The Instigator
Pillowface
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

9/11 was not 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 1 vote the winner is...
TheRussian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 562 times Debate No: 54100
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Pillowface

Pro

I know this debate has probably been done before but I would just like to see if anything has changed over the past decade or so. Do you think the government did this, or do you think it was a legitimate terrorist attack from a different country?
TheRussian

Con

Thank you for offering this interesting topic of debate. Personally, I have no doubt in my mind that this was an inside job.

First, I will begin with simple statistics.
The skyscraper was built to withstand wind loads 30 times greater than the weight of the plane, yet somehow, the building still collapsed. This suggests the use of additional explosives that were detonated at the time of the collision to "help" bring the tower down.
http://www.tms.org...

Many people point to burning jet fuel as the source of the problem, however, this too is false. Jet fuel burns at about 600 C, but the melting point of steel (which the "skeleton" of the building was made of) is 1500 C. Jet fuel would have done virtually nothing to contribute to the fall of the buildings.
http://education.jlab.org...
http://911research.wtc7.net...

Considering the above, I think it is safe to say that there is no way that the plane alone could have caused the fall of the skyscrapers.

I will expand on my arguments in the next round. On to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Pillowface

Pro

Yes rocket fuel does burn at about 600 C. With the steel's melting point of 1500 C, its hard to think that such jet fuel can actually melt the steel. However, the rocket fuel did not just effect the floors it hit. The fuel went down the elevators, causing significant damage to the building from the floor the plane hit, to ground level. People were killed instantly when elevators were seen, by eye witnesses, crashing to the ground and exploding on contact. Most elevator shafts were burning with rocket fuel with a temperature as hot as 500 C. If the fire did not destroy the steel, then it destroyed every other pillar that was stabilizing the building. Get rid of those, and the structure, used to standing on steel and other objects as a way of structural integrity, will fall due to less infrastructure inside.

Yes the melting point of the steel was about 1500 C, but as a retired New York deputy fire chief, Vincent Dunn says he has never seen steel being melted before in his life until 9/11. Even though the steel was not completely melted through, all it took was the steel to melt slightly; just enough so "the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks" under pressure. Other things caught on fire as well. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) reports that the overall heat reached 1832 F.
(http://www.popularmechanics.com...)

Yes, what you say about the building withstanding 30 times greater than the weight of the plane is true. Yet, remember, the plane was traveling at about 560 knots. The impact of the plane was responsible for the building's collapse just as much as the fires inside. The weight of the plane had nothing to do with the building collapsing. Once the fires entered the building and the damage stretched the ENTIRE height of the building, from ground level to the top floors, the structure was bound to collapse.
(http://pilotsfor911truth.org...)
TheRussian

Con

"If the fire did not destroy the steel, then it destroyed every other pillar that was stabilizing the building."
Other supporting pillars were most likely made out of concrete. Fire cannot destroy concrete.

"but as a retired New York deputy fire chief, Vincent Dunn says he has never seen steel being melted before in his life until 9/11."
That is not surprising because steel does not melt unless additional explosives/thermite were added to help.
For WEEKS after the disaster, firefighting teams found pools of molten steel in the rubble. This suggests the use of thermite to destroy the metal columns.
http://moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com...

Next, let's take a look at security. NORAD is a very advanced system that conducted 67 successful interceptions in the year 2000, but suddenly fails twice in one day?
http://www.911myths.com...

I would also like to note that the "Bin Laden" tapes are fake.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

These are two pictures, one of Bin Laden, the other is from the tape that the CIA released of Bin Laden supposedly admitting that it was his plot. They are obviously not the same person.
http://www.911myths.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Pillowface

Pro

Fire cannot destroy concrete"- Yes fire cannot destroy concrete but the falling floors above them can.

The real reason for their collapse was structural. Most buildings have their support in the center of the tower. The Twin Towers had their support on the outside, giving it perimeter support. So if and airplane crashes into it at 560 knots, regardless of the integrity of the steel, the "shell" of steel is most likely to buckle, bend or break, causing floors above to crash down. This put more weight than expected on the inferior levels. Once that floor was under too much stress, it gave out and crashed on to the next floor. It's weight was almost quadrupling as each floor fell onto the next.

About thermite...
First things first: never has there ever been a fire that involved a jet airplane crashing into a sky scrapper causing thousands of gallons of jet fuel to spill into the building and catching the entire building on fire and having it crash to the ground. The "liquid" metal could have been melted aluminum for all we know. It's most likely aluminum because it took the steel much longer to melt than the aluminum from the plane. Hot steel will continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions while exposed to air, causing iron to increase its temperature until it melts, forming pools of molten iron.
(http://www.physics.byu.edu...)
So it could also be iron. Who knows. Some people said it was too shiny to be aluminum, others said it was not, but, really, who had the time to observe it while they were running in the streets? It has come down to one question: was the molten substance shinny enough to be aluminum? The pictures we have are only so good, and we may never know how freaking shinny it actually is...

