The Instigator
truther1111
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

911 WAS an inside job ..........

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 5 votes the winner is...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,713 times Debate No: 39094
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (415)
Votes (5)

 

truther1111

Pro

denier of truth blade runnner needs to be schooled .
bladerunner060

Con

As I have been challenged to this, I will accept.

As noted in the comments, my opponent is accepting the BoP, and is arguing that the attacks on 9/11 were perpetrated by the US government, or agents thereof.

I turn the floor to Pro to present his case.
Debate Round No. 1
truther1111

Pro

Con has a great debating record, so I might not win the debate . However the truth is the truth regardless of who wins an argument.
The truth is 911 was an inside job .
How do we know this? Science.

Some might argue if its science then why doesnt the scientific community come foward and state 911 was an inside job ?
I would like to argue that the scientific community or mainstream thought is generally always wrong as history has proven.
-The theory of electromagnestism for example was considered a crazy looney theory .
-The theory of continental drift was also considered looney.
-Einsteins theory of relativity etc.

In almost every case of a new scientific thought or theory the Scientific community or establishment or status quo considers it looney.

People have called 911 truthers looney too and most people base their belief that 911 was not an inside job soley on the fact that most architects and engineers agree that it wasnt a controlled demolition.

However,
'Looney' scientists who challenge the mainstream thought have brought up some very valid scientific questions regarding the collapse of the towers.
These questions that were proposed have not been answered by NIST or other scientists.
These questions are damning to the official theory of collapse.

1. Evidence of extreme temperatures found at 911.

RJ LEE an independant scientific group did a study on WTC dust .

Particles that were formed or modified by high temperature indicate temperatures

'Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel) '

- http://911research.wtc7.net...

NIST has not answered how or where the temperatures came from to Melt iron or steel let alone lead...
NIST denies evidence of molten steel.
NIST denies molten steel because they know jet fuel fires cannot in 1 million years melt steel.
The only thing that can explain molten steel is something added to the fires to increase temperature , these are called incendiaries.
Therefore incendiary devices had to be placed in the towers alluding, they needed access and also high tech incendiary devices.

The terrorist theory cannot explain how they made or placed these incendiaries in the towers therefore its more likely that insiders in the govt did it.

-Even more Evidence of Molten steel

During the south tower collapse molten material is seen flowing from the south tower , according to black body radiation a molten materials temperature can be deduced by its color.This indicates a temperature of 980C - 1050C leaning on the heavy side as it looks more yellow than orange.
NIST 'solves' this problem by stating that the material was aluminium (molten).

The problem with NIST theory is its impossible.
Aluminium melts at 660C at which temperature is looks silvery

The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron.

Here is a video example of aluminium being heated in a container to 980c or 1800 F...



As you can see the aluminium cools rapidly to a silvery colour, as metals are a great conductor of heat.

The molten material flowing from the south tower even remains orange yellow during its whole descent.

Ironically for debunkers NIST knows this and agrees that the molten material is not pure liquid aluminium, and have hypothesised a different scenario to make the aluminium orange yellow...

"11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?
NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.
Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."


http://wtc.nist.gov...




However as Dr. Jones demonstrated by experiment that organic material floats on the liquid aluminum and burns up (oxidizes). Further, the liquid aluminum in this experiment was never heated to the point where it no longer appeared silvery. This experiment gave the expected result. Organic material would not change the color vs temperature behavior of aluminum.
The conclusion of this analysis is inescapable. The liquid metal was molten iron...

If any debunkers can show how to make aluminium orange yellow while getting it to flow from a building. Then officially this will be debunked.

Even more evidence of molten steel !

The evidence for molten steel goes on , to much to write down in enough words so I have to copy this link which has a great video summarizing more evidence.

http://rethink911.org...

Evidence of incendiaries were also found by architect and engineers for 911 truth as shown in the link .

bladerunner060

Con

Thank you to Pro. I'll get right into rebuttal.

Pro says that "the truth is the truth regardless of who wins an argument". This is true. But it is through discussion and debate that we come to determine our best understanding of truth. If Pro has no basis for his belief, it may well be true--but we have no way of knowing that. If we know that 9/11 was an inside job because of "science", then presumably Pro will win this debate, because he will have evidence.

Pro (sort of) opens his case by claiming "the scientific community or mainstream thought is generally always wrong as history has proven." This claim is supported by Pro based on theories which were became supported after they were tested and found to have evidence--that is why "mainstream thought" changed: evidence. There is nothing that makes a theory better just because it is not mainstream.

I hope, for his sake, Pro has the evidence to back up his claims. Otherwise, what he's said here almost seems like he would be saying "My evidence isn't compelling, but I'm right anyway", and, to turn a phrase, that's no way to run a railroad.

Now, on to his actual claims on the contention.

Pro's first claim is that there were extreme temperatures at the site.

To begin with, I will note that this claim, in isolation, does not establish that 9/11 was an "inside job". At absolute best it might establish that the official story does not sufficiently explain the events and that, on its own, does nothing to establish that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government. Even accepted at face value, this claim does not make Pro's prima facie case for the resolution, even if it went completely unrebutted. But, of course, there are rebuttals.

Moving on to the claim itself:

Pro claims that NIST did not address "where the temperatures came from to Melt iron or steel let alone lead". The melting point of lead is 327.5 C (621 F) [1]. That's achievable with pretty much any fire, even candle[2], let alone a fire made with jet fuel. Technically, at least parts of a lit cigarette will melt lead. The melting point of iron and steel, however, is generally higher. Ductile iron has the lowest melting point, at 1149 C (2100 F), and some wrought iron has the highest, at 1593 C (2900 F), with steel coming in at a close second, at 1540 C (2800 F) [1]. That seems damning for the official story, until you realize that we're talking about particles here.

