The Instigator
truther1111
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

911 inside job

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 650 times Debate No: 36180
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

truther1111

Pro

your history channel wont save you , 911 was an inside job
imabench

Con

I got challenged to do this so I accept

Good luck
Debate Round No. 1
truther1111

Pro

I was hoping you would go first but ok I wont need luck as the simple fact is that the truth is 911 was an inside job.
If anyone loses an argument pro 911 its because they havent done enough research and anyone who doesnt believe 911 was an inside sob simply hasnt looked at the evidence or chosen to ignore it.
Either you ignore evidence that doesnt go along with your world view or you accept it and rethink your views.

If I look at the evidence for the theory that muslim hijackers hijacked planes flew them in etc

No footage of hijackers .
No hard evidence linking hijackers to 911
http://www.projectcensored.org...
No evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon
No hard evidence Osama Bin Laden was behind 911
Some of the 911 hijackers still alive etc

There is nothing really than a government made story no real evidence .

Now for the theory that 911 was an inside job there is real hard evidence .

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives

Rapid onset of collapse
Sounds of explosions at ground floor " a second before the building's destruction
Symmetrical "structural failure" " through the path of greatest resistance " at free-fall acceleration
Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives
Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
Extremely rapid onset of destruction
Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
Isolated explosive ejections 20"40 stories below demolition front
Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed
imabench

Con

Like most 9/11 truther retards, Pro has presented no actual evidence of an inside job and instead has simply listed a couple descrepencies from the official story of what happened that day, and jumped to the pathetically stupid conclusion that there must have been an inside job....

Let us now tear into pro's 'arguments'

" No footage of hijackers, No hard evidence linking hijackers to 911"

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu...

They trained in Florida, were seen taking over the planes by witnesses on board the planes, actually spoke to ATC saying they took some planes, and their personal effects showed they had plotted the act.

"No evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon"

http://rense.com...
http://www.popularmechanics.com...

There literally was plane wreckage dotted all over the impact site at the Pentagon which indicates it was struck by a plane

"No hard evidence Osama Bin Laden was behind 911"

http://abcnews.go.com...

He took credit for plotting and carrying out the attack, he was CLEARLY behind it

"Some of the 911 hijackers still alive etc"

Thats based on the retarded theory that there are other people alive in the Middle East who have the same names as the alleged hijackers.....

Newsflash retard, there are a TON of people in the MIddle East who have the same names as those of the hijackers.... Names arent like email addresses where everyone's is different

"WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives"

http://www.debunking911.com...

It was heavily damaged as a result of the towers collapsing and the fire it sustained and the massive weight of the tower itself

"The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives"

Unless you provide evidence then I have the liberty of calling your entire argument bullsh*t and moving on

"High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed"

None of those were also struck by a plane, or were even close to as large as the twin towers, or had fires constantly being fed by jet fuel.....

=====================================================================================

Pro provides absolutely no sources to back up any of his retarded claims that 9/11 was an inside job and fails to even mention who carried out the inside job, only insisting that there is one when evidence and basic reasoning suggests that there isnt.

Debate Round No. 2
truther1111

Pro

Obviously con did not read what i posted before proof being
'Evidence of thermite'
http://911research.wtc7.net...
'Evidence of explosives'
http://www.benthamscience.com...
Not sure how much more proof you need.
Ill supply the source this time because i naively though you would've already know about this information

1. ' No hard evidence' you have provided nothing but hearsay
2. Where is the rest of the plane , where are the engines
3. Do you speak arabic no becaue he didnt claim responsibility that was mistranslated.
4. No .....that is not actually based on that but actually phone calls to the father of one of the hijackers from the 'dead terrorist' confirming he is alive and well for example
http://911research.wtc7.net...
5.Exactly no one is denying that it was heavily damaged although not nearly as damaged as the rest of the buildings like building 6 which did not collapse at free fall acceleration through the path of resistance. If the building fell due to the damaged corner then it would fall over not straight down, this is why NIST had to claim the building fell due to one failure of a column without any hard evidence.
The website you provided me written by unqualified nerds who arent even engineers or physicists doesnt explain how the building collapsed at free fall acceleration which can only happen with the use of explosives nor does it explain why there were several tonnes of molten steel below wtc7 ! nor does it explain why evidence of explosives were found...
Meanwhile thousands of highly qualified architects and engineers have wrote peer reviewed scientific articles debunking websites such as 911debunking.com ,popular mechanics,history channel and most importantly NIST .
Why cant the debunkers address these papers or contest them? because they cant .

Popular mechanics debunked.
http://www.ae911truth.org...

Nist Debunked.
http://www.ae911truth.org...

