The Instigator
truther1111
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

911 controlled demolition ?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,095 times Debate No: 43769
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (4)

 

truther1111

Pro

The most plausible hypothesis for the 'collapse' of all three towers was the use of explosives/incendiaries.
Ragnar

Con

I accept. To assist pro in defeating my case, I shall summarize the direction I intend to take it.

Prelude:
While pro's hypothesis is not impossible, I shall commit a minor bandwagon appeal regarding claimed sightings of aircraft crashing into the two towers.

My two main pieces of evidence shall be Rational Wiki's page on the issue [1], as well excerpts from Popular Mechanics' investigation featured on their website [2], but fully detailed in the book "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts."
False Witness: Conspiracy theorists claim this photo "proves" the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. military operation. (Photograph by Rob Howard)

Sources:
[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
[2] http://www.popularmechanics.com...
Debate Round No. 1
truther1111

Pro

I dont know what your argument is , I am not argueing that plane hit the towers .
I wanted an argument about the probablity of a controlled demolition vs the official version in which fire weakened the steel , the official version states the planes only removed the fireproofing of the steel causing the fire to weaken the steel which caused a initiation of a 'global collapse'

NIST however do not explain how this global collapse occured.

I argue that it occured with the help of explosives or incendiaries.

Based on two simple observations.

1. The material of the twin towers is ejected outwards from the collapse zone and is not piling or stacking up like you would expect from a progressive collapse.
The ejected material cannot create a gravitational force on the building below it as its no longer above the building below it.
The building self implodes from top to bottom , all the material is turned to dust so where does the energy come from to crush the building below it while self imploding into dust in an outward manner.
IE Dust cannot crush concrete below it causing it to turn into dust which in turn crushed the concrete below it into dust.(1)

A simple explanation for these observations however is the use of explosives.

2.If gravity caused the collapse of the building sending shockwaves down the building pulverising material outward then how come in you can see the sections of the building self imploding themselves at a faster rate than gravity as would be expected from a gravitational collapse.Notice the right hand side of the building Seconds 29 -35
(1)

Ragnar

Con

Wait, so Osama bin Laden launched two separate terrorist attacks, against the same buildings on the same day? What a dick, pranking his so called friends tricking them into committing suicide via hijack airplanes to attack buildings, which he had already rigged demo charges in. Plus either the pilots could perfectly target the intended floors, or a very large number were rigged to make the collapse begin on the impacted floor on each tower. Unless I'm missing something, these shift the probability further away from pro's case.

Observations:
"The ejected material cannot create a gravitational force" -Unnamed
"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," -Shyam Sunder (NIST lead investigator) [2].

"Dust cannot crush concrete below it causing it to turn into dust which in turn crushed the concrete below it into dust" -Unnamed
It sounds dangerously like saying concrete dust is weightless. Heck if you need to check, pour a bag of it onto your scale from high up. It has a lot of weight, that the energy impacts then some disperses, is hardly evidence against the accepted pancaking theory.

Weightless?


"Notice the right hand side of the building" -Unnamed
Your argument hinges on a building dying, being messy? Or is it that the camera only had a clear shot of a single side (the other being obstructed by other buildings)? Widespread damage to the building due to the jet-fuel, already easily explains any uneven damage [2].
Debate Round No. 2
truther1111

Pro

Thanks con.

Con is trying to divert the argument from whether it was a controlled demolition or not to who did the attacks.
According to the FBI there is no hard evidence Bin laden was behind the attacks on the wtc .(1)

Due to the complete destruction of the tower its likely the explosives were placed all throughout the central core of 47 columns or in or around the elevator shafts protected from the explosion of the plane .


"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," -Shyam Sunder (NIST lead investigator) [2].

Ok but that does not explain how ejected material can pancake or cause weight on the building below it.


"It sounds dangerously like saying concrete dust is weightless. Heck if you need to check, pour a bag of it onto your scale from high up. It has a lot of weight, that the energy impacts then some disperses, is hardly evidence against the accepted pancaking theory."

