The Instigator
truther1111
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

911 inside job

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
truther1111
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 916 times Debate No: 43282
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

truther1111

Pro

Ill let con go first but the most plausible and in fact only way to explain the process of how the buildings collapsed on 911 was with the use of explosives and or incendiaries.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

My opponent started the debate and has the burden of proof, but I will start by addressing some common truther claims, and see where it goes from there. There are many aspects to the 911 conspiracy, which would take a long time to discuss, but it seems as if my opponent wants to focus on the towers, and whether or not explosives or something like thermite needed to be used to take them down. Hopefully, just so we can get down to detail, my opponent agrees to just focus on this issue for ease.

People Heard Explosions


Many people will claim that because there was explosions heard and seen coming from inside the Towers, that this supports the hypothesis that the WTC's were taken down in controlled demolition.

The problem with this claim, is that when buildings undergo massive fires of that nature then explosions are going to be a given, especially considering the contents of the WTC.

Explosions as Firefighters Tackle Fire at Falmouth Docks:

"Then there was some massive, massive explosions and we saw a big raging fire on top of these canisters," he told the BBC [1]

Winter Haven Fire Claims 3 Homes:

"We ran out of water, we waited for more water. Then started attacking the explosions... We have multiple explosions..." [2]

Firefighters Battle Three-Alarm Fire Involving Explosions:

"As more firefighters responded to the fire, more callers reported hearing explosions"

The above examples are meant to demonstrate how common it is to hear explosions during building fires.

Thousands of hi-voltage transformers probably went off like grenades in the Towers, and there was explosive material throughout the buildings -- propane & LPG tanks for restaurants & snack bars; O2 & NO3 tanks in medical/dental offices, oxyacetylene tanks in the maint. shops, and tens of thousands of gallons of diesel in generators. If there weren't explosions heard that day, that would be weird. The fact that there were, in no way shape or form leads credence to the idea that a controlled demolition took place on the towers that day.

Explosions heard during large fires are the norm.

Did Larry Silverstein Admit To "Pulling" One Of The Buildings?

Larry Siverstein once said "pull it" and conspiracy theorists thought he meant a building to be demolished. First of all, when a being is being "pulled", that usually means with cables; not explosives. Secondly, when he said "pull it", he meant the contingent of firefighters left in the building. Basically, he wanted to pull the people out of there to prevent loss of life, as he event says. Conspiracy Theorists took him out of context.


WTC7 Wasn't Hit By A Plane, Why Did It Collapse?

The impact from the debris caused a preliminary collapse which cleared out everything between two of WTC 7's exterior columns. Here is a picture of the south/east part of the building damaged as well:

"You could see that part of the building (7) was damaged, heavily. There was a big hole in the building, on the whole corner of the side of the building on the south side, and you can see that part of the building was bowed out a little bit, to me that's major structural damage" - Stev Spak (Photographer, and was Honorary Deputy Chief in the FDNY)

"I never heard any charges, I never heard any sequence of timed explosions, and I never head anyone talk about that until a long time later." - Lieutenant Frank Papalia (FDNY, 1998 - 2006)

The impact from the debris was like a knife to the gut of the structure while the all the fires produced afterwards were just the nail in the coffin as far as the building's collapse goes (the raged for over 7 hours, way past their fireproofing limit). However conspiracy theorists are convinced in their head that there was something "odd" pertaining to how WTC 7 came down, even though, pretty much all witnesses/reporters/police/firefighters that day assumed that collapse inevitable just by looking at the fire's damage.

What Do Explosive Experts Think?

ImplosionWorld.Com came out with a paper (with explosive experts from all over), and they conclude that there is no way the collapse of the buildings could have been a controlled demolition[3].

Explosive expert Ron Craig had this to say about thermite, and how it wouldn't be useful in a demolition like this:

"It's (Thermate) like using a lawn mower engine instead of a souped up go kart engine if I want to drive something at a high speed" - Ron Craig (International Society of Explosives Engineers)

"Thermate is a guess and a roll of the dice and who knows how it's going to work, so anybody that would calculate that into their plans I think would be really foolish" - Ron Craig (International Society of Explosives Engineers.

What About The Thermate/Thermite Supposedly Found?

In deed, the presence of iron, sulfur, aluminum, potassium, manganese,fluorine, and titanium in the WTC dust are all supported by USGS dust samples, and most are ingredients of thermate. However the first thing any reasonable scientist would investigate is whether or not there are any natural (non-thermate related) sources for these chemicals. Although Steven Jones claims that he's found "uncommon chemical elements in abundance" nothing could be further from the truth.

