The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,313 times Debate No: 37772
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)




he only explanation for the towers exploding was the use of explosives and incendiarys.

1.Extremely high temperatures were evident before and after the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. These extremely high temperatures contradict the official story because office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air (~500° to 1,500° F) cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts (2,700° F).


Implausibility of the Official Theory
Both theories about the buildings collapsing are the least plausible explanation

3.Free fall acceleration of building 7
The fact that Building 7 underwent free-fall means that none of the building’s potential energy was used to crush the structure below it. All of its potential energy was converted directly into energy of motion (kinetic energy), leaving no energy to do anything else. Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been crushed by the falling section. The destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building had to have been accomplished by other means to allow the upper section of the building to fall through it in free-fall.

Hundreds of Eyewitnesses report explosions

4. Forknowledge of collapse

5.No deacceleration of the top of the north tower during collapse proves the columns below were removed

6.The building exploded. Where did the building go ? It turned to dust . How ?
How can Dust crush concrete into dust .
Contents ejected from building could not have been ejected laterally 500 ft if it were due to gravity if the building collapsed naturally.

Now we know the buildings were demolished who did it and why ?

Great investigative work has been done By Kevin Ryan and summarized in this video by another truther. Good work to him and all for providing all the research into who else had motives and access to the towers.


Part 1.
Please cease the plagiarism. and return when you're ready to debate with your own arguments.

I submit for evidence first that pro's R1 sources 1-9 are all the same website, not even subpages within it; a page which has a headline about how many ads it has, and a title requesting you to sign a petition; making me wonder if this whole debate just an advertisement to try to increase traffic for them?

Voters please copy non-quoted sections of pro's case into a websearch, to verify the plagiarism of which I accuse him.

His R1 10th and final source has the headline "Soaring Heroin Use," and proceeds to give such details as "The number of people who say they have used heroin in the past year jumped 53.5% to 620,000 between 2002 to 2011" [1]. I can only guess why drug use and 9/11 conspiracy theories would be connected; but I need not add to the Straw Fallacy pro has committed against his own case.

Part 2.
Even were pro's case not to be dismissed, it actually claims that kinetic energy cannot damage buildings. If anyone wishes to test this around your own homes; feel free to and post the results in the comment section.

I also thought it was common knowledge that steel does not have to melt to become weak? When it's load bearing that can have unfortunate consequences... If steel needed to melt all the way to become pliable, sword making would be an easy matter of using a mold; not hammering the *explicit* out of it by hand. Even a comedian and admitted conspiracy theory nut like Maddox (author of The Best Page In The Universe) agrees [2].

Part 3.
My own case...

I propose that the Twin Towers were in fact struck by planes; no inside job guiding them in or otherwise was needed. These planes were in fact hijacked by Muslim terrorists, and were not Ninjas cleverly disguised as planes.
Looks nothing like an airplane.

For almost anything else, I shall source from within RationalWiki's page on 9/11 [3].

[1] Current headline article, this may change later.
[3] Date marked to avoid changes.
Debate Round No. 1


To back up my arguments i put the links below each of my arguments so that the information would be readily accesible to readers.
Each link has a different video, not the same..and below is some written information which also differs page to page.
Why did I use ?
Because I think it has the best, easy to understand and well presented videos right now on the internet.
I used these videos with the reader in mind so they can easily access the information.
Rethink 911 has the most professionaly accurate information as it has 2000 + architects and engineers who provide evidence and questions to the official story.

Another great website is
Here you can find more in depth scientific information from the same scientists and engineers etc.

Also many peer reviewed papers regarding the subject can be found at

Regarding the Heroin , one possible motive of invading afghanistan was the taliban were burning the opium fields and opium production was at an all time low, after the USA invaded it was at an all time high.
Here is an article on how the CIA and MI6 fund these drug lords.

Its not the first time the CIA have been caught drug dealing

Part 2.

You have misunderstood this point, Its not claiming that kinetic energy cannot damage buildings.. Because the building collapses at free fall acceleration all of the potential gravitional energy was converted to kinetic energy.However none of the potential kinetic energy was 'lost' transferred to the building, as that would be a force 'resistance' equal and opposite the force of the building collapsing.
If i dropped a gold bar from the top of the tower it would fall at the same speed as me and the building.
This requires no resistance from the structure below, how is that possible withouth the removal of all of the columns simsimultaneously beneath the intact structure ?

Yes it is common knowledge that the steel didnt need to melt to weaken..
If you watched the video the point they are making is that there is evidence of molten steel which is impossible with a jet fuel/office furntiture fueled fire.

