to them in the given character limit? Believe me, I can respond to all of your arguments, just not in one debate. If you would like to have another debate about WTC7, or any other single claim about 9/11, I welcome it.

1.
<>

Yeah, I have heard of it, the Barnes & Noble hardcover edition is sitting in front of me as we debate. Simply because it was commissioned by the president does not make it the "official story". The commission's goal was to provide a full accounting of the events surrounding the attacks on 9/11, and to recommend enhancements for national security and other public safety departments.

The commission's investigation involved tens of thousands of investigators and staffers: FBI, CIA, NSA, ATF, FEMA, FAA, NTSB, TSA, INS, DIA, NRO, SEC, NIST, ASCE, DOD, State Department, Congress, and many more. By the way, that's just U.S. organizations. If the report is a lie than some of the people involved in those organizations are complicit in that lie. Please point out what information is false so we can really debate, because you cannot just say, that since it originated from the government than it is false.

<>

Who needs to do research? I have read the commission report, have you? It does not seem like it.

You think the Commission Report is the "official story," and you say this:

<>

One problem however, is that the Commission Report does not address the question of how the towers collapsed. That job belonged to NIST, for the sole purpose of researching building code and safety improvements for future structures. I predict that you will retort saying, "Why did the commission not cover the collapse, is that not suspicious?" If so, simply read above about the mission of the Commission Report. You will see that they were concerned about national security and rescue operations, not with the intricacies of how the building collapsed.

2.
<>

No, do you know the difference between melt and weakening? No one except for Conspiracy Theorists argue that the fires got hot enough to MELT steel. Also your link to physics911.net makes the same claim, and just reading the first paragraph on that page I can tell they are a very unreliable source (if you would like further detail let me know and I will include it in the comments).

3.
Well I see you did not bother to reply to my third item. Why is that? Instead you try to push this appeal to popularity fallacy. I'll post the entire poll question so as not to mislead the audience.

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

16% Telling the truth 53% Hiding something 28% Mostly lying 3% Not sure

I would like the audience to ask themselves why my opponent would exclude the first part of this poll question. Hell, even I might be inclined to think that they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something. Show me a poll that asks "Do you think the U.S. Government is directly responsible for the attacks on 9/11," and then let us see what the results are.

<>

Quit distorting what is actually contained in the Commission Report and what NIST's conclusions were. NIST did not say it collapsed due to fire, the impact of the airliner and the structural damage it caused is very significant.

<>

No, there wasn't. Maybe if you provided a source I could at least see where you found this. If you are talking about Steven Jones' research, please read this - http://www.911myths.com...
Otherwise how should I rebut if you don't actually provide a source for this claim. If your source is "whatreallyhappened.com" that will be easy to rebut, but this was not included in the original 3 topics. I will accept a debate in the future on this subject if you wish; it will be a complex one.

<>

You are trying to tell me that the National Institute of Standards and Technology's report for the World Trade Center disaster that involved:
"Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia" is less credible than "www.whatreallyhappened.com"? That is absurd, anyone can submit for peer review a challenge of the NIST report, yet they have not. And you have not properly scrutinized it, if you would like to I am all ears.

I should not respond to any of my opponent's further claims but given the space I will.

<>

Read up a little on the construction of the Towers and it will help you understand that it is a unique design and why it didn't tip over like an end-zone pylon. http://www.debunk911myths.org...

They collapsed from the top down, which has nothing to do with the base of the building.

<>

This shows your ignorance of the construction of the towers.

<>

A better explanation would be that due to jet fuel that traveled down the north tower's elevator shaft, the lobby and basement levels were vulnerable( http://www.debunk911myths.org... ). Do any of those eyewitnesses that heard explosions think that those were demolition charges? Also the falling debris and bodies could be mistaken for explosions, just watch the Naudet brothers documentary. But again, this was a top down collapse so bombs at the base would not be necessary.

I believe that I have shown my opponent has not done extensive research past conspiracy theory websites. I stand by the fact that he cannot provide one shred of evidence to prove that 9/11 was an inside job. If my opponent is so keen to defraud the audience by editing the poll question to fit his agenda, can you really trust his careless arguments?
scorpionclone

Pro

1.
In round 2 my opponent says this:

<>

Seeing how I have a made a mockery of his NIST reports he then clarifies his remarks to this in round 3:

<>

So which is it, are we debating on the WTC, as I have tried to narrow the debate to (due to space), or is it all three crime scenes as you so abundantly made clear in Round 2?

I am going with your round 3 debate requirements as this is what time and space will allow. However, since we were only able to debate about the debate and not debate 9/11 in detail, I feel that you really think 9/11 was an inside job as well.

Let me start off by saying that if my geography is right WTC7 is actually part of the same complex as the WTC 1 & 2. You did not specify which buildings, and I to assume that you meant the entire WTC complex (Again you never specified which crime scene until round 3).

2.
Now looking at the embarrassing amount of photo graphic evidence I was able to provide (YOU HAVE PROVIDED NONE, ONLY GOVERNMENT REPORTS THAT I HAVE PROVED ARE SUSPECT AT THE LEAST) they asks some serious questions about the events surrounding WTC 7 and its "demolition", because that's what it was, a demolition. I can understand why you want to sidestep this issue and debate it "later".

But ultimately for the benefit of the audience, it's obvious that I touched a nerve, bringing up WTC 7. Hence I believe that I have won the debate based on your insistence that we not discuss WTC 7, when in fact it is relevant to the discussion, and by your own words qualifies as a relevant crime scene in the discussion.