The third most common ingredient in the World Trade Center construction was gypsum-based drywall, which is 18.62 sulfur. Iron is used in paint and electronic devices. Potassium is used in concrete. Manganese was used for structural steel, paint, batteries, and ceramics. Flourine is used in Freon. 200,000 pounds of Freon cooled the WTC complex. This was the largest air-conditioning system in the country. Titanium is used in paper and paint (both common at the WTC) and made up 2% of each of the 767's. WTC7 was also clad in polished steel and titanium. To claim that these were uncommon at the WTC, and that the only explanation for their presence is though the use of thermate, is an unbelievable joke.

Could the Twin Towers Have Collapsed The Way They Did?

Of course. The kinetic energy of the plane slamming into the buildings at 500mph with massive amounts of jet fuel was more than enough to knock the fire proofing off the building. The weight from the top section would cause a progressive collapse all the way down [4].


There doesn't seem to be any good evidence at all that the towers were brought down by a demolition. The ball is now in my opponent's court.

Sources

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[2] http://www.kyma.com...
[3] http://www.implosionworld.com...
[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
truther1111

Pro

My opponent has not explained how the buildings collapsed as not even NIST can, firstly I will start by debunking some of his claims.

People Heard Explosions

Not only did normal people hear explosions but firefighters did , like con said firefighters are experienced in hearing explosions from office fires etc, however there are firefighters who are adamant that the explosions were from bombs and not explosions .(1)
Also there were witnesses who witnessed explosions in the lobby far below the fires occured. (2)
In the basement (3)
In building 7 before the towers collapsed (4)

Did Larry Silverstein Admit To "Pulling" One Of The Buildings?
While I never took this as evidence .

WTC7 Wasn't Hit By A Plane, Why Did It Collapse?

Neither was building 5 or 6 yet both buildings suffered far more debris damage (5) and fires (6) than building 7 but yet did not collapse straight down with moments of free fall acceleration something impossible due to newtons third law of motion.

It is not conspiracy theorists yet thousands of architect and engineers who question the collapse of building 7. (7)
NIST explanation is that fires caused the building to collapse not the debris .
NIST cannot explain how the building collapses as there computer simulation does not match observed events. (8)
It therefore isnt a valid scientific hypothesis

Witnesses (9) and video evidence of clearly seen explosions seen in building 7 seem to suggest otherwise.


What Do Explosive Experts Think?
Nowhere inthe paper does it conclude that the buildings could in no way have been a controlled demolition rather it is discussing some points about the controlled demolition hypothesis .
The 'experts' are only commercial controlled demolition experts and in no way are exposed to the type of classified technology that the insiders would have had access to .
This includes Nano thermite which is like RDX on crack. 'A smaller ,Nastier and cheaper explosive""(Los Alamos national laboratory)
Also the possible use of Linear thermite charges(10) or cutting device would make a thermitic reaction a lot more effecient in destruction of steel girders.
Homemade thermitic charges made by a 911 truther and engineer has proved absolutely that thermite or thermate is effective in the destruction of steel member present in the wtc doing experiments

What About The Thermate/Thermite Supposedly Found?
An exusable mistake by Con regarding his lack of knowledge of chemistry , the claim by Dr Steven jones was never that because those chemicals were present in the wtc it was evidence of thermite.
The claim was that iron spheres were found, indicating that they were previously molten as surface tension causes spheres to be formed when in the liquid state, such as a drop of water.
These spheres have the chemical signature of thermite.
The only way to make iron spheres with the chemical signature of thermite is is a thermitic reaction because all these chemicals are melted together at the same time and has nothing to do with background dust.


Could the Twin Towers Have Collapsed The Way They Did?
A bold statement by Con who has no engineering background,
The problem with the progressive collapse theory is that all of the material is expulsed horizontally outwards as dust and debris and steel beams , the material does not progressively stack up or avalanche .If you dont believe me watch the video of the towers collapsing and tell me if you think its progressively collapsing.(12)
One would expect to find concrete at the bottom of the towers ,yet all of the concrete was turned to dust, so how can dust crush intact concrete below.
Note in the video waves of explosions travelling faster than the acceleration of gravity 9.8ms which you would expect from a gravity driven collapse(13)
Also explosive flashes are seen in the footage.(14)

Conclusion- NIST does not offer an explanation for the collapse of the towers and neither does CON , the best they can do is the initiation of collapse and provide no emperical evidence for the initiaiton of collapse for building 7.
Nor do they offer an explanation for the 3.9 seconds of free fall acceleration of the building which is impossible if there is no resistance due to Newtons third law of motion.