Particles have melting points far lower than that of large blocks of material, often by hundreds of degrees. This is a well-known phenomenon.[3]

We expect, in an office building which has just been hit by an airplane, that there will be rather a lot of small particles of iron, particles whose melting point is actually much lower than the "standard" melting point. In fact, if temperatures had reached levels high enough to make molten steel, we'd expect large quantities of molten steel as evidence, not merely that of particles--evidence which is lacking.

As Rich Lee (of RJ Lee, which prepared the report that Pro used as a source) said, in a letter titled "Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust":

"...the building is hit by two jet airplanes in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit...The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses...

What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino-silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces." [4]
(All emphasis mine)


All of this indicates that Pro's statement: "The only thing that can explain molten steel is something added to the fires to increase temperature" (emphasis mine) is untrue, and his conclusion: "Therefore incendiary devices had to be placed in the towers alluding, they needed access and also high tech incendiary devices." (emphasis mine), is also untrue.

Moving past the iron microspheres, Pro brings up the the "molten material" seen in some photos coming from WTC 2. The fact that the images we have are not necessarily color-correct was not addressed by Pro (relatively small changes to hue and saturation matter when we're trying to get temperatures!), but I'll ignore that issue for now to address his points regarding it.

Pro claims "the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point...as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing ... was at approximately the melting point of the metal...therefore, it was molten iron."

But, of course, molten iron has an even HIGHER melting point. The black-body radiation is similar across the board for metals. That metal is at that approximate temperature, sure, but whether it was iron or steel, it "flowed away from the heat source" equally when it liquefied. Pro contends that it MUST have been molten steel (with a melting point of 1540 C). If his calculations are correct, that CAN'T have been molten steel falling from the towers"because it wouldn't have flowed, it would have been solid at the temperature he claims it was, which he claims was "a temperature of 980C - 1050C"

Pro states that "Aluminium melts at 660C at which temperature is looks silvery". This is correct--though it is glowing, we can't really see it glow until it gets above 730 C [5]. An approximate temperature at which steel glows, too. His contention rests on his assertion that "the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point...as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron."

This does not follow, because it depends on where the aluminum WAS when it melted, and how far it had to flow to get away from the heat source. Pro seems to think that the metal, whatever it was, necessarily had to come from RIGHT where we see it exiting the building. There are no grounds to assume this and, indeed, the heat source wasn't there, but more "inside" the building. Whatever fell from the building was flowing, and was emitting light. But that it must have been at "approximately the melting point" is unfounded.

Pro's video, btw, demonstrates the aluminum pouring while glowing. Watch the first pour, it glows as it pours, then, when it hits the pan it cools and turns silver. The small amount of aluminum in the heated container cools quickly, but the initial pour shows the aluminum glowing until it hits.

Pro also doesn't help his case when he says "the molten material flowing from the south tower remains orange yellow during its whole descent". This has nothing to do with his contentions. (In fact, he notes that metals are great conductors of heat, then claims that therefore it's steel and not aluminum when they're both metals!). For Pro and the voters's reference: aluminum DOES cool faster than steel. But Pro has failed to show that it would take "its whole descent" for steel to cool vs. aluminum and, indeed, the substance begins to cease emitting light on the way down, turning what appears to be a silvery color, rather than a near-black one. [6] (This source has the photos under consideration, and points out the silvery color. It is rather obviously a "debunking" site, but the photos rather speak for themselves, particularly at the "bottom" or vertically lowest edge of the substance, where it is clearly no longer glowing, and just as clearly a silver color).

Pro ends by saying that "The evidence for molten steel goes on , to much to write down in enough words so I have to copy this link which has a great video summarizing more evidence. "

I'm not rebutting that, as he never made it part of his case and verges on an indirect attempt at a Gish Gallup. Pro, there's a character limit for a reason--don't try to dodge it. If you wanted unlimited space, or to not have to abide by the rules of a debate, you did not have to instigate one--you could have simply gone to the forums.

I turn the debate over to Pro, with an earnest hope he'll give some evidence in support of his contention, and remind him that it is not enough merely to show that the "official" story is incorrect. In order to fulfill his BoP, he MUST give us evidence that the US Government was behind the events, and in this round he has failed to provide any.

[1] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.metabunk.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.debunking911.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
truther1111

Pro

-There is no argument over the melting point of lead, it simply was in the same quote as the iron melting.
However

The RJ Lee report notes “extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].” Again, “metals were vaporized at the WTC during the WTC Event and either deposited on WTC Dust or deposited directly onto surfaces in the Building [1].” Where do the requisite high temperatures come from?
An additional characteristic of WTC Dust is the presence of coated particles and fibers. The coatings vary in thickness from monolayers to finely-dispersed sub-micron sized particles. The coated particles have been detected by low voltage back-scattered electron imaging, x-ray microprobe analysis, and high resolution x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) as illustrated as an example in figure 3 and figure 4. Figure 3 shows traces of lead compounds identified on the surfaces of mineral wool by XPS, and the analysis of x-ray photoelectron spectra led to the identification of two peaks containing either lead oxide or lead sulfate (figure 4). The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].
The temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C or 3,164 F [8]. No explanation for the origin of the indicated “extremely high temperatures during the collapse” is offered in the RJ Lee report.'Particles have melting points far lower than that of large blocks of material, often by hundreds of degrees. This is a well-known phenomenon.[3]'

The argument over what produced the iron spheres comes down to analysis using spectroscopy techniques to find the chemical composition of iron spheres.

