The Instigator
BillionBrainCells
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
19 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 602 times Debate No: 66725
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

BillionBrainCells

Pro

I would love to be exposed to the idea that 9/11 happened as portrayed.
donald.keller

Con

I'll accept.
Debate Round No. 1
BillionBrainCells

Pro

R.I.P. to all that died on 9/11. I'm fighting for you. If you believe this country would never do this or could do this, nazi Germany did false attacks all the time and they weren't even half as powerful as the United States government. If you think we are much more moral than Nazi Germany ever was, you should be aware the Germany people didnt know about the concentration camps.

The only steel towers to ever collapse due to fire were the 3 @ WTC on 9/11. Your obvious counter argument will be that a plane hit them, but the towers were designed to absorb the impact of a commercial jet, just incase an accident was to ever occur in the busy skys over New York City. Accounts from people inside the towers, and all on the ground, are 100% consistent with the building absorbing the impact and returning to its initial position. Everyone in the towers who survived say the towers were hit, swayed one way, and then returned to their original position.. proving the buildings maintained their structural integrity. Ask yourself how modern towers of steel crumble in 2 hours due to plane contact, but a B- 25 can fly into the Empire State Building in 1945 and that building stands proud after hours of fire. If the buildings were to collapse it would have been localized and partial, not straight down into their footprint in a matter of 4 seconds. They fell almost nearly identical to the speed of gravity.. a incredibly impressive feat for a building made of steel.

Put Option - An option contract giving the owner the right, but not the obligation, to sell a specified amount of an underlying asset at a set price within a specified time. The buyer of a put option estimates that the underlying asset will drop below the exercise price before the expiration date. Put options were placed on American Airlines and United immediately before 9/11. Odd.

The pentagon has the most defense systems out of any building in the United States. I'm to believe that after the country knew it was under attack not one of these defense systems were put into action? Look at the flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon and do some research, those were highly incredibly skilled pilots. You don't get that type of skill from a few lessons in a small 4 seater prop plane down in Florida. Add in the nearly impossible angle the plane took to hit the first floor and you have a very unlikely scenario. There are hundreds of cameras at the pentagon.. but the only images to be released are from one camera and don't show a plane because it flew in "between frames".

Building 7, home to numerous government agencies, also came down that day.. but it was never hit by an aircraft. It too collapsed on itself.

We are supposed to believe that a country this powerful, with all its intelligence resources and defense systems, got utterly defeated by a bunch of guys who never flew a jet plane before? Don't take my word for it, please.. research the thousands of engineers who whole heartedly believe the events that took place are impossible. Research the families of those who died that day that demand justice and the truth.
donald.keller

Con

Pro starts his argument immediately with an Appeal to Emotion, and is trying to sway people by appearing to be a moral warrior. He also stats that the German's didn't know about the concentration camps. In fact, they did. The camps were ran by huge sums of people, it could never be a secret. While not everyone knew of the full horror, they still knew about the camps. Even then, this is a poor comparison, in every way.

Rebuttal I: The Twin Towers Collapsing.

Pro is right to assume I'd go with the Twin Towers being hit by a plane. He states that they are made to withstand a plane. The Titanic was made to not sink, and yet, getting hit at the right angle, it did. Just because the building was made to absorb the force of a plane, doesn't mean it would work every time. Pro brings up how the buildings went back into their right position. Of course they did... It was NEVER the impact that destroyed the buildings.

What actually happened related more to the specific aspects of this impact. The tower's steel was protected by insulation that was capable of protecting it from heat. However, the crashing planes scrapped away the insulation. This left the tower's steel vulnerable. Another major issue was that the planes damaged the sprinkler system, preventing the building from putting out the fire (1).

As my prior source also claims, the planes damaged much of the columns supporting the tower. This is made worse by the plane effectively shifting the building load onto the undamaged columns. Not long after the planes had hit, the building would collapse from over-exposure to heat, and the damaging of columns that could no long hold the weight of the towers.

Without the insulation, the towers were vulnerable to a fireball fueled by 10's of thousands of gallons of pure jet fuel, possibly as much as 90,000 lbs of fuel (2). Some argue that this isn't enough to melt the steel. They are right. But they are also wrong. It didn't have to melt steel. The fire weakened the steel structure of the buildings. After enough weakening, the structures let out (3).

What Pro and others Truthers fail to see is that one does not need to melt steel, to bend it.

The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained. - Scientific American.