(1)
;


(2)



(3)
http://911research.wtc7.net...



(4)


(5)
http://911research.wtc7.net...

(6)
http://911research.wtc7.net...




(7)
http://www.ae911truth.org...

(8)


(9)


(10)
http://techportal.eere.energy.gov...




(11)
https://www.youtube.com...

(12)


(13)


(14)
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

My opponent says that I did not explain the collapse but this is false, it is well known that the buildings fell due to progressive collapse. This has been confirmed by NIST with regards to the twin towers[1] and Building 7 (which collapsed due to a buckling of column 39)[2].


People Heard Explosions

In my first round I argued that explosions are commonly heard with regards to fires. Since the towers collapsed due to fire; reports of explosions are to be expected. Also, I listed all the explosive contents within the building as well. Pro posts Video 1 to show that fire-fighters said they heard actual bombs. However, I watched the video and they only talked about explosions. My opponent's Video 2 and Video 3 show people hearing explosions in the lobby and basement where there was no fire. However, there was fire. The jet fuel from the plane travelled down the elevator shaft[3] and there was fires in the lobby and basement because of it. With regard to Video 4, the explosions heard before the collapse were most likely due to fire and the explosives in the building. This is the reason explosions are common at building fires.

WTC7 Wasn't Hit By A Plane, Why Did It Collapse?

My opponent is confused. It is not how much damage is done to a building necessarily, but where the damage is done. even if Building 5 and Building 6 had more damage, the damage to Building 7 effected its core column 39. This explains why Building 7 collapsed when Building 5 and 6 did not.


"It is not conspiracy theorists yet thousands of architect and engineers who question the collapse of building 7." - Pro

Around 1,500 architects and engineers worldwide have actually signed a petition expressing their support for the theory that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition. Yet according to the U.S Department of Labor, there are 1,700,000 employed architects and engineers in the US alone (and probably 5 -10 times that worldwide). This means that less than 1 in 10,000 of the architects and engineers in the world have expressed any kind of support for this demolition theory. Rational people understand that if only 0.01% of the people in your field of expertise agree with you, then that should be clear indication of a "dud" idea. Validity of the NIST report has been a proven general consensus within the major scientific community.

Plus, If you consider the individuals involved in this A&E for 911 Truth movement you will find electrical engineers, software designers, landscapers etc. However, the number with actual relevant expertise and experience to high rise construction must be very small.

On the other hand the American Society of Civil Engineers, which supports NIST and whose members contributed, has about 120,000 members. Every developed country has a similar professional body. They also support the findings of NIST.

"NIST explanation is that fires caused the building to collapse not the debris." - Pro

The debris was the necessary cause, but the fire was the sufficient cause.

"NIST cannot explain how the building collapses as there computer simulation does not match observed events." - Pro

Show me a peer-reviewed journal, not a you-tube video.

"Witnesses and video evidence of clearly seen explosions seen in building 7 seem to suggest otherwise." - Pro

Who cares? I already gave the most reasonable explanation for the explosions that don't involve demolition.

What Do Explosive Experts Think?


"The 'experts' are only commercial controlled demolition experts and in no way are exposed to the type of classified technology that the insiders would have had access to." - Pro

Nanothermite isn't classified technology lol My opponent mentions thermite, but that wouldn't get the job done:


"It's (Thermate) like using a lawn mower engine instead of a souped up go kart engine if I want to drive something at a high speed" - Ron Craig (International Society of Explosives Engineers)

"Thermate is a guess and a roll of the dice and who knows how it's going towork, so anybody that would calculate that into their plans I think would be really foolish" - Ron Craig (International Society of Explosives Engineers.

What About The Thermate/Thermite Supposedly Found?

Yes. There was some pure iron, and some Al_2O_3, that indicates there was some micro aluminothermic reactions between rust and aluminum, akin to something like a sparkler. With a lot of gypsum around, there would be ample source for sulfur to lower the ignition temp required. This is somewhat expected in such a situation as an entire floor of an office building burning. there will be spots of peaked temperature due to the combustibles present and ambient heat around the area.