The dust in the wtc was not contained to bags or packages. If you cut open the packet im sure you will see how dust will fall out all over the place and taken by the wind.

"Your argument hinges on a building dying, being messy? Or is it that the camera only had a clear shot of a single side (the other being obstructed by other buildings)? Widespread damage to the building due to the jet-fuel, already easily explains any uneven damage [2]."

That does not explain how a gravity caused collapse can cause parts of the building to explode at a rate faster than that of gravity.
Also Uneven damage should cause the building to topple if the laws of physics still apply.



http://www.projectcensored.org...
Ragnar

Con

(Save embedded video for end)

"
Con is trying to divert the argument ... to who did the attacks."
Which is a key piece of the attacks. Shall we also rule out motivation and means? No as such would lead to a dead end meaningless argument. It all plays a role in how an event could happen.


Turning Pro's Source:
"According to the FBI..."
Not even getting into the missing quotes (assuming it was not just accusations for five minutes, without letting the Chief of Investigative Publicity actually respond, as the quotations would indicate was the case), also net getting into the author not understanding the meaning of "classified;" the author (Ed Haas editor for the Muckraker Report) clearly states both "if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees." And "The Muckraker Report also believes that the reason why there is no documentation that demonstrates that the videotape went through an authenticity process is because the CIA knew it was authentic." The author even states that he personally believes the video is authentic.

Therefore according to con's own source, Con is wrong.

In future debates please read your own sources before posting them.

Yourlogicalfallacyis.com
by: Jesse Richardson, Andy Smith and Som Meaden.

"Ok but that does not explain how ejected material can pancake or cause weight on the building below it."
Not all material is ejected. (anyone who understood my quote last round, may skip this next bit)
  • "Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
  • "Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy" [2].

"Uneven damage should cause the building to topple if the laws of physics still apply."
Because a couple chunks get launched free of the rest? Also if it was demo, why put extra on that one side to launch those chunks?


Examining The Demo Theory:
Destroying a building is not an overnight job for a demo crew...

  • "Planned implosions require months of preparation, including tearing apart walls to place charges, removing extraneous material from the building, laying miles of carefully measured detonation cord, and the intentional damaging of support columns. Even night work would attract attention from the cleaning crew, as well as the workers who came in the next morning to find walls covered with fresh plaster.
  • "On top of this, the WTC was bombed in 1993, meaning that there were routine checks from bomb squads, including sniffer dogs (though, to be fair, Iron (III) Oxide, and other forms of thermite are likely not regularly checked for by dogs due to the fact that these materials are plentiful in nature and construction). Not only would these explosives have to be laid at night in secret, they would also somehow be able to beat animals specially trained to detect them" [1].


So let's review the two theories, as much as they have been advanced...
WATCH YOUTUBE VIDEO, 1:49-2:38 [3].

Pro is of course welcome to explain in better terms his theory on who did it, and how they managed it; the inclusion of the video is to encourage the debate to actually get around to that.

Sources:
[3] YouTube video

Debate Round No. 3
truther1111

Pro

The topic of debate was solely whether the most plausible hypothesis for the 'collapse' of the towers was a controlled demolition.
Cons diversions are off topic and are worthy of a seperate debate topic.

The FBI stated they had no hard evidence that Bin laden was behind the attacks, I dont care if the CIA stated the video was authentic.
1.Its not hard evidence,I could make a video claiming to have done it.
2.The CIA also lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so why believe them.

I will leave it up to the viewers of the video to see that most of the material is ejected outside of the building, I dont need to read a quote about 'panckaking theories' when the video clearly shows otherwise.
Even if there is some weight or ammount of building above the collapse zone the material does not stack up or pancake as clearly observed in the video the intact part of building above in the south tower does not slow down but churns through the building pulverising everything in its path while not slowing down , the only explanation for this is if the weight stacks up due to newtonian laws of physics its called the conservation of energy, high school stuff really. But ill leave it up to people with a common sense to see the video and see that its self imploding and not collapsing.
There is the MID AIR pulverisation of 90,000 tonnes of concrete. The concrete is not stacking up its self imploding at the bottom of the towers there is no stacks of 90 floors of concrete , it was all turned to dust.
Dust cannot crush concrete , IT IS SO SIMPLE

"Because a couple chunks get launched free of the rest? Also if it was demo, why put extra on that one side to launch those chunks?"