3.
<>

This sounds official to me. A full accounting means all events, full, everything.!! I The 9/11 commission was appointed by the President of the United States. Then you say:

<>

So now you're undermining the authority of the President, such audacity! Tisk Tisk

<>

-Doesn't this sound like an official report? When all departments are involved??

Yet none of them could explain how WTC7 was destroyed??? Really, and you believe that report? Wake up my friend, you are being lied to.

4.

In regards to thermite being found at the crime scene you said:

<>

Ok again, I provided photo evidence from this site, (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com...)

I invite the audience to click on the link and review actual footage.Let me add that my opponent did not provide any photo evidence to prove his theory but would rather give you government reports.

Let's list the government reports in history that actually led to revealing the truth.

The Kennedy Assassination – Truth covered up
Watergate Scandal – Nixon was pardoned, truth covered up until many years later. Nixon tapes still not available in their entirety.
Torture at Abu Graib – Covered up, we still don't know who authorized torture
Lead up to Iraq war – Lied to the people, said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. then told there were weapons of mass destruction, truth covered up, still don't know the total truth.

This is what the government reports mean: cover ups, lies, distortions, yet my opponent has based his entire argument on the faith of government agencies and reports.

It's like asking a murder suspect to take on the role of the prosecuting attorney. Is he really going to uncover the truth, or are there going to be distortions, stretching of the truth, cover ups. You decide, but past history concludes that I'm correct.

Back to Thermite: Ground Zero stayed hot for weeks after the event. There are pictures of molten steel, only found in foundries. Jet fuel doesn't get any hotter than 1000 degrees tops, and I encourage the audience to investigate that claim themselves. Most of the fuel burned up on impact. And was not hot enough in and of itself to bring down the towers. Sorry, not buying it, and I don't think the audience is lame enough to believe it either.

5. Your were unable to dispute the 9/11 mysteries video that I cited which was an independent investigation of the events surrounding 9/11.It proves my billiard ball theory which you were unable to scientifically debunk, without confusing the audience with 10th grade flawed and fuzzy science.

Everyone knows that uninhibited objects in motion travel faster than objects with resistance. There is no way the towers could have fell at free fall speed without explosives being place at the key support beams inside the towers
I submit to you that 9/11 was an inside job, there are many unanswered questions regarding these attacks that even a 5th grader can see that something isn't right.

Not only have I proven that there are "gobs" of shreds of evidence that prove it, my opponent chose to debate the debate instead of refute my claims, the closest he got to refuting the thermite evidence was to cast it aside, and he would not even discuss WTC 7.

6.

The fact that my opponent would only allow three items of evidence is fine. He still can't explain the thermite and explosions without attacking me personally. I invited him to provide eveidence from a credible source and he was unable to. He cannot dicredit the evidence of thermite, becasue he has no other proof.

He also sidestepped the "pull it" statements made by the leaseholder Silverstein, and the fact that the WTC complex was insured for a double terrorist attack months before the attacks. The governments inabililty to investigate the matter points to culpability in the very least.

Thats like knowing that someone put a hit on a person, the police finding out about it, but then only arresting the peson who puilled the trigger. It's laughable. But I invite the audience to use thier own common sense, do thier own investigation of my claims, check my sources and vote for the truth, not the government shill on the other end of this argument.

However, I thank my opponent for having the courage to debate this topic as it is not an easy task trying to cover up the governments lies. Just look at Scooter libby.
Debate Round No. 3
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Scorpionclone: even if everything you said about the behaviour of steel was true - it's not! - it wouldn't necessarily point to an "inside job", nor does any of the other 'evidence'. Only an idiot or an extreme ideologue would subscribe to such a stupid theory.
BTW, questions simply do not carry the same weight as answers.
Posted by scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
This is the debate that you claim that the NIST is the gospel truth. Do you want to back away from your claim? Because you have not addressed it in the other debate as you said you would.

Do you stand by the NIST report or not?

A Simple yes or no will do

The judges wold like to know
Posted by Revid 8 years ago
Revid
I will address it in our debate: http://www.debate.org...

<>

Do you think these comments help you? I would argue that they do not. Try to have some class and just wait patiently for my response.

If you want to discuss all the times where you have not responded to something I asked or brought up I can do that.
Posted by scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
I haven't heard you respond to the clip I posted. I think we can agree that the NIST report is not "credible" based on that clip. The investigator never saw any molten steel???
Doesn't know anybody who has??

Do you want to back away from your NIST report or do you still stand by it?

Awful silent .....
Was that a pin drop........
Posted by scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
try it again, my bad!
25 characters
Posted by Revid 8 years ago
Revid
Try the link again, it just goes to vide.google.com

I'll check it out.
Posted by scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
http://video.google.com......

"……I haven't seen any evidence of molten steel, at the towers…."
NIST Engineer, John Goss – Denies the existence of Molten Steel

you gotta see this, it totally blows this guys debating points out the window!!
Posted by scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
You must be new here.

Ok I'll take it on, because it was a controlled demolition.
Posted by Revid 8 years ago
Revid
Scorpion, if you would like to debate WTC7, I have a challenge. http://www.debate.org...
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by fisher 8 years ago
fisher
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ItalianStalian7 8 years ago
ItalianStalian7
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by BruceDoh 8 years ago
BruceDoh
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by drummer-boy-07 8 years ago
drummer-boy-07
RevidscorpioncloneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
RevidscorpioncloneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jesus1134 9 years ago
jesus1134
RevidscorpioncloneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by giuocob 9 years ago
giuocob
RevidscorpioncloneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by batmanfr3ak01 9 years ago
batmanfr3ak01
RevidscorpioncloneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by scr3amofr3ak 9 years ago
scr3amofr3ak
RevidscorpioncloneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03