The Iron spheres found did not have the chemical composition of fly ash or any process like the one proposed of iron flakes being liberated and subsequently vaporising.
In fact the iron spheres had Al, K , O , and importantly sulphur ! .

http://www.ae911truth.org...
http://journalof911studies.com...

If its expected that these iron spheres would be found according to RJ lee then doing an experiment or finding a source in which an office fire could produce spheres like the ones found at 911 shouldn't be too hard.

If anyone can produce iron spheres in any way which would produce iron spheres with the chemical composition found in the WTC dust please speak up .
The only known way of producing the spheres with that chemical composition is a thermitic reaction to produce the spheres in a different way shifts the burden of proof onto you or RJ Lee.

-Molten iron spheres were not the only strange spheres found in the dust, also molten molybdenum was found
Molybdenum spherule in the USGS data set
Two of the authors pursued a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action with the USGS to obtain any additional SEM/XEDS data from them which had not been previously published. The new data demonstrated, significantly, that the USGS team had observed and studied a molybdenum-rich spherule which was not mentioned in the earlier reports.We emphasize these data because of the extremely high melting temperature of molybdenum, and the observation of this molybdenum-rich spherule. Molybdenum is a refractory metal known for its extremely high melting point [9]. Mo melts at 2,623 °C (4,753 °F) [10], although addition of other elements may lower the melting point. No explanation of the high temperature needed to form the observed Mo-rich spherule is given in the USGS material (either published or obtained by FOIA action).

-Con states that large ammounts of molten steel would have been found if thermite was used, it was
http://rethink911.org...
watch video .

Moving on to the liquid flowing from the south tower.

The melting point of iron is lowered by a eutectic mixture in Thermate, sulphur added to the thermitic reaction lowers the melting point to 980c-1050c .
Compare the color of the molten material flowing from the south tower to thermate its the same.

This explains why the spheres had sulpur.
This also explains why the steel found in WTC 7 had holes melted through it like swiss cheese and had been sulphidized.
FEMA quotes “No clear explanation for the source of sulfur has been identified.”

Independent researchers challenge the argument that such a reaction could have resulted from the building’s normal contents:
“[T]o form a molten iron-oxygen-sulfur eutectic at about 1000° C would require a very high concentration of sulfur… The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445° C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile.”

http://rethink911.org...



-Getting back to the molten metal flowing from the south twoer
Con states the molten metal came from inside the building , I agree.
Con states that its unfounded to state the metal is approximatley at the melting point .

This is not unfounded as metals are a great conducter of heat, aluminium as shown in the previous video loses its yellow color instantly as it hits colder metal this is because the aluminium conducts its heat to the colder metal almost instantaneously.
Thermite however continues reacting causing it to keep its temperature, Its not about how long it will take steel to cool but rather how long the thermitic reaction lasts for the iron to cool out into spheres . I dont see a silver color at the end of the video sorry.

NIST, FEMA nor any independant scientist has
1.Produced an experiment in which iron spheres could produce the XEDS found in the WTC dust.
2.Produced an experiment in which steel could have been melted forming sulphidized steel.
3.Produced an experiment in which molybdenum could have been melted in such conditions.
4.Produced an experiment in which lead vaporizes.
5.Produced an experiment in which aluminum can flow like that at that color.
6.Explained why so many witnesses saw molten steel .
7. Why the temperatures lasted for almost 1 year after 911!



[1] RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature Report, December, 2003, available here:

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org...%

20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morp hology.Final.pdf ; and http://www.nyenvirolaw.org...% 20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

[2] Heather A. Lowers and Gregory P. Meeker . Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust, available here:

http://pubs.usgs.gov...
[3] http://pubs.usgs.gov..., and http://pubs.usgs.gov... .
[4]
http://pubs.usgs.gov... .
[5] RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature Report, Composition and Morphology, December, 2003, Table 3.
Note that this sample was acquired close to the WTC complex and thus may have more of the dense Fe-sphere content than dust samples acquired at greater distances.
[6]
http://www.webelements.com..., http://physchem.ox.ac.uk...
[7] http://ceramic-materials.com...
[8] http://www.chemicalelements.com...
[9] http://www.rembar.com...
[10] http://www.webelements.com...
[11] http://chemicalland21.com...


bladerunner060

Con

Thank you to Pro.

I note that he has failed, again, to offer any evidence whatsoever that 9/11 was an "inside job".

At most, and taken at face value in its entirety, his case thus far has been that the official story is incorrect, and (again, taking at face value) that thermite was used on 9/11.

None of that establishes that 9/11 was an "inside job" whatsoever. I ask Pro to please give actual evidence in support of his motion, and not merely support for "the official story is incorrect".

Not to help Pro, but if it were an "inside job", it could have been done in exactly the same manner as the "official report". Or it could have been done in any number of ways. The quibbling over the specific method of the towers's falling does nothing to establish that this was an "inside job". Get to that evidence. We can come back to this if it's truly necessary for his case--but I don't think it is.

As to his arguments this round:

He opens by questioning the temperature again. This has, actually, already been addressed"and he doesn't have any information as to specific temperatures that he questions. As such, it's a meaningless point. Lead, his specific example of metal that "volatalize[d], oxidize[d] and finally condense[d]", does so at 1,750 C for large samples, I agree.

But, again, we are dealing with small samples, and, as has already been noted, small particulates have a much lower melting point. Pro has not addressed this at all. The lower temperatures necessary for particles (vs. large samples) of these metals perfectly explains why we have the findings we have, and is uncontested by Pro. Pro gives no alternative theory of necessary temperature, and no scientific reason for his argument as to its necessity. Pro is merely repeating an argument without responding to my rebuttal. The temperatures he claims are necessary are not.