The assumption that Iron-rich spheres must come from temperatures capable of melting pure iron is invalid. Normal office fires can cause materials to form into spheracle particles such as iron, zinc, lead ect. Anyway, the Iron wouldn't burn off under those conditions but all the other metals mixed with the Iron probably would, leaving Iron-rich spheres.

I can't help but notice the major errors in the theories on 9/11. When it comes to the inside job theories, I just can't take it as truth any longer. In which I feel the only credible argument the conspiracy theorists held was of a mere misunderstanding - the finding of Thermate chemical signatures in the Twin Towers.

Steven Jones has done plenty of speeches about this in which he points out the chemical elements found within the debris. These elements pointed out are as such: iron, sulfur, aluminum, potassium, manganese, fluorine, & titanium.

Yes, most of these elements can be found in thermate. Jones had this one right. So what's the problem here? Well, like any proper scientist who would conduct studies on these elements, they'd first try & find any natural sources in which these elements could come from. And guess what? They all check out for other natural sources:

Sulfur: The third most common ingredient in the WTC construction was gypsum-based drywall, which is 18.62% sulfur.

Iron: Used in paint & electronic devices.

Potassium: Used in concrete.

Manganese: Used in the structural steel, paint, batteries, & ceramics.

Fluorine: Used in Freon. 200,000 pounds of Freon cooled the WTC complex. This was the largest air-conditioning system in the country.

Titanium: Used in paper & paint & made up 2% of each of the 767's. WTC7 was also clad in polished steel & titanium.

Jones claiming these elements were uncommon and only found within thermate is illogical.

Could the Twin Towers Have Collapsed The Way They Did?

The reason the steel beams flung out was because the pressure from the top half of the building bending them. It would be like taking a rubber pencil, and putting your index finger on one end, and your thumb on the other. If you squeeze it together the right way it will "fling"out. Also, there is no reason not to expect pulverized concrete. Also, the buildings didn't fall at free-fall speed[4].


Conclusion

My opponent hasn't presented one good reason to think 911 was an inside job; he has the burden of proof.


Sources

[1] http://www.nist.gov...
[2] http://www.nist.gov...
[3] http://www.911myths.com...
[4] Video
Debate Round No. 2
truther1111

Pro

Con says he explains that NIST explains the collapse as progressive however from their webpage they state differently.

"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"

NIST does not go on to explain the mechanics of this global collapse anywhere they claim that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse."

If you look at the video or even a series of photographs of the tower collapse you will not there is nothing above the pulverisation zone , its not stacking up progresively , the weight is not adding up progresively . All material is ejected out the side so what is causing the area below to self destruct literally..

The collapse of building 7 by NIST was a result of thermal expansion of column 39 which caused a progressive collapse of the building
Yet the only evidence they provide for this was their computer simulation which does not match the observed collapse of building 7 as I previously argued and neither do they release the inputs to the computer simulation for other engineers to review.The computer simulation cuts off after a few seconds because the outcome of their computer simulation stretches farther from the observed collapse of the building. The building twists around and starts doing a 360 .
NIST did no testing on the steel or on column 39 and only speculate that 39 must have failed due to a phenonema 'thermal expansion'
that has never happened before.

Con argues i Provide no evidence of a controlled demolition yet he and NIST fail to explain how all three towers self destructed themselves , the only logical explanation is explosives.

People Heard Explosions

According to Con , Jet fuel survives the inital explosion of the impact travels down 80-90 floors down the elevator shafts without exiting any of those floors gets to the lobby blows up and then also travels down to the basement levels and blows up there too.
Bascially lets use it as an excuse for any explosions where there shouldnt have been any.
This is the so called logic of the debunkers.

Video 1 states explosions 'as if there were detonated as if they had planned to take down the building'
Simply google firefighters bombs 911 and you will find video footage or witness testimony of firefighters claiming to say the word bomb.If you want i can . This isnt a main point so Ill skip it.

Video 3 shows barry jennings who was in WTC 7 before the two towers collapsed so how was it possible for fires to have spread to building 7 if there was no damage from the collapse of the two towers.

WTC7 Wasn't Hit By A Plane, Why Did It Collapse?

Core columns in building 5 and 6 did collapse but yet there was no total free fall collapse of the building blaming the magical collapse of the whole building on one column without evidence is very handy excuse for the debunker side .
Too bad they dont have any evidence for it or show how it did cause the building to collapse just a computer simulation which doesnt even match reality.