If you go to the first video and watch you can see the demolision wave travelling faster than gravity. The building self imploding at a rate faster than a gravitational collapse. How would a gravitational collapse cause this efffect?

How they put the explosives in there is a topic worthy of a seperate debate however.
There has been alot of research done into who had access to the the towers and the numerous oppurtunities to place high tech explosives in the towers. Carbon nanotubes were found in the first responders indicating the use of nano thermite explosives and or other high tech explosives. (1)
Evidence of thermitic residues and unexploded nano thermite found.(2)

(1)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(2) http://www.benthamscience.com...
Ragnar

Con

Please use spellcheck.

Pro's New Fallacy
:
R2 it was "I wanted an argument about the probablity of a controlled demolition vs the official version..."
R4 you object to the inclusion of evidence which affects the probability of one theory over another, calling such evidence "diversions are off topic."
This is a very basic Moving The Goalpost Fallacy [4].

"I dont care if the CIA stated the video was authentic."
This is in response to your own source calling the video authentic, as well as the conclusion of Osama bin Laden's guilt.
As you don't care about the content of your own sources, why even use them? Worse you precede to question their validity once someone points out they disagree with your theory that Osama bin Laden was a framed innocent (of the crime in question).

"I could make a video claiming to have done it."
It would not be credible, as you lack the means, and history of violent murder to include the "August 1998 bombings of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya" [pro's source, which he now insists is unreliable].
We are not talking about some random guy on the street, we're talking about a rebel leader, who successfully stayed a couple steps ahead of the Soviet Union during their occupation of Afghanistan.

"The CIA also lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so why believe them."
Committing an Ad Hominem attack, against the judgement of your own sources...
Whom in the CIA told you Iraq had WMD's, and what definition was given for WMD? Was it this same person who put together the report (including a video tape confession) claiming poor innocent Osama was a terrorist mastermind connected to the 9/11 attacks? Or are you saying something along the lines of 'Michael Moore is a fat liar. He's an American documentary filmmaker, therefore we should never trust anything said by any American documentary film maker'?

Admittedly the reliability of the CIA is it's own debate, and should have probably been left there.
Note: It was pro who started this line of questioning Osama's guilt in being a terrorist mastermind, and all mentions of the CIA stem directly from his own source.

"I dont need to read..."
Pro admits to not reading the content of the debate rounds.
Not reading his own sources (as has been proven above) is bad enough, but this takes the cake.

"the only explanation for this is if the weight stacks up due to newtonian laws of physics"
Or the structural engineers did not design each floor (particularly the top floors) to withstand the sudden onset of more than ten times their own weight (11 times and 16 times respectively) multiplied by the fall of an estimated 12 feet, to a velocity of 19 miles per hour.
That a single floor would be crushed by this, should come as little surprise, as well as the floor below it being weakened. That the next one down and the next after that each with added weight, creating a cascade of destruction should be no surprise... Oh but "it was all turned to dust" and would be harmlessly "taken by the wind." If pro is to be believed, there was no reason for people to be off the streets, and there were certainly no injuries from anyone outside those buildings that day (ok I'm not being fair, by his logic there could have been a respiratory problems).

"see the demolision wave travelling faster than gravity"
And no. Please provide your math on the terminal velocity of a building.

"How they put the explosives in there is a topic worthy of a separate debate however"
Actually it affects the probability of the building blowing up, or "implodes from top to bottom" as you say. Without any explosives in the building as your case currently has (assuming you're denying the Brigade of Ninjas), the probability of it spontaneously imploding is null.