Pro questions the composition of the spheres found. No, the composition is not the same as that of "fly ash". It wouldn't be expected to be, at least not unless there was a whole lot of coal in the towers. The point is that we have a perfectly reasonable mechanism for small particles, and it's a well known fact that small particles boil/vaporize at lower temperatures than blocks of material. The composition is not the problem here, the size is.

Pro claims: "If its expected that these iron spheres would be found according to RJ lee then doing an experiment or finding a source in which an office fire could produce spheres like the ones found at 911 shouldn't be too hard. "

Unfortunately, he fails to realize that it would be his job to provide evidence that an office fire wouldn't produce spheres like the ones found. He holds the BoP in this debate. In general, the original assessment did have to make a reasonable case to justify the findings. But this debate is whether 9/11 was an inside job (something I note Pro has still failed to give evidence for). If he wants to use this as part of his case, the burden is still on him to show why what he's claiming is true. Nonetheless, experiments showing the production of iron microspheres from simple wood fires have been done, demonstrating it does happen [2].

"The only known way of producing the spheres with that chemical composition is a thermitic reaction to produce the spheres in a different way shifts the burden of proof onto you or RJ Lee. "

This is, actually not true"it's an argument from ignorance. First, because Pro has failed to show that a termitic reaction WOULD produce similar spheres, and second because (as noted) it has been demonstrated that they can be produced at lower temperatures.

Pro moves on to a molybdenum sphere. 1 microparticle which formed a sphere.

1 particle does not a trend make. There are literally millions of reasons that such a sphere could have been produced.

Pro then moves on to say that "large amounts of molten steel" was found. He hasn't offered evidence that it is. His round says to "watch video", but his video doesn't support that contention. There are two videos on "rethink911", but neither support his contention as far as I can see, so I cannot rebut the evidence that is not provided. Pro, in the future, actually make your case"you shouldn't rely on a video to do it for you. If you think it was found, who found it? How did they assess that it was steel? And so on.

The closest to "evidence" I found in the video is a firefighter claiming he "saw" molten steel "like a foundry". That is not a claim which can have validity, when we know that, in general, you can't tell the difference between molten metal by sight. No "large amounts of molten steel" are recorded in any report that I'm aware of.

Pro begs the question when he says it's iron that was mixed in Thermate. That presupposes there was thermite, something he has failed to establish.

He goes on to question the amount of sulfur in "iron-oxygen-sulfer eutectic". The amount of sulfur in the WTC is an odd finding, to be sure. But the thermate explanation is insufficient to justify the amount of sulfur that was found"by a factor of 50. Even with generous estimates on quantity of thermate to bring down the building (far more than would actually be expected), it's unlikely there would be more than 80 kg...and 4360 kg were found. That's a lot of sulfur, and far more than is necessary for a thermate "answer".

Pro returns to the "molten metal". He repeats that "metals are a great conducter of heat". That was never contested. He would need to establish at what rate the heat should be expected to be lost, and come up with a plausible starting temperature. He has failed to do that.

He claims he "doesn't see" the silver color at the end of the "video" (My source referred him to photos, so I'm not sure what video he's talking about). I'll leave it up to the voters to decide if they, as the people of the source do, see a silver color as the substance cools during its descent. I acknowledge that my assertion was just that, and he may contest it on the same grounds"the voters will have to decide whether they see the silver or not.

Pro has a list of assertions at the end of his case:

1.Untrue"as noted.
2.Produced an experiment in which steel could have been melted forming sulphidized steel.
3.I remind Pro we're talking about a single microsphere.
4. Lead vaporizes"is he claiming that it's impossible?
5. Does Pro think that aluminum would cease to flow at that temperature? Why? He's given us no reason to think it wouldn't"it certainly isn't the vaporizing temperature of aluminum.
6.Witnesses didn't see molten steel. They saw molten metal. You can't tell the type of metal simply by looking at it. If you could, we wouldn't need assayers, or spectrographs.
7. Pro claims "the temperatures lasted for almost 1 year after 911!" based on, as far as I can see, no evidence. I'm unsure what he's talking about.

I'll turn this back over to Pro, and request that he get to the topic under consideration, and give his case for why 9/11 was an "inside job".

[1] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...
[2] http://forums.randi.org...
Debate Round No. 3
truther1111

Pro

Sorry con I have been bust lately and dont have much time , i have an exam today.

Nano sized particles can reduce the melting point of metals by a few hundred degrees according to your source .
But nano sized particles would not have been produced by the fires or friction, but anyway the spheres were not nano sized but ranged in size from 0.001 mm to 1.5 mm in size.

Lead for example vaporizes at 1750 c but a few hundred degrees less is still al ot higher temp than the official story
Molybdenum melts at around 2700c so if it were reduced by a few hundred degrees somehow it is still far higher temperatures than given by the jet fuel.

The composition is important as it gives clues to what was happening in the chemical reaction at the time .The spheres contain K, AL , SI , S a trademark signature of thermite as the metals react with each other they also melt with each other due to surface tension, random particles of other metals however wouldnt form in that way as there own surface tension would melt them and form spheres at different temperatures separate from each other.

I meant FLY ASH 'like' materials btw, not literally fly ash.

Anyway you claim theres only one molybdenum sphere and thats not enough to base an argument on .Unfortunately with only one sphere declassified . I dont know of any process which can produce spheres of molybdenum but you say there are millions ?