[1] http://architecture.about.com...
[2] http://www.tms.org...
[3] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[]

Rebuttal II: Put Options:

Pro's argument is hugely hypothetical. He basically threw out a massive assumption, and asks the voters to just go with it. In reality, it's likely people had other reason's to buy Put Options in those companies. Remember that this was also around the time of the economy crashing, so it's almost a guarantee that Put Options were becoming insanely popular at the time, especially in companies who invest in travel (the first thing to go in a bad economy).

Rebuttal III: The Pentagon:

Pro claims that you can't learn how to fly an aircraft with the efficiency the terrorists did in "few lessons in a small 4 seater prop plane down in Florida." This is an assumption. Might Pro show what level of training the terrorist's took before making a vague assumption of what their training was like? They likely had far greater training than Pro acknowledges here.

In reality, they don't have to learn the ins and outs of operating a plane. They only have to know how to make the plane turn and hit things. Pro assumes the terrorists would need extensive training for a one-shot, simplistic plan that involves no advanced understanding of planes. And the turning of the plane wasn't specifically impressive.

Pro brings up how the Pentagon is so well defended, but fails to connect the dots here... The Pentagon wasn't going to shoot down a civilian aircraft based on an assumption... Even if it looked oddly positioned. Aircraft move unbelievable fast, so by the time they knew 100% that it was actually coming for them, it was too late to respond. The Pentagon would have never shot down the plane without knowing if it was justified, and by the time they knew, it would be too late. Pro makes a largely unrealistic assumption here... That the Pentagon would actually hurt itself for a war. Such a move is counter productive in every way.

As for the video of the plane, I'm not sure what Pro is aiming at here? The Pentagon is by a major highway... The sheer number of people watching from there makes claiming that it wasn't a plane completely ridiculous. Pro must rely on the idea that thousands of drivers never saw the plane, and not one mentioned that there was no plane. Another hole in Pro's claim the sheer evidence of a plane being there, take the images below:


What we see is empirical evidence that there was a plane there (6). There are too many witnesses and too much evidence to deny this.

[5] http://www.therichest.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[]

Rebuttal IV: Building 7:

Building 7 is so often brought up because it wasn't struck by a plane. The issue is that doesn't have to be. When the towers collapsed, they left debris and damage around the immediate area. Pictures of the building might not show damage, but they don't cover all angles. A picture of the side of the building facing the towers shows us a massive fire inside and damage to the building.



The building was badly damaged by the collapse of the towers, and after sometime, collapsed in on itself for all the same reasons (7). What ultimately happened was that debris from the towers caused fires in at least 10 floors on Building 7. The sprinkler system failed because of damage to the water supply (also caused by the collapsing of the two towers) and so the fire kept burning. After 7 hours, the thermal expansion had caused the floors to give out and collapse (8).

Had the water supply not been damaged, the fire would have been controlled. Pro's assumption is fairly far fetched, as he doesn't attempt to explain why the Government might have bombed such a random building. The Twin Towers made sense, Building 7 doesn't...

[7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[8] http://www.popularmechanics.com...
[]

Conclusion:

There is no evidence for any of Pro's claims. A decade of constant research and studying as proven a perfect idea of why and how the buildings collapsed. Pro's assumption is far beyond hypothetical, and doesn't correlate with facts. Countless studies have been done to appease Truthers, and each one comes back only ever reinforcing the original narrative. Pro's case does not meet the evidence.
Debate Round No. 2
BillionBrainCells

Pro

BillionBrainCells forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Con

Arguments Extended.

Pro deactivated his account. Now I have this debate, and another he challenged me to before Deactivating, to wait for <_<
Debate Round No. 3
BillionBrainCells

Pro

BillionBrainCells forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Con

Arguments Extended.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Greener49 1 year ago
Greener49
The tower might have adsorbed the hit, but guess what a plan can go throw glass and start a firer.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
THAT WASN'T A PIECE OF PLANE

THAT WAS A PEPSI CAN ENLARGED

WE ARE ALL BRAINWASHED

MY TIN FOIL HAT FELL OFF
SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

DONT TRUST WHAT I SAY, THEY HAVE ME UNDER THEIR CONTROL

MUST RESIST
AH
*death*
Posted by rich123 1 year ago
rich123
ill accept it
Posted by rich.brisbo89 1 year ago
rich.brisbo89
Listen to Texe Marrs online free on YouTube. And why haven't you answered my debate about the man of sin.
Posted by BillionBrainCells 1 year ago
BillionBrainCells
@rphk123 that it was.
Posted by rich123 1 year ago
rich123
are you taking the side that it wasn't a inside job or it was an inside job??
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
BillionBrainCellsdonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff. Pro should not have challenged such an experienced user.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
BillionBrainCellsdonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by rich123 1 year ago
rich123
BillionBrainCellsdonald.kellerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF