The Instigator
truther1111
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
theta_pinch
Con (against)
Winning
8 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 2 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,018 times Debate No: 43779
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (40)
Votes (2)

 

truther1111

Pro

Controlled demolition the most viable hypothesis for 3 towers collapsing.
theta_pinch

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
truther1111

Pro

Ill keep it brief and simple.

1.NIST doesnt explain the mechanics of how the building collapsed just the initiation of collapse.
2.Debris does not pancake but is ejected out horizontally so how can it pancake?
3.The concrete is turned to dust so it wont cause a pancaking effect.
4.Molten steel is seen moments before the collapse in the south tower.
5.The south tower tilts over but does not fall over instead going through the path of most resistance at near free fall speed converting all concrete and resisting objects into dust without slowing down ( conservation of momentum)
6.Massive steel girders are ejected horizontally hitting other buildings( gravitiy cant do that)
7.Explosive flashes are seen in the video
8.Isolated Squibs seen 20-40 stories below the collapse zone







theta_pinch

Con

2.Debris does not pancake but is ejected out horizontally so how can it pancake?

The steel beams would have beend under a lot of stress so when the beams finally snapped they shot out of the sides horizontally.

3.The concrete is turned to dust so it wont cause a pancaking effect.

Please elaborate.

4.Molten steel is seen moments before the collapse in the south tower

The fire melted the steel.

5.The south tower tilts over but does not fall over instead going through the path of most resistance at near free fall speed converting all concrete and resisting objects into dust without slowing down ( conservation of momentum)

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Please elaborate.

6.Massive steel girders are ejected horizontally hitting other buildings( gravitiy cant do that)

You're right gravity can't do that but the steel girders were under a lot of stress. When they finally snapped the pieces would go flying horizontally out the side.

7.Explosive flashes are seen in the video

There was a fire in an enormous building; it likely had materials in it that can explode in a fire.


8. Isolated Squibs seen 20-40 stories below the collapse zone

Squibs are used for theatrical purposes too; it's highly unlikely that they would have enough power to harm buildings like the twin towers. It resembles a tiny stick of dynamite, both in appearance and construction, although with considerably less explosive power--wikipedia
Debate Round No. 2
truther1111

Pro

2. If this happened the energy converted should slow down the building dramatically.
3. 90,000 tonnes of concrete is turned to dust mid air, how can dust crush concrete ?
4.The jet fuel/office fire is not capable of reaching the temp required to melt steel.
5.basically the towers go through the path of most resistance and do not topple over as you would expect but it makes sense if there is a progressive collapse to go through the path of most resistance as the weight is stacking up however the weight is being expulsed out the side and the weight above is not slowing down or stacking up.
6. 2?
7. Flashes are seen below the fire zone .
8.Squibs are mistimed explosions in controlled demolitions or for theatrical purposes.
theta_pinch

Con

2. If this happened the energy converted should slow down the building dramatically.

But when those steel grirders supporting it are shot out then it would be moving at almost freefall speed since the only thing supporting it where those girders were before they were ejected is air. So that would actually speed it up, because there is nothing supporting the weight of everything above.

3. 90,000 tonnes of concrete is turned to dust mid air, how can dust crush concrete ?

This statement is confusing; it looks like your saying the concrete is turned to dust and then that dust is crushing the concrete that was already turned to dust. So can you clarify.

4.The jet fuel/office fire is not capable of reaching the temp required to melt steel.

The most likely reason it that the the twin towers were might have inadvertently built with all the ingredients necessary for thermite so when the fire spread it could've started a thermite reaction which WOULD produce the temperatures needed to melt steel.

5.basically the towers go through the path of most resistance and do not topple over as you would expect but it makes sense if there is a progressive collapse to go through the path of most resistance as the weight is stacking up however the weight is being expulsed out the side and the weight above is not slowing down or stacking up.

But everything above the plane crash would've been intact during it's fall so as each girder is ejected half the tower would fall down progressively on the story right below the girders at near free fall speeds because there is nothing supporting it till it falls onto the next story of the building. Also because as it gets closer to earth it feels the force of gravity more it wouldn't slow down.

7. Flashes are seen below the fire zone .
This is what rational wiki says: (I assume this is what your suggesting)
"You can see flashes all over Building 7 as the demo charges fire off

Rebuttal: No you can't. What you see is the window glass popping out as the facade buckles downwards. The sun is momentarily reflected in each pane of glass as it falls."


8.Squibs are mistimed explosions in controlled demolitions or for theatrical purposes.

Can you prove it can break structural steel?

SOURCES

http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 3
truther1111

Pro

2.
Interesting theory however a falling object does not go into free fall instantly the accelerating force of gravity is 9.8 ms/s and with 90 floors your theory falls apart as its constantly being slowed down, like when falling people fall into a forest from a plane some have actually survived as each branch they hit slows them down a little , after they hit the branch they do not instantly fall at free fall again .


3. Yes if you accept the gravity collapse theory then dust is crushing concrete below which is impossible.

4. A thermitic reaction requires fine grains of iron oxide and elemental aluminium, the aluminium in the towers was an alloy and so was the steel.


5.
The force of gravity is consistent at different heights above the earth , only in space its weaker.
90 floors of resistance.

7.Well in the south tower collapse video if you put it in slow motion you can see flashes on the shadowed side of the tower therefore ruling out the suns reflection theory. See video above.Watch a few times



Can explosives break structural steel , yes ,see video

theta_pinch

Con

2. A quote from wikipedia
Total progressive collapse The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse. Once the collapse initiated, the mass of failing floors overwhelmed the floors below, causing a progressive series of floor failures which accelerated as the sequence progressed. Soon large portions of the perimeter columns and possibly the cores were left without any lateral support, causing them to fall laterally towards the outside pushed by the increasing pile of rubble--http://en.wikipedia.org...

So in fact it WAS progressive collapse caused by the mass of the FLOORS which didn't eject.


3. Yes if you accept the gravity collapse theory then dust is crushing concrete below which is impossible.

Or it could be falling debris hidden inside the cloud.

4. So I just checked the melting steel again and heres what I found: The Truth is that: HOT STEEL WILL CONTINUE TO UNDERGO EXOTHERMIC OXIDATION REACTIONS WHILE EXPOSED TO AIR, CAUSING IRON TO INCREASE ITS TEMPERATURE UNTIL IT MELTS, FORMING POOLS OF MOLTEN IRON--http://www.debunking911.com...

So apparently; steel will burn up to the temperature where it melts explaining the molten steel.


7.Well in the south tower collapse video if you put it in slow motion you can see flashes on the shadowed side of the tower therefore ruling out the suns reflection theory. See video above.Watch a few times

There's another explanation; it's possible that those flashes were caused by the fire.

Also if you take a look at the video of the squib going off you'll see that it flashes yellow for an incredibly short amount of time. If you take a look at the flashes when the tower collapses you'll see that the flashes are WHITE. The flashes are both the wrong color AND the flashes last too long. Since the colors are different that rules out squibs.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.debunking911.com...
Debate Round No. 4
truther1111

Pro

2. Video evidene shows the floors did not 'fall' as a but were ejected. This is explosive force forced steel out at about 70 mph , gravity cant do that.. video one
NIST quotes on their website

"Progressive collapse did NOT occur in the WTC towers, for two reasons. First, the collapse of each tower was not triggered by a local damage or a single initiating event. Second, the structures were able to redistribute loads from the impact and fire-damaged structural components and subsystems to undamaged components and to keep the building standing until a sudden, global collapse occurred"




3.
In some angles you clearly see none or very little, and if its just a bit of debris it would be slowed down eventually by the 90 floors of steel and concrete it pulverised through.

4. LOL that is why you shouldnt get your information from a debunking website , none of them are run by actual scientists just nerds who think they are smart by coming up with counter theories yet they dont have a degree in chemistry of physics to make such claims.The truth side however has more than 2000 architect,engineers ,chemists,metallurgists,award winning scientists etc to make claims, they have peer reviewed papers. The debunking side has 0 peer reviewed scientific papers.
Steel can melt if you heat it to 1500 degrees celcius however these temperatures would not possibly be present in the wtc as a result of office fires and jet fuel.

7. What do you mean the wrong colour ? They are flashes from explosives and or thermitic reactions which would be yellow orange by the way.

theta_pinch

Con

3. In some angles you clearly see none or very little, and if its just a bit of debris it would be slowed down eventually by the 90 floors of steel and concrete it pulverised through.

You can also see the very top of one of the towers falling. That could probably destroy the concrete.





4. LOL that is why you shouldnt get your information from a debunking website , none of them are run by actual scientists just nerds who think they are smart by coming up with counter theories yet they dont have a degree in chemistry of physics to make such claims.The truth side however has more than 2000 architect,engineers ,chemists,metallurgists,award winning scientists etc to make claims, they have peer reviewed papers. The debunking side has 0 peer reviewed scientific papers.

Actually if you look up the other you will find he IS a scientist. Also evidence from "truth" sites are often less accurate because they're made by the conspiracy theorists. Anyways my sources are perfectly valid. Here's a quote about the validity:"debunking9/11.com is a very sophisticated, extensive and professionally put together website that clearly has had a lot of expensive expertise poured into it." - Alex Jones"

So that debunked your claim that my sources aren't good. In fact your response could be taken as meaning you couldn't find anyway to counter it so you tried to discredit my sources.

Also this is the ONLY paper on the world trade center collapse that passed peer review: http://www.structuremag.org...

"Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...

For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...

"Walter P. Murphy Professor of

Civil Engineering and Materials Science

Northwestern University


Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego

Henri Gavin, Duke University

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan

Nicos Makris, University of Patras

Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado

Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair

James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE

Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE

Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE

Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE"


7. What do you mean the wrong colour ? They are flashes from explosives and or thermitic reactions which would be yellow orange by the way.
Apparently I was wrong but I did find out something about the supposed squibs from a professional:

"Conspiracy theories are often built around anomalies which are difficult to prove either way. The "assumptionists" are convinced they know what the anomaly is. One such anomaly is the so called "Squibs".
They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of Controlled Demolition. It's often followed by more video of charges going off in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase its explosive strength with time.-
http://www.debunking911.com...;

This source also agrees with my explanation of the steel girders flying out.



CONCLUSION
I have explained away all the reasons given for controlled demolition.













Debate Round No. 5
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by truther1111 2 years ago
truther1111
it was in the same video as below.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Who cares if it was an inside job?
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
can you provide video evidenc of that.
Posted by truther1111 2 years ago
truther1111
he also stated he knew of no video evidence of molten steel, gross incompetence and negligence
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
He said that he didn't know of any eyewitnesses who saw it. That is not necessarily a lie. He could just not know about it.
Posted by truther1111 2 years ago
truther1111
heres an example
Posted by truther1111 2 years ago
truther1111
People lie
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
And saying people are lying is a sign of conspiracy.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
You know what all those articles have in common? They all say that NIST lied.
Posted by truther1111 2 years ago
truther1111
Also scientists should review how the building collapsed because if NIST is correct scientists may have to revise Newtonian physics and the laws of conservation of momentum and energy.
Better yet burn all the physics books we have an start afresh
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 2 years ago
Tophatdoc
truther1111theta_pinchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The burden of proof was on Pro to show without any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was the result of controlled demolition. Pro failed to do so. Con showed several times that this was not guaranteed conclusion. The debate goes to Con because of this. Conduct and grammar point goes to Con for stating "LOL." It is not a word nor is it appropriate for a debate. Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
truther1111theta_pinchTied
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: I didn't think pro or con had very good sources. Con did refute everything that pro offered as proof of controlled demolition. Pro didn't do a good job of discrediting or disproving anything used to refute his arguments.