Even if it was explosives that were used in the building, is there any proof that the Government did it? I'm not asking WHY the government would do. Why must we blame the government? Terrorists have placed bombs before. There has been a total of 60 attempts to attack the WTC in some form; small or big. Do you think they would figure out the layout of the building after 60 attempts? The government owns military grade explosives. The terrorists own military grade explosives...
(http://www.heritage.org...)

"NORAD is a very advanced system that conducted 67 successful interceptions in the year 2000, but suddenly fails twice in one day"
It "failed" because the hijackers turned off the airplanes transponders so the Air Traffic Control could not track them. The only way the Air Force could shoot down those hijacked planes is if they got an alert from Air Traffic Control, which they didn't because Air Traffic Control could get in touch with the hijacked planes.
TheRussian

Con

"Once that floor was under too much stress, it gave out and crashed on to the next floor. It's weight was almost quadrupling as each floor fell onto the next."
1. The weight did not change. The building supported a certain amount of weight before the collision and same after, extra floors were not added. They were simply stacked on one another.
2. If this was true, then "layers" of floors stacked on top of each other would be found afterwards. There were no stacks of floors found. In fact, the floors were shredded. Same with the steel columns, if there were no explosives, then the columns would be bent, beaten but not SHREDDED as they were found and as you can see in this picture.
http://911research.wtc7.net...

"Hot steel will continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions while exposed to air, causing iron to increase its temperature until it melts, forming pools of molten iron."
Which is why it was steel that was molten weeks after the collision, and not aluminum. Aluminum would have cooled off.

"I'm not asking WHY the government would do that"
The government did it to create a national enemy and create a reason to invade Iraq/Middle East for oil. Lots of money.
http://www.cnn.com...
http://readersupportednews.org...

"It "failed" because the hijackers turned off the airplanes transponders so the Air Traffic Control could not track them. The only way the Air Force could shoot down those hijacked planes is if they got an alert from Air Traffic Control, which they didn't because Air Traffic Control could get in touch with the hijacked planes."
NORAD is immediately notified when a plane stops broadcasting the transponder code and NORAD had many drills with planes that had transponders turned off. One of the planes was flying around without a signal for 45 mins, yet NORAD still "couldn't" take it down.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com...

I will note that my opponent dropped my point about Bin Laden.

It can be noted that the buildings fell at almost free fall speed. Nothing can move mass out of the way that fast except explosives.
http://911research.wtc7.net...
Debate Round No. 3
Pillowface

Pro

I dropped the Bin Laden point because that is a totally separate part of the debate. For time and space constraints, lets keep it at the actual attack.

Maybe it was aluminum maybe it wasn't. But if the molten steel was found, that does not prove that bombs were used to cause that. It proves that "hot steel will continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions while exposed to air, causing iron to increase its temperature until it melts, forming pools of molten iron."

"The building supported a certain amount of weight before the collision and same after, extra floors were not added"
Yes there were no floors added, but structural support was taken out. Example: Have someone stand on your hand. Not bad right? Now have someone with a high heel stand on your hand. Hurts doesn't it? Think of the "foot" as the building after the attack, and think of the "heel" as after the plane hit. There was more pressure on the steel because other floors fell due to the perimeter structure breach.

Step 1: building is fine. All steel is intact and perfectly placed.
Step 2: plane hits building and fire burns/melts mostly everything, including the steel.
Step 3: support beams are taken out.
Step 4: more weight is administered to the beams still somewhat intact.
Step 5: those beams break.

You would most likely not see perfect square floors on the ground because everything is breaking and hitting a variety of things. Once the floors hit the ground, The floors exploded outward from the force of their impact on the ground. Your telling me that you would expect a perfect stack of floors? Everything is falling and breaking at different angles so common sense would dictate that the floors will break on the way down. They aren't invincible when they are falling...

As for the NORAD incident, I do not think we will ever find out the answer to why they did not respond in time. The military hates accepting the fact they failed or something went wrong. If the military openly says that a certain action failed at a pivotal point, than terrorist can do the exact same maneuver because is worked last time.

Was it the governments fault for Pearl Harbor? Yes they had all their eggs in one basket and they knew an attack was coming but they didn't know when or where it would happen. The same could be said with this situation. The jets were being scrambled about but some were armed and some where not. The attach was unprecedented which was way is was so effective. Also, shooting down a civilian plane would be impossible. Hijackings were unheard of at the time and kamikaze attacks were the last thing Bush expected as a terrorist attack on America. Bush even gave the military authorization to shoot down commercial airliners but it was overruled by the military. People would blame Bush if either decision was made.
TheRussian

Con

"I dropped the Bin Laden point because that is a totally separate part of the debate. For time and space constraints, lets keep it at the actual attack."
It is not a completely separate point. The CIA lied about finding supposed "Bin Laden" tapes, further supporting my argument that the government planned this event out as an excuse to enter the Middle East.