Actually 2000 + architects and engineer have signed and it would be alot more if there was media coverage of their argument.
Not one architect out of the 1.7 million can answer their questions like how did building 7 collapse at free fall acceleration for 3.9seconds. What does it prove 1.7 million engineers have their heads in the sand. I have personally asked engineers to answer these questions i propose and none can answer find me a architects and engineers for the official story
group.

The scientific community and science are too different things , science is not based on peoples opinions the scientific community is based around them and science has always proved the former to be lagging behind .

Fire nor debris explains the 3.9 seconds of free fall acceleration and the computer simulation does not match observed events.

Show me the computer inputs for the computer simulation.
Explosions on floors while the building collapses and you dont care... on floors where there was no recorded fire either.

What Do Explosive Experts Think?

No not now it isnt at the time it was and if it isnt classified how come these so called experts have never heard of it or pretend to never had heard of it,
Yes thermite is innefective if you pour it on concrete like they used to do in the 1800s to weld train tracks together , A truther engineer in the video has shown with homemade materials that regular thermite can be used to cut wtc beams cleanly and effectively (debunking Ron craig and the national geo channel) the only thing classified are the devices that used nanothermite or thermite to cut the steel

What About The Thermate/Thermite Supposedly Found?

Hah ! Con doesnt realise that for a aluminothermitic reaction to take place you need Aluminium in its elemental form !!!!!!!
Which is considered an exploives, thanks con.
Can con provide a source for the billions of iron spheres found with the exact chemical signature of thermite , no ?
Just blame it on office fires once again , in office fires you do not find these spheres .
Gypsum is CaSO4, anyone that knows basic chemistry knows that it cannot provide elemental sulphur found in the eutectic mixture of iron sulphide found at the wtc .
Debunking websites with no knowledge or background of chemistry or physics seem to claim to be much smarter and qualified than actual professors of chemistry and physics yet there pseudoscience is out there for anyone with half a background in chemistry to laugh at, Why isnt there any real Scientists on these debunking channels or videos coming up with some proper science .


Could the Twin Towers Have Collapsed The Way They Did?

Its true building 7 didnt fall at free fall speed, it had 3.9 seconds of free fall acceleration ! something that no one can explain , not one of your 1.7 million engineers because it defies physics.
IMO controlled demolitions dont fall at free fall speed either.

True there is no reason to expect pulverised concrete , but not all of it, where does the weight come from to crush the concrete below if its all dust ? There is nothing above the collapse zone all material is ejected out the side as seen in videos , photos etc.
Find me an engineer to explain that mystery without the use of bombs. ?


Conclusion

Con fails to answer basic questions of the collapse like everyone else and fails to provide a clear source of iron spheres with the signature of thermite with any other known chemical reaction than thermite. To say those chemicals are common in the dust is like to say carbon is common in the earth so why isnt everything diamond, or iron and aluminium oxide is one of the most common components in the earths crust yet we dont have Iron microspheres floating around the air with aluminium oxide coatings.
I could go on with other examples but the clear lack of con and the pseudoscientic debunking movement is ridiculous and its no wonder they cant publish one peer reviewed paper while the truther side has more than one.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
truther1111

Pro

Here are some other damning peices of evidence.

-Molten steel flowing from the south tower
Not aluminium at 440c as NIST claims, anyone is free to experiment with some aluminium cans some gasoline and some wallboard(gypsum) at home to see if they can get a yellow colour of molten flowing aluminium by mixing in organic materials.

-FEMA steel beam 'melted like swiss cheese'
No source of the sulphur has been identified and it remains a mystery as to why the steel melted straight through and formed a eutectic mixture of Liquid Iron and Sulphur. The product of a Thermate reaction however is a eutectic mixture of liquid iron and sulphur.
Sulphur cannot be from gypsum again as its bond to sulphate in the CaS04.


- Nano thermite found in wtc dust
Highly energetic material found in wtc dust when ignited iron spheres are formed in an exothermic reaction that match the iron spheres in the wtc dust.

-Im no pilot but many highly skilled pilots cannot replicate any of the 3 planes flight paths on 911 in a flight simulator carried out by the unskilled hijackers who could barely fly a cesna
-Pilotsfor911truth.org


Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
truther1111

Pro

Reader please ask for a new investigation of 911 !
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 2 years ago
makhdoom5
man made me laugh.
love u chemistry.
Posted by truther1111 2 years ago
truther1111
not quite sure what your arguing for here invinoveritas, the arguments still stand because no scientist has successfully responded to them.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Truther, I can see why a lot of people would buy your explanation, but anyone who isn't a complete brainwashed sheep would realize that it's far, far too simple.