5. Molten steel, Evidence of explosives, Evidence of Thermite.
6. The jet fuel was burnt in the initial explosion when the plane hit the building nor does the jet fuel explain how it could cause temperatures observed hotter than the surface of the sun.
imabench

Con

'evidence of thermite'

http://www.debunking911.com...

The so called 'evidence' of thermite at 9/11 consists entirely of what conspiracy theorists think they see based on photos of the towers after the have collapsed.... The truth is that there is no actual evidence that thermite was used since the claim that thermite ws used is based entirely on how some idiots interpret photos of 9/11.... And more importantly, the amount of thermite that would needed to be used to bring down the twin towers AND keep parts of it burning for 6 weeks after would require tons and tons of thermite to the point where its impossible that anybody could have smuggled so much thermite into the twin towers without being caught.

'Evidence of explosives'

This claim again relies on the alleged existence of thermite at 9/11, which means that once again, there is no actual evidence that explosives were present/used on the twin towers

"Ill supply the source this time because i naively though you would've already know about this information"

Heres a hint retard, when you give sources for your claims, try to make sure they actually do support your claims..... I thought you wouldve known to do that but I naively thought you werent so retarded.

'2. Where is the rest of the plane , where are the engines'

They blew up you idiot, do you not know how explosions work?

'3. Do you speak arabic no becaue he didnt claim responsibility that was mistranslated.'

he literally said he himself entrusted the 19 hijackers with the attacks
http://abcnews.go.com...

'4. phone calls to the father of one of the hijackers from the 'dead terrorist' confirming he is alive and well for example'

Youre source doesnt even work, and if you could actually find a source not from the same truther website, that'd be greaaaaat

'5. building 6 which did not collapse at free fall acceleration through the path of resistance.'

Building 6 was only 7 stories tall whereas Building 7 was 50 stories tall, building 6 was much smaller then building 7 and naturally took less damage since it was a smaller target.... Also it was small enough so that any real damage it suffered would not cause a collapse due to the weight of floors above it, hence why building 7 collapsed when building 6 didnt.

"doesnt explain how the building collapsed at free fall acceleration"

There isnt any structure known to man that could stop or slow down a 30 story building that is falling to the ground.... Buildings are constructed only to support and transfer the weight above it down, not to stop a collapse mid fall.....

"The jet fuel was burnt in the initial explosion"

It wasnt.

"nor does the jet fuel explain how it could cause temperatures observed hotter than the surface of the sun."

Because the temperatures werent hotter then the sun

==================================================================================

Once again, Pro completely fails to name a culprit who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and like so many other idiot truthers before him, simply lists descrepencies in official 9/11 reports and concludes that there must have been an inside plot rather then think 'hey, maybe the government was wrong about something'

Extend all dropped arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
truther1111

Pro

Once again Con has totally ignored my source and has pulled out debunking911.com which claims the only evidence I have to prove thermite existed is a photo , one which I didn't even claim as evidence for the thermite theory.
Whether Con thinks its possible or impossible to plant thermite in the buildings is irrelevant as the scientific evidence proves its there, how it got there is another question.

The proof of thermite is

Iron rich microspheres with chemical signature of thermite found in wtc dust.
http://www.journalof911studies.com...

Steel beams found by fema corroded by thermite.
http://911research.wtc7.net...

High tech nanothermite found in all WTC dust samples.
http://www.benthamscience.com...

2. Im an idiot for asking why steel engines vaporised into thin air ?
3. Osama denies being involved in 911
http://911blogger.com...

" I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."

4. http://news.bbc.co.uk...

5. The point was to show that building damage doesnt prove a building will collapse at freefall acceleration
6.
Wrong ever heard of the Conservation of Momentum ....
For the building to collapse at free fall speed indicates there was no resistance ( 0 N ) .... only which could be allowed if all columns and support beams were removed during the 'collapse'
heres an example disproving your theory.

7. Why did i see a great big fireball and even if there was jet fuel it wouldn't be able to produce the temperatures high enough to melt steel.
8. RJ lee report found vaporised lead and molten molybdenum which require temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun .
http://911research.wtc7.net...

Once again con has resorted to bullying tactics to calling me retarded and an idiot showing he has no argument left.
imabench

Con

"Once again Con has totally ignored my source and has pulled out debunking911.com which claims the only evidence I have to prove thermite existed is a photo , one which I didn't even claim as evidence for the thermite theory."

Your own source didnt even suggest that thermite was used at the twin towers, it only stated that severely high temperatures were observed during the fires to have caused some of the chemical reactions that occurred. In fact if you actually READ YOUR OWN SOURCE (im guessing you didnt), only one person SUGGESTS that thermite COULD have been used in 9/11.... Thats hardly 'evidence' of anything.

'Iron rich microspheres with chemical signature of thermite found in wtc dust.'