Yet you also claim that because a experiment done by some JREFr which found one sphere of iron in their experiment that normal office fires could produce the billions of spheres found in the dust, 5.87 percent of the dust according to RJ lee report

Its difficult for us to sit here an argue over these scientific details when its quite obvious that there needs to be more testing done with more samples of dust from the wtc .
Independent scientists could either clear all this controversy up or alternatively prove 911 was an inside job.
But the JREF people seem intent on debunking it on a forum .
Why not ask for a new investigation ? With highly qualified scientists doing tests instead of arguing over it on forums etc.

The spheres however can be produced by thermite./thermate as experiments have shown that thermite/thermate produces the identical spheres with identical chemical signature.

The video i showed actually had multiple witnesses who witnessed molten steel, building 7 wasnt mentioned in the report either so why would they put molten metal in there too?
NY times reported the molten steel was the biggest mystery of 911.

4360 kg of sulphur founds ? please source this info ??

Heat from aluminium as shown in videos clearly loses its heat instantly.
NIST would use your explanation if it had any scientific merit.
Unfortunately for debunkers maybe the iron spheres can be explained alternatively
however the steel flowing from the south tower cannot.

1. maybe
2. what experiment?
3. even so i still think its impossible , its such a rare element its not just floating around
4.with the temperature yes.
5.the aluminium would be silvery in colour and not yellow/orange if it were flowing.
6. temp from black body radiation shows its steel or very high temperatures
7.firefighters were still trying to put our the fires in 2002

In conclusion I believe none of us are qualified to continue the scientific debate regarding the collapse, neither a the JREFrs.
NIST lacks answers.All the evidence points to high temperatures .

So i will stop trying to argue the science and bring out the big guns.Evidence we can all appreciate without knowing about science. video visual evidence of bombs etc.

who do you beleive the govt? jref or see the truth with your own eyes !
bladerunner060

Con

Thank you to Con for his response. I wish him luck on his exam.

As to the debate, I will open with a plead to Con to stop this line of argument. It continues to do nothing so support his resolution. The resolution is not "Is the official report flawed?" It is "911 WAS an inside job .........."

Even taking everything he has claimed regarding temperatures at face value, Pro has not argued for his resolution at all. He has one more round to do so.

Moving on, though to the continued rebuttal of the points Pro raises, I'm going to start by addressing things a bit out of order, because there is a point of order I need to make.

As to the sulphur:

That is my error!

I misread my source
(http://www.911myths.com...).

And I apologize. They were talking about SOURCES of sulfur, and demonstrating that there are far more plausible sources for the than thermate, which would provide a relatively small total amount—the 4360 kg was merely the total estimation of other possible sources, as opposed to the expected 80 kg of thermite/mate.

In addressing this error of mine (for which I apologize again), I have actually had a hard time finding any specific AMOUNT, merely its presence.



On to the rest of the rebuttals!

Con opens by attempting to argue that nano particles "would not have been produced by fires or friction", and that the particles "were not nano-sized but ranged in size from 0.001 to 1.5 mm in size".

The first point has already been addressed, and was when I originally brought up the point. Small particles would trivially be produced in a circumstance like this, for the reasons noted in the letter from Mr. Lee. As to the issue of the size of the particles, the issue here is that they are certainly on or near the nanoparticle scale. In general it is trivial to demonstrate that it is far easier to melt a small amount of material, than a large one. A thin wire can be melted, in some instances, with a lighter, while a block of the same metal will not melt. As has been noted, we KNOW various processes that produce similar spherules, such as coal combustion, which occurs at lower temperatures than Pro claims are necessary. That the composition is different in fly ash is a result of the difference in the process, but the principle remains the same.

Pro moves on to talk about the composition of the spheres. He doesn't source the statement or give an argument besides assertion for it being a "trademark signature of thermite". The metals he lists are obviously all present at the WTC, without thermate. On a side note, Thermite is usually used to burn vertically, guided by gravity. Pro hasn't given us his theory on how it was used to cut horizontally. Certainly, it can in theory, but how specifically does Pro propose that it occurred?

Pro moves on to say that "Its difficult for us to sit here an argue over these scientific details when its quite obvious that there needs to be more testing done with more samples of dust from the wtc ."

I'd be fine with more testing. More testing can't harm anything, certainly, though it might be argued to waste time and/or resources. However, an appeal to ignorance doesn't make Pro's case. If there's insufficient evidence, his resolution does not stand.

Pro claims the video he showed had "witnesses who witnessed molten steel". As has been noted before, there is no way they would know it was molten steel just by seeing it.

Pro then, strangely, tries to claim "Heat from aluminium as shown in videos clearly loses its heat instantly." Obviously, this is not true. Heat doesn't transfer "instantly". Pro needs to actually find out the speed of heat transfer for aluminum vs. steel, compare them, and make his case for why its implausible for the metal to be aluminum.

Pro readdresses his numbers in his conclusion, so I will readdress his readdressing.

1. Pro concedes the possibility, and so the point.
2. I apparently had trouble last round understanding things related to sulfur. As to this claim, specifically, the wallboards were made of gympsum, which contains high levels of sulfur. There is an expected amount of sulfidization that would occur with the sources of sulfur present, and the fires and chemicals involved. [1] The linked source demonstrates plausibility, but calls for more testing from NIST under more accurate conditions to demonstrate the specific rate. As noted above, more testing isn't a bad thing.
3. The rarity of molybdenum is not addressed by thermate—unless Pro is going to claim that this was a thermite USING molybdenum, which is a thing that exists,[2] but that there is no evidence to support other than the anomalous spherule.
4. Pro has failed to take evaporation into account, the process by which a liquid becomes a gas at lower than boiling point temperatures.
5. This is simply untrue. Aluminum can clearly flow when it's glowing, even his own video showed that. I think what Pro is trying to claim again is that the molten material must be near its melting point, and that has been rebutted. Reassertion is refutation.
6. The color ONLY indicates the temperature. Again, visual observation cannot determine composition.