In Mel Gibson's movie "The Patriot" (which has a not-so-shabby 62% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes), he states during the introductory credits, "9 pounds, 11 ounces. That's perfect, perfect." Coincidence? I don't think so. Not when we consider the scandal surrounding Gibson's disliking of Jews. It's clear to anyone who isn't oblivious that Jewish politicians with the Freemasons (who are known for their focus on symbolic ritual) in Area 51 to plan out the perfect attack on America in response to Gibson's anti-Semitism, while passing blame onto the Muslims. Oh, you may say that Gibson's anti-Semitic remarks were made in 2004, four years after the 9/11 attacks, but this is a na"ve response. Do you seriously think that the Illuminati hasn't discovered time travel yet? Anyone who does their proper research (on YouTube, of course) should know that time travel is commonplace nowadays; it just happens behind our backs. We may not have advanced space travel technology (as evidenced by our fake "moon landing" in 1969), but the researchers at NASA and Area 51 are able to manipulate time to their whim, by using some of the unpublished work of Albert Einstein.

Truther, I may have believed your explanation several years ago, but I do serious research now. You like to look for the easy explanations, and you overlook the details that actually matter. Dig deeper, my friend. The Illuminati may have full control over our lives, but they can't control the conspiracy videos we watch on YouTube!
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
The military is part of the government.
Posted by truther1111 2 years ago
truther1111
it wasn't the govt, it was the military/oil industrial complex.
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
I don't see how our government could pull off an "inside job" and expect to get away with it. I am 99% sure that 911 was not an inside Job.
Posted by truther1111 2 years ago
truther1111
yep, Its called Psychological warfare .
check out this video from before 911 from the x files, 'the cold war is over , the arms market is flat, but fly a 747 into the heart of new york city and you will have a dozen tinpot dictators just screaming to be smart bombed'
Posted by Letsdebate24 2 years ago
Letsdebate24
Wylted the reason they would choose planes as their method is rather simple, fear. After 911 airliners suffered a severe drop in the stock market and their ticket sails suffered as well. People were scared to fly. They wanted the incident to be as traumatic as possible and putting it all on display with an everyday part of transportation is a brilliant way to do that. They wanted to gather support from the people, they wanted the people to believe such extremes such as the Patriot Act were necessary to ensure our safety but they have failed to prove it has kept anyone safe at all. They have actually proved the opposite to be true we are less safe now than before the Patriot act was put into place.
They wanted us to believe that terrorist were a "real" threat to our way of life to justify the war on terror and the assault on our constitutional rights. There has yet to be a single terrorist put to trial for the American people to see their enemy. Even Osama Bin Laden supposedly behind the 911 attacks was kept hidden away from the public view when they supposedly killed him. Where was the proof? Anyone can go on tv and claim that they killed Osama if all their going to do is make the claim with no proof.
Posted by truther1111 2 years ago
truther1111
aramer popular consensus is not fact otherwise we would be living in the dark ages of course its not going to be a popular theory for the brainwashed masses out there however if you look at the evidence rationally without bias its obvious it was a controlled demolition
Posted by truther1111 2 years ago
truther1111
I feel sorry for you aramer you still can't see the truth .. what a surprise from a brainwashed soldier .

Wylted, how would they bring down the building with planes its impossible, they used the planes as a cover for the controlled demolition , the terrorists couldn't have planned such a controlled demolition and such an event would be unbelievable . It was a PSYOP a psychological attack a traumatic combination of plane impacts and the building coming down which was a symbol of americas dominance that made it psychologically more effective .They got away with it , it worked, they had to make it traumatic enough for the american people to start two wars without evidence.

There is some evidence that financial documents such as securities which were to expire on sep 12 also needed to be destroyed, the missing gold etc etc.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
truther1111Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Jay-D 2 years ago
Jay-D
truther1111Rational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, S&G is pretty much even. Had Con not forfeited, I think he'd definitely have won. But the state of things being as it is, Pro has multiple statements that have gone uncontested, and so he gets arguments as well. Con, however, gave the better sources.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 2 years ago
KingDebater
truther1111Rational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff + sources, and s/g were a tie