Your source is actually an experiment carried out by the same guy from your other 'source' who was the only person suggesting that thermite was present at 9/11, and you can tell hes insanely biased and making up his reports since his final words in his alleged study are: 'I am confident that by working together and seeking the facts with determination, we will succeed in finding out the truth about 9/11. If we act before the next series of restrictions on our liberties, we should be able to achieve justice and peace as well'

Point is: Your sources are all coming from the same hack scientist and it still doesnt account for how much thermite would need to be present to bring down both towers (half of the worlds supply)

"Steel beams found by fema corroded by thermite."

Your source is the EXACT SAME ONE you used in the previous round which AGAIN only has one person claiming that thermite must be responsible....

"High tech nanothermite found in all WTC dust samples."

Another study also by Steven Jones, the crazy guy pro cited in all of his other sources. Is this the only half-credible person you can find to back up all of youre insane theories Pro?

'2. Im an idiot for asking why steel engines vaporised into thin air ?'

No, youre a retard because I already stated that pieces of the airplane were found all over at the site of the crash at the Pentagon, and rather then put two and two together and think 'oh, maybe the engines were there and broke into a billion pieces after they hit the side of the building going hundreds of miles an hour' you instead went on this idiotic tangent that has gotten you nowhere.

'3. Osama denies being involved in 911'

Yeah he did at first like any criminal would, then after about 3 months once he realized he was just out of reach of the US he claimed responsibility and started bragging about it.

'5. The point was to show that building damage doesnt prove a building will collapse at freefall acceleration'

Your point was that SHORT buildings do not collapse at freefall acceleration, you completely refuse to acknowledge the fact though that it happens with large buildings that have sustained massive damage.

'For the building to collapse at free fall speed indicates there was no resistance ( 0 N ) .... only which could be allowed if all columns and support beams were removed during the 'collapse'

Unless youre retarded (probable) you would know that its possible to fall at free-fall speed if 1) There is extremely little resistance to stop it (It doesnt HAVE to be just 0), and 2) The object that is falling is MASSIVE and therefore would need massive amounts of material just to put up a little resistence, which is the case with both of the towers.

"7. Why did i see a great big fireball'

Because you have eyes and thats what happens when things go boom idiot....

'and even if there was jet fuel it wouldn't be able to produce the temperatures high enough to melt steel."

You dont have to melt steel to cause the building to collapse though, if you weaken it to the point where it deforms then the steel loses its strength even though it hasnt melted. Take weak steel and put the top 20 stories of either of the twin towers on top of that and its a guarantee that it will collapse.

'8. RJ lee report found vaporised lead and molten molybdenum which require temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun .'

It literally says nothing about temperatures needed to be as hot as the suns surface to have caused some of the chemical reactions found at 9/11

=========================================================================================

Apart from only giving sources all of which cite one insane loon, pros sources dont back up any of his ridiculous claims and drops numerous arguments while once again failing to suggest who could be behind such an intricate plot.

Also pro, I dont call you retarded because I dont have an argument and have resorted to bullying.... Im calling you retarded simply because you are very, very retarded.

Debate Round No. 4
truther1111

Pro

I dont know what gives you the right to slander Dr Steven Jones like this, what are your credentials ??
The hypothesis for thermite being used at the wtc was made by Dr Steven Jones after finding Iron rich microspheres in samples of the WTC dust. These spheres had the chemical signature of thermate/thermite chemical reaction which indicate a thermitic reaction took place. Im not sure how you can criticise this science ?? The wording he used saying 'could have' etc is typical of a Scientific Hypothesis, the next step is to prove the hypothesis by finding unexploded thermitic material which could account for the exploded remnants.....
The high temperatures that were noted to cause these chemical reactions like I already said are far too high for a jet fuel /office furniture fire. The temperatures are expected from a thermitic reaction.

The source of the Steel beams corroded by thermite.. is FEMA , FEMA showed evidence of sulphidization of steel and melting of steel beams although they did not do any further tests or investigations into 911.
It took researcher Steven Jones to put the pieces of the puzzle together and propose that thermite was the cause of the
steel beams melting a mystery totally ignored by NIST!!!.
In fact NIST claims there is no evidence of steel melting on 911 which is contradicted by FEMAs report unless you think they are conspiracy hacks too.

'high tech nanothermite'
There are other scientists who along with Steven Jones wrote that paper ... You havent proven that steven jones is a hack nor have you disproven any of the Science he has proposed nor has any other scientist .
The paper was Peer reviewed by Scientists from the University of Copenhagen. The paper has not been contested in the academic community by any other scientists to this date in a peer reviewed paper .

Titanium engines dont break into a billion pieces when they hit the ground. Source?