Pro's final comments are that none of us are qualified to continue the scientific debate. That may be true! I'm certainly no engineer or metallurgist, and at the risk of making assumptions, I am not under the impression that Pro is, either. But Pro is the one making the assertion, and it is up to him to support it. He says he will "stop trying to argue the science and bring out the big guns.Evidence we can all appreciate without knowing about science. video visual evidence of bombs etc."

He posts a video which is not visual evidence of "bombs etc", though I suppose "etc" could mean anything. .

His final rhetorical questions are: "who do you beleive the govt? jref or see the truth with your own eyes !"

I would believe, as a general rule, the experts. Until given reason to suspect otherwise, which Pro has not provided.

I will reiterate what I have said every round since R2, and already at the beginning of this roung: Proving a the "official story" is wrong does not prove that 9/11 was an inside job. If Pro has evidence of his actual resolution, this next round is his LAST chance to provide it.


[1] - http://911myths.com...
[2] - http://www.amazingrust.com...
Debate Round No. 4
truther1111

Pro

Thanks con, I passed !

Neither of us are scientists or totally qualified in the scientific debate surrounding 911.
As a result of the anomalies surrounding the wtc its sparked heavy debate online in forums such as these and spawned debunkers websites such as 911myths.com and debunking911.com

I would be very skeptical of their science , ironically the truther's have far more qualified scientists who have specialised in chemistry engineering etc.
Yet debunking911.com and 911 myths are written by scientists ? I don't know they won't say who writes there pages some probably nerds in some basement or something like this video shows

This is why AE911truth.org don't bother arguing with them, they can't argue with every nut out there on the internet who seems hell bent on proving 911 wasn't an inside job.
You don't see Popular mechanics or NIST or some 'respectable' source of debunkers using their information either.

This is why there needs to be more open debate with scientists engineers etc a new investigation or independent investigation for example instead of us squabbling over whether its possible for paint to create iron spheres etc.

Gypsum was the source for sulphur?
Some government officials have attempted to explain the issue away by alleging that the sulfur came from normal building materials like gypsum wallboard. But gypsum wallboard has been used for a hundred years to protect steel structural members and has never "attacked" it before.
Heres an experiment which shows it couldn't . Video number 1.
This is expected as sulphur in gypsum is already bonded to the oxygen and calcium with strong covalent bonds , If the sulphur was in elemental form it would be a lot more plausible.

https://www.youtube.com...

Regarding composition of the spheres , It is important and its not random. You cannot just get office materials burn them together and hope to get a sphere of mixed metals like you say. The metals present in the wtc were not in elemental form but were already oxidised.
Because the spheres formed due to surface tension we know they were caused from molten chemicals at the SAME TIME in the SAME chemical reaction, how do you get random background metals to form into the same sphere without a thermitic reaction?

Sorry for not giving a source of the thermite reaction before,
Here is a good video which explains thermite, and the reactions and also the finding of nanothermite in the towers.
Debunkers say its paint and that an independent scientist (Dr Millete)who they paid to debunk the nanothermite didn't find elemental aluminium or that the material when heated caused a thermitic reaction.
Clearly in the video at the end you can see when its heated it DOES actually react forming a thermitic reaction.
-The reason why Millete didn't get the thermite to react is because he only heated it to 400c and not 430c in which it reacts.
Why he did this I don't know but it does seem quite deliberate !
-The reason why he didn't find elemental aluminium is because
Millette also claims there is no elemental aluminium in the red-gray chips, but in the Harrit et al paper they stated that the silicon(Si) and aluminium (Al) are not chemically bound, meaning that the aluminium really is in elemental form. According to Harrit et al, the Si and Al appeared to be separate after a chip swell when soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK).- Harrit et al paper, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2, page 18.

Millette claims, because there apparently is epoxy resins present in the red-gray chips, that this tells us that the chips are paint, although even he states that it does not match the reddish primer paint used on WTC steel columns.

Epoxy resins (polymers) are also used as binders in aerogel/sol-gel (nanothermite) composites, so even if there is epoxy present in the WTC-chips, it still could meant the chips really are thermite-composite chips. Niels Harrit talks about polymers or "plastic" being present in the matrix of the red-gray composite chips.

In order to cut horizontally they must have had some classified technology which is possible heres a video showing a small horizontal thermitic cutter

Regarding more testing, whenever a building has a fire such as WTC 7 , The law dictates that you should test for thermitic materials , this wasn't done by NIST so they are complicit in the conspiracy.

The witnesses witnessed molten metals of orange /yellow colour, once again blackbody radiation would suggest that its mostly likely molten steel.
Just like the video , Its not aluminium it can't be. I won't make the case for why its not aluminium ill leave it up to this metal foundry expert who actually melts aluminium for a living.
The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower"s 82nd floor could have been aluminum is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron.

NIST knows this as I already pointed out

""Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery"" NIST.
There explanation is organic materials mixed in giving it a golden colour.This was disproven by experiments.

http://skepticdenialism.blogspot.com.au...

I looked at the photos , the material stayed yellow it didn't turn silver.