"But if the molten steel was found, that does not prove that bombs were used to cause that. It proves that "hot steel will continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions while exposed to air, causing iron to increase its temperature until it melts, forming pools of molten iron."
We have established that jet fuel would not be able to melt steel. This means that thermite/explosives were used. Molten pools were found weeks later, this was because of the long exothermic oxidation that happens in STEEL, further supporting my argument that it was not aluminum.

"Yes there were no floors added, but structural support was taken out. Example: Have someone stand on your hand. Not bad right? Now have someone with a high heel stand on your hand. Hurts doesn't it? Think of the "foot" as the building after the attack, and think of the "heel" as after the plane hit. There was more pressure on the steel because other floors fell due to the perimeter structure breach."
I understand my opponent's analogy, but it is irrelevant. The base of the building held a certain weight before and after the collision. It does not matter that supports above were taken out, the base should still have been able to hold instead of collapsing the entire building. If the building weighed 5,000 tons (for example) before the collision, then after the plane crashed into it, the base still held 5,000 tons, no more and no less.

"You would most likely not see perfect square floors on the ground because everything is breaking and hitting a variety of things."
There would not be "perfect square floors" on the ground, but there would still be a stack of things that can be identified as floors, not shredded piles of rubble.
http://911research.wtc7.net...

"As for the NORAD incident, I do not think we will ever find out the answer to why they did not respond in time. The military hates accepting the fact they failed or something went wrong. If the military openly says that a certain action failed at a pivotal point, than terrorist can do the exact same maneuver because is worked last time."
This is not an argument. My opponent is virtually admitting that he does not know how it happened. NORAD is supposed to take out military planes, but was not able to intercept a commercial plane that was flying around for 40 minutes.

"Was it the governments fault for Pearl Harbor? Yes they had all their eggs in one basket and they knew an attack was coming but they didn't know when or where it would happen."
1. If they knew that an attack was coming, then yes, it is the government's fault for not preparing.
2. Pearl Harbor was not an inside job.
3. Pearl Harbor was an openly declared war with hundreds of military planes.

"Also, shooting down a civilian plane would be impossible. Hijackings were unheard of at the time and kamikaze attacks were the last thing Bush expected as a terrorist attack on America."
1. It is NORAD's job to shoot down planes. I do not see why it was impossible.
2. Bush didn't simply expect it, he planned it.

"Bush even gave the military authorization to shoot down commercial airliners but it was overruled by the military. People would blame Bush if either decision was made."
Please provide your source.
Debate Round No. 4
Pillowface

Pro

Pillowface forfeited this round.
TheRussian

Con

I have nothing to refute.
To sum up my arguments:
1. NORAD is famed for successful interceptions, but failed twice in a day.
2. The building was made to take larger forces than the plane.
3. The floors and steel rods would not be shredded, but bent if nothing but the plane was used.
4. Fire was not a factor. It does not burn hot enough to do serious damage.
5. The "Bin Laden" tapes provided by CIA are obviously fake.
6. Pools of molten steel were found WEEKS afterward, suggesting the use of thermite.

In conclusion, I have no doubt in my mind that this was an inside job.

Thank you for the good debate.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by VoiceOfTheVoiceless 2 years ago
VoiceOfTheVoiceless
Yes, 9/11 was an inside job, we need to get past this outdated debate, it is just idiotic to further engage in these debates as the fact that the bush administration has already used 9/11 as a problem reaction solution doctrine to engage in foreign wars for the prevention of the expansion of 'terrorism' the same way the US did with the Vietnam war and the expansion of 'Communism'. you just have to read the Northwood Documents it'll initialise every doctrine of strategy for wars in the interest of foreign policy that are sweetened with the words of 'preserving people's freedom and instilling a Democracy in their land'. please. its getting Old.
Posted by Pillowface 2 years ago
Pillowface
On second to last paragraph, it should be "will never find"... damn spell check -_-
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
haha, alright, no problem :)
Posted by Pillowface 2 years ago
Pillowface
My last sentence in my last argument should be "they could NOT contact".
Posted by Pillowface 2 years ago
Pillowface
My last sentence in my last argument should be "the could NOT contact".
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
I don't think so...I mean, it burns at 600 C...that's it...it physically/chemically cannot burn any hotter...
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
" Jet fuel burns at about 600 C, but the melting point of steel (which the "skeleton" of the building was made of) is 1500 C."

But is not possible to have jet fuel at 1500 C?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
PillowfaceTheRussianTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I've read a lot of contradictory material on this subject. But pro arguments were weak, with pro failing to refute certain con arguments, as well as not having confidence in the correctness of the important issue of which metal had melted. conduct goes to con for pro forfeit in last round.