Like I said the white house deliberately mistranslated osamas confession speech nor would it be hard evidence that he did 911 anyway. One could easily argue that he was involved with the conspiracy in the first place considering that both the bush family and bin laden family were friends :O
http://www.fpp.co.uk...

5. Doesnt matter the height or shape of buildings or matter the law of conservation of momentum is the same .Free fall acceleration requires no resistance! nada nothing do you understand...

Free fall speed and acceleration are different things by the way .If i were to drop a brick of gold off the top of building 7 we would collapse at the same speed because the rest of building 7 produced the same resistance to the collapse as air would to the gold meaning virtually nothing..

7. So why didnt the rest of the jet fuel go boom if it was an explosions , explosive materials go boom in explosions.

BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF MOLTEN STEEL THEREFORE THE TEMPERATURES WERE HIGH ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL!!
WHERE DOES THE TEMPERATURE COME FROM TO MELT THE STEEL?
whether or not the buildings could have collapsed at lower temperatures like NIST claims is Irrelevant as there is evidence of high temperatures.NIST chooses to ignore all evidence of high temperatures at 911 therefore they claim that low temperatures could have been responsible for the steel weakening .
Even though Underwriter laboratories tested the steel for higher temperatures than NIST claims and guess what the STEEL didnt collapse or weaken.
http://www.911review.com...

8. No RJ lee job was not to explain the temperatures found at 911 only to test chemicals found in the wtc dust.
RJ lee found molten molybedenum which could only be caused with temperatures of 4000 c plus higher than the sun..

CON has provided no clear rebuttal to any of the science or scientific method of the scientists who have written peer reviewed articles proving that 911 was an inside job.
All con has done is to slander the names of scientists involved in the study without any evidence for his claims

A good documentary to watch on the background and studies of Dr Steven Jones can be found via the link below.
Educate yourself!
imabench

Con

Pro forfeits that Osama Bin Laden did take credit for 9/11 in the months after 9/11 once he realized he was just out of reach of the US military's reach

Pro forfeits that airplanes did in fact fly into the Pentagon and the twin towers on 9/11

Pro forfeits that pieces of airplanes were found all over at both the Pentagon crash site and the site of the twin towers

Pro forfeits that steel didnt have to be melted in order to lose their strength and result in a structural collapse

Pro forfeits that those who did hijack the flights were indeed on the planes and flew them into their targets on 9/11

Pro forfeits that the terrorists in question did receive flight training within the US and were indeed linked to Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden

Pro forfeits that personal effects of the hijackers did indicate they planned to turn airplanes into missiles and fly them into targets on 9/11

Pro forfeits that Al-Qaeda did have an elaborate history of attacking US targets and embassies long before 9/11 even occurred

Pro forfeits that WTC 7 could very plausibly collapse after receiving heavy damage from the twin towers collapsing despite not being hit by an airplane or by suffering from an extensive fire

Pro forfeits that its possible for the buildings to fall at near free-fall speed since the amount of resistance needed to halt such a massive part of the tower from falling down would be tremendous

Pro forfeits that the amount of thermite that would be needed to bring down the twin towers is equal to about half the worlds supply of thermite

Pro forfeits that a massive impact combined with intense fires is enough to sufficiently weaken steel to the point where it could no longer support the weight above it.

Pro forfeits that an inside job would mean that those behind the inside job must have paid off the CIA, FBI, local fire departments, NY Port Authority, local police, Air traffic controllers, American Airline pilots, families of those who died in 9/11, etc to stay silent about the inside job

Pro fails to suggest a single time who or what could be behind such an intricate plot who had the unobtainable amount of resources to orchestrate such a cover up.

Pro forfeits that the amount of men and man hours needed to plant explosives all over the twin towers to trigger a collapse would be too massive to not be detected or discovered.

Pro has drastically failed to meet his burden of proof that 9/11 was an inside job and has only demonstrated why he and so many other 9/11 truthers are massively retarded conspiracy theorists who cannot accept reality for what it truly is.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
shhhh, let the idiot think he has a chance
Posted by KingHenrikLundqvist 3 years ago
KingHenrikLundqvist
Osama Bin Laden took responsibility for 9/11. That should end the debate easily.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
truther1111imabenchTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: CON loses conduct for calling PRO a "retard." Other than that, CON did not meet his BOP; he basically made unfounded claims.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
truther1111imabenchTied
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: Pro needed to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, not just that there are certain features of the incident that remain unexplained. Pro had to provide evidence of insider planning and execution, and he provided none. Con refuted Pro's supposed evidence, all of which has been well-refuted in the past, but truthers never advance. Pro used personal insults, but con couldn't resist responding in kind, so conduct is a tie. Pro had spells of incoherent writing, such as his opening paragraph. Con's sources were authoritative; Pro's were amateur opinions.