In response to the theory that muslim terrorists did fly the planes.
I would ask where is the hard evidence ?
Even if they terrorists really did hijack the planes , It doesnt explain who put the explosives in the towers.
Its possible as the terrorists were funded and trained by Al Qaeda which in turn was trained and funded by the CIA .


Thank you pro, for all but confirming that a heroine (or similar drug) addiction is required for belief in these 9/11 Conspiracy BS (BS does not refer to a Bachelors of Science degree). Thankfully the increase in heroine use [1], is not nearly significant enough to make such idiocy as witnessed in your statements common practice.

"Each link has a different video"
False. First no one is going to watch nine videos to appease your ego, doubly so when at least one of them is one-hour-thirty-minutes... Second it was a single page, with approximately two-hours-fifty-minutes of lunacy scattered throughout (even then it's only four videos, not nine; your public education has failed you!).
Since you have failed to even double check your own statements for missing quotation marks, or information from pages not used as sources (such as other pages on the same domain...), the accusation of plagiarism stands.

"Rethink 911 has the most professionaly accurate information..." and "Another great website is
Here you can find more in depth scientific information from the same scientists and engineers etc."
Rethink 911 is not the most professional and accurate, since according to pro (a questionable source) AE911 Truth is superior. Thus pro just shot down ten of his own sources.

"the CIA have been caught drug dealing"
I actually checked your source, and it was utterly randomly tossed in. Any voters may check and see if the words drug dealing come up in any connection to the CIA. The worst allegation against them is "If you finish off the pests, you are out of a job. If they finish the drug business, they finish their jobs." Oh no, those terrible CIA agents don't literally hunt down and murder anyone whose ever touched drugs... Wait doesn't that mean they're human, and thus not likely to murder thousands of innocent people since your sources complaint is that they won't kill enough bad people?

"removal of all of the columns simsimultaneously beneath the intact structure"
First spell check.
Second why would they wait so long, and leave such a damning piece of evidence?
Third why not just claim the terrorists also bombed the building?
Forth this was all easily explained in the official reports: After the water supply to the sprinkler system was lost... "
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building" [4].

"there is evidence of molten steel"
As promised, I'd reuse my third source (my 4th was a link from within it). "There is no documented evidence of this. Even if they actually found molten steel, aluminium (which the planes were made out of) burns well under the temperature of jet fuel. The mix of jet fuel, plastics, rugs, curtains etc. may burn hot enough to melt it" [3].

"Even if they terrorists really did hijack the planes ,"
This is too stupid for words. What's your idea, that it was really George Bush flying them, and escaping via his magical teleporter? And he faked the phone conversations, black box records, and everything else with his physic powers; but doesn't merely kill the people who challenge the official story [2], because he doesn't want to harm innocent Americans? Occam's Razor indicates the more likely option is probably it.

"It doesnt explain who put the explosives in the towers."
Already done, it wasn't planted in secret and the innocent terrorists mind controlled by the evil supervillain Mega Bush as a cover up for wanting to blow up the building under orders from the Jew Lizards; no everything needed was flown in via hijacked airplanes.
Not so mysteriously, they haven't yet figured out how to make buildings airplane proof.
Besides "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" [3].
Basic deductive reasoning, is the anti-Christ of conspiracy theorists.

He's lost all credibility to any of his sources. He doesn't even know what his sources say... This should be a no brainer.

Debate Round No. 2


Did you watch any of the videos ?
Can you come up with any reasons why the videos are full of lunacy ?
Yea is superior , because to learn all the information would takes a long long time , rather i provided Yall with videos with summary of information from
Maybe yea I missed quote marks etc and made spelling errors , I dont have all day to check my spelling and quotation marks , Its not my job to educate you but you yourself.

Its not my job to educate you on world history, CIA drug dealing etc is well known , check the contras;

Sorry for my spelling errors, my spelling at the end of the day has nothing to do with whether 911 was an inside job.
'Second why would they wait so long, and leave such a damning piece of evidence?' Im not sure what exactly you are referring to here.???
The problem with claiming terrorists bombed the building etc is how they had access to one of the most secure buildings in the world.

The official report does not 'Easily explain' how the building collapsed.
There was no testing done on the steel beam that failed, it was assumed that it failed. Assumption isnt science.Basically they figured around with the inputs in their computer simulation untill the column failed without any hard evidence or testing on the steel that collapsed , hahaha
Never in the history of the world has a High rise steel structure collapsed due to fire, before or after 911. Thermal expansion the NIST theory is not considered reputable or all large steel structures would have to be rebuilt because small fires can bring them down.
For an indepth analysis of the fraud commited by NIST regarding building 7 , AE911 truth has debunked it here

"there is evidence of molten steel"

Im glad you brought up this quote from NIST, as you clearly didnt watch the videos I showed you . It clearly debunks NIST assumption that the molten material that was flowing from the south tower was aluminium , why ?
No scientist in the world has been able to melt aluminium with plastics,rugs, curtains or any other material to get the molten aluminium to become yellow in color.
This is because molten aluminium is silver and not yellow

FEMA studied steel samples before the rest of the steel was shipped and sold to china and found molten steel . NIST however ignored this evidence and hand picked steel , imagine if there were a plane crash and they sold the plane parts to china before doing any testing on them, the investigation is a farce !