In conclusion both of us are not so well qualified to debate these aspects of the science and neither is 911 myths or debunking 911 .com . The truth movement has well qualified scientists who probably could answer the questions if iron spheres could be produced I have to concede that point for now but I can email some scientists etc and get an answer but it might take some time.
What we need is independent tests and investigations , unfortunately we can't test the steel directly because they sold it to china very suspicious.
We have proof of a coverup , no mention of WTC7 in the 911 commission report , no testing for bombs/explosives or incendiaries , destruction of crucial evidence and selling of steel to china, media coverup etc.
My uncle head a large Engineering firm in NZ I asked him about WTC 7 , he hadn't even heard of it, why is there a coverup of the worst structural failure in the history of mankind ? Isn't this something Engineers should know ?

I don't know about you but I feel these things are highly suspicious , all the evidence points towards a controlled demolition.

The videos I posted before you probably couldn't see the explosions and flashes as the video was quite small, but blow them up on a projector screen or any big detailed screen and you can clearly see these flashes and squibs and explosions going off all across the building . . . .
Debunkers would say its something else like air being pushed out of the building, jezz you can come up with an alternative theory for everything but the point is that ALL these factors are most easily explained by explosives.

It explains where the building went , why it turned to dust, why it literally blew up in front of our eyes.
It explains the molten metal,the spheres everything the free fall collapse of wtc 7 .

Look at this explosion for example , I don't know about you but If i see explosions i think explosives are a likely explanation and not a crazy one unless a your brainwashed american that is

http://femr2.ucoz.com...
bladerunner060

Con

Congratulations to Con for passing his exam, and thanks for the response.

As to his final arguments and conclusion:

Pro has, once again, failed to make a case for 9/11 being an inside job. He has, throughout this debate, focused only on the "controlled demolition" or "thermite" theory"which does not, on its own, make his case in any way. As such, he has failed to uphold his resolution even without any rebuttal from me whatsoever.

I will, of course, still be rebutting his points, however, I am frustrated that I continue to have to rebut things that are only, at best, tangentially related to the resolution. Pro"you did not make a case for 9/11 being an inside job, despite my repeated requests that you do so.


Pro opens by appealing again to his perception of our perceived ignorance. He asks us again to simply accept the 911 conspiracy theorists, because they're experts.

He doesn't address what I noted in last round: that the appeal to authority, on its own, is no argument"and that, further, there are far more, and far more qualified, experts who are against the "inside job" and "thermite" theories.

He claims that his sources "don't bother arguing with them, they can't argue with every nut out there on the internet who seems hell bent on proving 911 wasn't an inside job."

While certainly not "every nut" should expect a response, Pro acts as though the truthers, themselves are not "nuts"--this despite continuing to offer no evidence whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside job. As I have said pretty much every round: proving thermite does not prove an inside job. Proving inaccuracies in the official report does not establish 9/11 as an inside job.

Pro says that "there needs to be more open debate with scientists engineers etc a new investigation or independent investigation for example instead of us squabbling over whether its possible for paint to create iron spheres etc."

This is backing away from claims that such things were "impossible"--a claim which I showed was not true.

Pro claims that gypsum wallboard cannot have been a source of sulfur in 9/11, because "gypsum wallboard has been used for a hundred years to protect steel structural members and has never "attacked" it before."

Pro does not offer evidence from similar fires or from tests, except for a video"a video which he claims shows "it couldn't [be a source of sulfur]." His video does not show this. It shows that in a brush fire, small amounts of wallboard wedged in metal I-beams will not cause a eutectic mixture. No jet fuel. No office rubble. No building wide fires with large amounts of gypsum wallboard.

The experiment does not establish what Pro claims it establishes.

Pro asks "how do you get random background metals to form into the same sphere without a thermitic reaction?"

You get them because the spheres are the most efficient form"microparticles like this will ALWAYS form these shapes if given the opportunity.

He then gives a video, saying that it "explains thermite, and the reactions and also the finding of nanothermite in the towers."

It is not my job to go through Pro's source to make his arguments for him"Pro, you can't just post a video and call it a day. You have to make your own argument, and do so in this debate.

Pro claims that "In order to cut horizontally they must have had some classified technology which is possible heres a video showing a small horizontal thermitic cutter". Appealing to "secret technology" is a failure of an argument"it's an appeal to ignorance. However, he does show that there is a horizontal thermitic cutter. It's clearly, though, not adequate to cause the collapses of 9/11.

Pro claims that "whenever a building has a fire such as WTC 7 , The law dictates that you should test for thermitic materials , this wasn't done by NIST so they are complicit in the conspiracy."

NIST, however, says:

"NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely...To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used....It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day. Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7. Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions."

[1]

Pro goes on to repeat a claim: "The witnesses witnessed molten metals of orange /yellow colour, once again blackbody radiation would suggest that its mostly likely molten steel", which is factually untrue. Again: the color only indicates temperature. Pro knows this, and notes this. Drawing further conclusions that therefore it was steel is inappropriate.

Pro claims "Its not aluminium it can't be." He then repeats rebutted claims. Repeating them does not make them more valid.

Pro states that "What we need is independent tests and investigations". If that's the case, then he concedes the debate, because he concedes that he has failed to establish his case.

Pro: you had the burden of proof. You must make your case.

Pro claims "We have proof of a coverup , no mention of WTC7 in the 911 commission report , no testing for bombs/explosives or incendiaries , destruction of crucial evidence and selling of steel to china, media coverup etc."