"Carbon nanotubes were found in the first responders indicating the use of nano thermite explosives"
1. I highly disagree with this accusation that the first responders were secretly the bombs that took down the buildings. It is insulting to the point of high stupidity.
2. YouTube video on carbon nanotubes. The presence of one odd element that can be used for plenty of things, proves nothing.

"unexploded nano thermite found"
So the brigade of Ninjas decided not to set fuses on all the bombs?
You know, I'll be really nice... I hereby concede that this nano thermite may have been present.

However we saw hijacked airplanes crash into the buildings, which would be a pretty good delivery system for this nano thermite. This does not bridge the leap of faith to a controlled demolition.

Reminder:
We're entering the final round. Pro has not even touched his Burden of Proof yet, as his claim is on three buildings; only two of which have been mentioned.

That third building, had no reliability of being hit by any of that harmless "dust" pro was mentioning.

Sources:
[4] http://rationalwiki.org...
[5] YouTube video, showing other uses for nanotubes.
Debate Round No. 4
truther1111

Pro

Its not moving the goalpost , the debate topic is not who or why did 911 .
I could debate the other topics but i dont have time.

Your nitpicking of sources is irrelevent as the topic of debate is whether the building was a controlled demolition, whether bin laden claimed to have done it or not doesnt bother me in the slightest, he could not have organized the highly technical controlled demolition of the twin towers from a cave in afghanistan, the theory that he and the hijackers could have organized and done such a large scale terror attack hijacking 4 seperate planes within the same time frame is so ludricous .I suggest you rethink it.
An independent translation done of the bin laden confession noted that he was only talking about 911 not that he claimed to do it.
Bin laden was funded by the CIA to the day of 911 and sidmel edmonds whistleblower states he was even continued to be funded after.

A video of the collapse proves your quote ( I did read it ! ) obviously false. A picture says a 1000 words a video more.

""That a single floor would be crushed by this, should come as little surprise, as well as the floor below it being weakened. That the next one down and the next after that each with added weight, creating a cascade of destruction should be no surprise... ""

Clearly in the video it is not stacking up .... you have failed to come up with any explanation as to how the building is self imploding and turning to dust.

People did have respiratory problems, thousands are dying from illnesses related from the dust.

Provide math haha , you wouldnt understand it , its simple- gravity , you have no explanation for the demolition wave travelling faster than the 'crushing ' building .


"How they put the explosives in there is a topic worthy of a separate debate however"
If you find a pyramid in the deserts of egypt you dont say the probabilty of ancient egyptians building such a structure is null........
You ask how they did it and you investigate. Without an investigation into who demolished the building we will never know.That is why there needs to be an investigation !!
The buildings were demolished , that is undeniable to any engineer if you ask him the two questions I did at the start of the debate and get him to see the video. Unfortunately most are so brainwashed to watch any 'conspiracy theories' that to get them to actually watch the video would be a miracle .


"Carbon nanotubes were found in the first responders indicating the use of nano thermite explosives"

1.What !?!!? I have no idea what you think i accused the first responders of , I didnt accuse them of anything apart from getting respiratory illnesses from the dust which they unfortunately unable to avoid.

2.What are you saying there was high tech carbon nano tube body armour in the wtc lol, no you cannot find a logical explanation for carbon nanotubes being in the wtc.

Your nonsense about ninjas continues there is no clear rebuttal by con apart from ad hominem attacks.

The proof is in the pudding as they say. Its there for anyone to see all one must do is watch the video of the 'collapse' of the twin towers and one can clearly see its not collapse due to gravity its self exploding .
Con has failed to come up with any clear explanation as to how the building exploded .

Rational wiki is not considered as an accurate source of information , according to them the NAZIS did not burn down the reichstag even though all major historians agree it was.If a pro nazi source is something you do i suggest you shave your head.
Ragnar

Con

Note that my humble request for pro to use spell check, has been met with even worse S&G than before.