"Even if they terrorists really did hijack the planes ,"
I dont know what your talking about a more logical explanation is they knew the terrorists would strike and therefore placed explosives in the buildings .

I dont blame bush for 911 ... hes really dumb. I dont blame the government either , but a rouge group of international criminals who have hijacked the american system , just as kennedy warned before he was shot .
These criminals control the military industrial complex, SAIC is one of these companies and the number one suspect.
Nanothermite technology was declassified in 2001 , but debunkers retardedly say that Nanothermite didnt exist before 2001 because it wasnt 'invented' yet. With the same logic you could say you were not getting bombed by a stealth bomber saying it doesnt exist because the US government hadnt invented it yet, even though it was declassified 40 years after it was actually invented.
You could also believe that the US and its military companies are so backward that they would use ancient technology , wiring up explosives, as if they wouldnt use remote devices to initiate an explosion... dumb dumb dumb
Fireproofing was upgraded on the EXACT floors where the fires were on 911 for both towers , coincidence ?
The fireproofing was unknowingly applied to the steel beams by people who had no idea that the 'paint like ' material consisted of nanothermite explosives .

Your cartoon is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in my life , sorry. Why would firefighters and airline pilots , house of representatives, air traffic control , people etc have to have been ' in on it '
It is totally unnecessary to have these people involved in a conspiracy.They were innocent victims who had no idea what was going on ...
Luckily we dont need to rely on the ASSUMPTIONS of Maddox or yourself when evualating whether it was possible or not for the conspiracy to have happened as the hard scientific evidence proves it was a controlled demolition and we dont need to asssume anymore. How they did it and who did it is what many people are researching and they are making good progress.

a good little quote from David ray griffin shows this.

"This argument is, for one thing, based partly on the belief that it is impossible for big government operations to be kept secret very long. However, the Manhattan Project to create an atomic bomb, which involved some 100,000 people, was kept secret for several years. Also, the United States provoked and participated in a civil war in Indonesia in 1957 that resulted in some 40,000 deaths, but this illegal war was kept secret from the American people until a book about it appeared in 1995. It also must be remembered that if the government has kept several other big operations hidden, we by definition do not know about them. We cannot claim to know, in any case, that the government could not keep a big and ugly operation secret for a long time.

Operation Gladio is another conspiracy im sure you have never heard of , they got away with murdering innocent civilians and kept it a secret from you ...



That drug use (such as heroine) is required to believe pro's conspiracy theories, is unchallenged.

"Can you come up with any reasons why the videos are full of lunacy ?"
First enough with the cries for people to pay attention to your website.
Second being represented by someone who doesn't even know how to copy a URL for subpages, and can't even pick one video found within a website etc.; is plenty. If this is not a reliable statement, please watch all of youtube and get back to me [5], I'll cry like a child if you haven't watched right random videos on it with no guidance provided for any of them being of greater importance *sarcasm*. Or am I being unfair, do I need to provide ten separate links to the same page?

"Maybe yea I missed quote marks etc and made spelling errors , I dont have all day to check my spelling and quotation marks , Its not my job to educate you but you yourself."
Clearly based on evidence of basic writing skills presented, one of us is lacking in education; in other words, please go back to high school, since the government failed you the first time around.

"CIA drug dealing etc is well known , check the contras"
As said previously, please read your own sources before randomly linking them. The source provided fails to turn the CIA into drug dealers, but merely accuses them of not stopping the drug trade.
  • From your source: "we have found no evidence in the course of this lengthy investigation of any conspiracy by CIA or its employees to bring drugs into the United States." -Inspector General Hitz

"There was no testing done on the steel beam that failed,"
Even if true; not investigating every detail with enough attention, is not proof that the investigators blew up the buildings.

"all large steel structures would have to be rebuilt because small fires can bring them down."
Everyone please read that again... "Small fires," how were these uncontrolled multi-floor fires with no sprinkler systems small? Since those fires were so small, pro you should really test that level of "small fire" in your own home. Be sure to first disengage the water main for accuracy.
Your source has the headline "MAGICAL THERMAL EXPANSION" due to not believing in thermal expansion of metal as even a potential problem. Whereas you have failed to point to even one thing to calls into question the validity of mine. Unless you count using a computer simulation, instead of actually burning down similar buildings.