Those are just assertions. As such they can be dismissed. If "we have proof of a coverup" what is it? The 9/11 commission report was not intended to address what NIST was addressing--it was not the technical manual on the way the towers collapsed. Most of the report deals with the means of planning the terrorists used, and the response to the disaster. NIST has explained their justification for the tests they performed. Pro has not given evidence of "destruction of crucial evidence". Selling the steel is not evidence of a coverup--it was the city's desire to get the site cleaned up. Whether it should have been preserved is, certainly, an argument that could be made. But Pro has failed to give us any cause to believe it's "proof of a coverup", particularly since this round is the first time he mentions it. Pro gives absolutely no explanation of his claim of a "media coverup". I know I was alive and in school during 9/11--and watched the live footage of the buildings falling. What coverup is Pro referring to? He doesn't say--and it therefore must be dismissed.

Pro claims that because his uncle hadn't heard of WTC7, there was a coverup. The anecdotal evidence of his uncle's lack of knowledge is meaningless: there has been no coverup; WTC7 is widely known to have fallen.

Pro claims that he "feel[s] these things are highly suspicious , all the evidence points towards a controlled demolition." The evidence does not point to a controlled demolition. Pro has not given any unrebutted evidence of controlled demolition.

Pro concedes he's not an expert, then thinks he can determine whether something was demolished with explosives via a video.

He cannot, and he gives no reason to justify his conclusion other than what it looks like to him.

Pro has failed to make a case for 9/11 being an inside job, even if his arguments were accepted at face value. I also feel I have rebutted all of Pro's points sufficiently, regardless of the fact that they did not make his case.

I feel the resolution stands soundly negated, and urge Pro in the future to actually address the motion when making his case.


[1] -- http://www.nist.gov...
Debate Round No. 5
415 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
i don't have a lot of time at the moment though
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
ok
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
Whatever claim you want.

"The collapse of WTC7 can be reasonably explained by the current findings of thermite" would be a potential topic.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
If we were to debate what would the topic be?
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
nanothermite is an explosive
thermite is an incendiary
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
This is exactly why I wanted a real debate. It is not worth my time to sit here and refute all of your nonsense. Thermite explains almost none of that, especially when you actually apply a real world example of what compound of thermite you are talking about. The absurdity is highlighted by the contradictory nature of what you're describing, such as a compound that explodes with a powerful force yet acts as an incendiary that essentially turns steel into molten lava for weeks. That is why you need to demonstrate it, not just claim it is so then pronounce victory. The latter is what people do who have no interest in truth, so you fit in perfectly.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
What". thats ridiculous, thermite explains the molten steel flowing from the south tower , the sulphidized steel found in building 7, the high temperatures, the billions of iron rich microspheres found in the dust, the months of fires in the rubble even after it was raining , the white smoke from the towers and rubble, the pools of molten iron seen by eyewitnesses, the corroded cars around the wtc, the chemicals found in the first responders lungs, the 'weakening' of the steel , the steel found with swiss cheese like holes where it had been melted through,the symmetry of the collapses and the free fall of building 7 and the molybdenum spheres and the vaporised lead and other metals subjected to extreme temperatures.
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
"therefore where did the temperatures to melt steel come from ? mystery."

For the sake of argument, I will just say I agree with you up till this point.

"Solved by steven jones who found thermite "

No. This is a perfect demonstration of argument from ignorance. You get to the point where you have a mystery, then you just assert your solution of choice as the explanation. That is not how logic works. Even *if* thermite was found (a major if), neither you nor anyone in the truth movement has demonstrated that your yet to be produced thermite bombs could have caused the conditions observed. Until that is accomplished and until it is proven that there are no other possible and reasonable explanations, the cause is still a mystery and therefore not an explanation for anything.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
melted steel -conclusion temperatures hot enough to melt steel
temperatures hot enough to melt steel - 1500c
temperatures of fires possible due to jet fuel and other stuff- much lower
therefore where did the temperatures to melt steel come from ? mystery.
Solved by steven jones who found thermite "
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
Explain your thought process.

Step 1: "Melted steel = [insert conclusion here]"
Step 2: "And here is how I came to that conclusion... [draw the logical connection between melted steel and whatever conclusion you inserted in step 1 here].
Step 3: "And here is how my conclusion from step 1 supports my overall argument that [insert overall argument here].
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
truther1111bladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I wasn't going to post this because I felt it to be a bit discourteous, but after being verbally accosted by PRO through an amusingly dimwitted series of PM's, I was obliged by duty not to ignore it any further. So, let us attend to the business matters before us. Because PRO seems as chronically unable to accept basic facts as he is habitually incapable of offering meaningful arguments grounded in reality, I therefore would be forced to award CON victory without even reading his argument. However, because CON's arguments are grounded in reality he takes a well earned victory. In other news not related to this debate, PRO is quite clearly a fvckwit. And not only a fvckwit of the ordinary variety... but one with manifest delusions of adequacy.
Vote Placed by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
truther1111bladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: At no point did Pro make the connection from his arguments to how they uphold the resolution despite repeated requests from Con to do so. Pros case rested almost entirely on the science of the steel in the towers, yet remarkably in the last 2 rounds he argues that we do not have sufficient scientific evidence to draw any conclusions. I am left baffled as to what Pro was trying to accomplish in this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
truther1111bladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Null vote due to pre-existing bias. Still waiting for pro to begin to make his case that it was an inside job, rather than merely trying to prove oddities. I mean my dog sometimes eats weird stuff and strangely doesn't poop for awhile; do I claim it was an inside job by the government?
Vote Placed by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
truther1111bladerunner060Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Volkov 3 years ago
Volkov
truther1111bladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was awarded to Con due to some off-point conversations Pro decided to have. Argument was awarded to Con because I felt he effectively refuted Pro's points, in addition to expanding on the actual topic that Pro should've been discussing. Spellling and sources are tied, I didn't feel either side had an advantage over the other there.