"Its not moving the goalpost , the debate topic is not who or why did 911 ."

Weird punctuation aside...
Attempting to remove evidence of witnessed seeing airplanes crash into the towers, when the debate is about probability (or "probablity" as pro calls it) is moving the goalpost since the basis for the official story starts with that.

"Your nitpicking of sources is irrelevent"
Pro thinks evidence is "irrelevent." The word is irrelevant, and that you have not read your own sources since they're "irrelevent" means you (to voter discretion) just conceded the content of all your own sources, leaving you with zero evidence. Without evidence, all that you have is a weak Begging the Question Fallacy. Whereas I have quotes from certified structural engineers, which your only claim against is that you "dont need to read."

"the theory that he and the hijackers could have organized and done such a large scale terror attack hijacking 4 seperate planes within the same time frame is so ludricous .I suggest you rethink it."
Voters please note the number of spelling and grammar errors. I believe what pro is trying to say, is that he presumes security at airports had no exploits, and if one was discovered, it would be impossible for anyone from a different country to think to make the most of it. This is begging the question, and is easily defeated by pointing out that Afghan rebels are smart enough to have held out against our best efforts for over a decade (and Russia's before us); racism against them does not undermine their clear talent.

"An independent translation done of the bin laden confession noted that he was only talking about 911 not that he claimed to do it."
Laden is no longer a name to have the first letter capitalized? Anyway no translation has been provided, therefore within this debate it does not exist.

"Bin laden was funded by the CIA to the day of 911 and sidmel edmonds whistleblower states he was even continued to be funded after."
First a basic webseach fails to find anyone with the name "Sidmel Edmonds." Not even with the word whistleblower attached.
Second claiming he was actively CIA funded, undermines your racist case against him being unable to organize attacks against us.
Third I call BS on your claim. "While the CIA worked through the Pakistani state intelligence services to arm and train anti-Soviet resistance, Osama was part of a parallel operation that funneled fighters and funds to Afghanistan from across the Arab world. In short, while the CIA may have co-operated with with Osama's group, they did not collaborate with them" [6].

"A picture says a 1000 words a video more."
Grammar would be nice.
Also the video in question; I have provided educated expert testimony against. That a lot of dust obscured sight, prevents easy guess work on how many thousands of tons of material is ejected on each level. For reference, here is the quote again "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," -Shyam Sunder (NIST lead investigator) [2].

"you have failed to come up with any explanation" and "Con has failed to come up with any clear explanation as to how the building exploded ."
Already did, a couple in fact. There was my rough calculations, and the work of educated professions requoted below.


    • "Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

    • "Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy" [2].


Of course, pro claims this is obviously false for the sole reason that he "dont need to read." And that it kinda looked like a lot of dust expelled.

"Provide math haha , you wouldnt understand it , its simple- gravity , "
Pro in addition to failing at English, refuses to provide math or otherwise attempt to meet his Burden of Proof. He does think the building fell faster than gravity, which would be impossible even in a controlled demolition freeing the materials of the building to crumble at the speed of gravity.

"If you find a pyramid in the deserts of egypt ... That is why there needs to be an investigation !! "
Not sure what Egypt has to do with 9/11, but there was an investigation (it did not uncover any connection to the pyramids, sorry conspiracy theorists who believe things fall faster than the pull of gravity). Over a decade ago in fact. It was kind of a big deal, we invaded Afghanistan because of it...

"to get them to actually watch the video would be a miracle ."
I watched your video. It was a short clip of the building collapse, followed by a zoom in on the same clip shortened. I already analyzed it the round after it. I asked questions about it...

"you cannot find a logical explanation for carbon nanotubes being in the wtc."
Actually I already did: "we saw hijacked airplanes crash into the buildings, which would be a pretty good delivery system for this nano thermite."

"Rational wiki is not considered as an accurate source of information , according to them the NAZIS did not burn down the reichstag even though all major historians agree it was.If a pro nazi source is something you do i suggest you shave your head."
Wasn't pro just complaining about Ad Hominem attacks? Calling a source "pro nazi," without being able to find this quote of them disagreeing with "all major historians" on an issue (nor providing a definition better than No True Scotsman, for all major historians)... Then claiming anyone who quotes them, should also shave their heads. I believe we have hit the very definition of an Ad Hominem attack.


However to backup my sixth source, and some of the findings of the others: "He did not receive any direct funding or training from the US during the 1980s. Nor did his followers. The Afghan mujahideen, via Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency, received large amounts of both. Some bled to the Arabs fighting the Soviets but nothing significant" [7]
(number "6" on that same page, also assaults Pro's racist racist cave dweller comments)


Voting Suggestions:
S&G has actively been thrown out by pro (even after a clear reminder to use spell check was given).
Conduct could go either way, but is very unlikely to be tied as we both claim the other used worse fallacies.
Argument are clearly mine, as even after politely reminding pro about his claim including Tower7, he refused to even mention it. Also when asked for sources on information, he insisted he had to keep them secret (unless his case was that the Twin Towers got depressed and commited suicide, with no need for the introduction of explosives).
Sources are again clearly mine, as pro clearly did not even read his own sources.

Sources:
[6] http://rationalwiki.org...
[7] http://www.theguardian.com...

Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
yea it could be fun you going pro and I going Con, as In I will defend the official story and you be the truther
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Are you asking me to start a debate in favor of the official account of events (as pro), or completely switch sides with you (arguing in favor of whatever conspiracy theory)?
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
Do you want to try a debate but we switch sides you go for pro and I for con?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Thank you all for voting.

I oddly hope we get a higher quality truther in this site, removing spammed debates from the listing is one thing, but this is beginning to feel like stealing candy from a baby (and that is without repeating my previous arguments on the subject).

@truther: If you wish to continue making a mockery of the truther movement, please at least include limitations in the opening round, such as "no nitpicking" and "no evidence from before or after the buildings collapsed will be admitted into this argument" (which would remove planes, statements from firefighters, America's list of existing enemies...)
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
name one thing that has been debunked.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Are you serious right now truther? Well of course you are, you're a truther and this ignorance is a given.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
that is why not 1 claim the truth movement has been debunked properly by scientists only someone write some pseudoscientific claim mostly speculation on a webpage like debunking911.com and untrained scientists like yourself believe whatever fits your belief system.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
do you think the scientists that published the paper know less about stuff like this than you .
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
Do you think it would pass peer review if it wasn't "
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
thats how science works you don't just pull excuses out of a rabbits hat you have to provide a rational explanation for the presence of something not just make up stuff
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
truther1111RagnarTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro has, once again, failed to make a case for hsi position. S&G for the numerous errors. Sources because Pro called his own sourcing irrelevant, and Con pointed out where Pro's own source contradicted his claims, as well as for Con having solid sources of his own. As to arguments: Pro, the burden of proof was on YOU. You failed to meet it.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
truther1111RagnarTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro failed to prove his stance that collapse of the towers was due to explosives used in the attack, where as Con provided reasonable explanations that the twin towers collapse was mainly due to weight of the concrete floor with massive energy. Even the Chief Engineer of WTC confirmed this besides "time factor" plays a major role in this as crashing the towers and the use of explosives simultaneously is highly improbable.Thus arguments points is won by Con also better sourced and S&G.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
truther1111RagnarTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro could never refute the video evidence of planes crashing into the twin towers. Con wins arguments for that, and several other reasons. Pro had horrible grammar. Con had a slight advantage on sources.
Vote Placed by Jay-D 3 years ago
Jay-D
truther1111RagnarTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: S&G to Con for sure. Pro's sources lost some credibility after Con turned one of Pro's own sources against him. I'll keep conduct tied, but award arguments to Con for some really "controlled demolition" of Pro's statements. By the end, Pro was losing it a bit (but I'll still keep conduct tied). Well done Con.