"clearly didnt watch the videos I showed you"
No one is going to waste three hours of their life watching all your videos. I'm damn close to wasting three hours of mine on this debate.

"they knew the terrorists would strike and therefore placed explosives in the buildings ." and "I dont blame bush for 911 ... hes really dumb. I dont blame the government either , but a rouge group of international criminals"
So all your talk of CIA was unrelated to this debate, that or you change your mind so rapidly you probably get whip-lash from it.
In addition to the earlier plagiarism, pro has now conceded the entire argument. As some random group of international criminals, would clearly be an outside job.

"These criminals control the military industrial complex"
Proof of this? Or are we back into the Jew Lizard area of your delusions.

"Nanothermite technology"
In short conspiracy theorists "need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off" [6].

"The fireproofing was unknowingly applied to the steel beams by people who had no idea that the 'paint like ' material consisted of nanothermite explosives"
So now it was the painters who did it? This is laughable.
Plus "athough a thermite reaction is highly exothermic, it is nearly impossible to effectively channel it sideways to cut a vertical beam" [3]. Splashing some on the surface, not going to cut it.

"hard scientific evidence proves it was a controlled demolition and we dont need to asssume anymore."
Source? Oh right there isn't one. Please proceed back to my "small fires" point.
The cartoon shows how wide reaching the conspiracy would need to be, thousands of people; without a single information leak from any of them. You have in an actual unique claim, added the painters to the list.

"We cannot claim to know, in any case, that the government could not keep a big and ugly operation secret for a long time."
True. Yet this does nothing to prove there was a conspiracy that day. Worse even if we are missing details, such does not bridge the leap of faith needed to think that it was an inside job instead of the work of foreign terrorists.

"Operation Gladio is another conspiracy"
Since we're now tossing out random unrelated things to this topic, I'll toss one in myself that is at least related...
All the government cover up, was to prevent people from realizing the true cause of the towers falling, which was Godzilla!
Only slightly dumber than most conspiracy theories...

Or a case where the pieces really don't fit; the video provided (making the video count on this debate one). The Death Star was an inside job.

Pro has presented no credible evidence to even hint that it was an inside job. That drug use is needed to believe what he has presented is uncontested.
He should either return to high school, or test a small fire in his home comparable to the ones in the official story (since such small fires are easy to control, this isn't technically a suggestion of suicide). At a minimum he should check himself into a drug rehabilitation program.

Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Interesting that pro could not find even one person who thinks any part of his argument was better... I assume this means most people are rational.
Posted by truther1111 4 years ago
not at all , im not affiliated with that website, im a supporter of them and their efforts :)
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Worded a little better (like you've done here), and backed by sources, that could be formed into a decent argument. Perhaps not a debate winning one, but decent all the same.

So out of curiosity, are you just here to try to advertise that website? Or otherwise affiliated with it?
Posted by truther1111 4 years ago
they need money for advertisements because the mainstream media wont cover this topic. I have never heard of jewish lizards before lol, there are many crazy theories out there like the towers were destroyed by a laser from space, or that we didnt really land on the moon. But that has nothing to do with me sorry.I only said it was a possibility that painters didnt know they were painting the steel with explosives not a fact but because the fires were on the exact floors where the fireproofing upgrade happened it could be a a way of explaining how they put the explosives without the need to have an all encompassing conspiracy with thousands of conspirators.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
If you want to have another debate, challenge one in which you are arguing a specific piece of evidence (without wild claims such as the painters having taken out the towers). Attempting to add extra debate rounds in the comment section, is just pathetic.

However to be sporting (in hopes that you actually refine your debate skills)... I also don't know where you got that 10,000 number from. Probably the evil government Jew Lizards (I know you have not used that term, but many others who believe in the 9/11 conspiracies have) put it there in a plot against you, to make you ruin your life for their reptilian amusement.

Unlike you I've actually read your links (as noted by me having quotes from them, and you guessing at their contents without quotes, as the content of the pages disagreed with your entire case). I even followed your repeated one to it's first subpage. Paying a lot of many for advertisements, is about ego and little else; an act of lunacy were people really in danger.
Posted by truther1111 4 years ago
If im in denial and there are millions of architects and engineers who have seen the building collapse, I would at least one of them outside of NIST to explain how the buildings collapsed and whether they agree with NISTs findings because i havent talked to one, my uncle owns a large engineering firm he cant answer my questions, can you find someone that can im open minded, I would actually prefer that terrorists did 911 than your pycho govt.
Posted by ararmer1919 4 years ago
Really??? Really????? 90% of them change their mind????? That's sad that you actually believe that. And also yeah it's SOOOO hard to freaking google "tower 7" and not immediately find millions of sites talking all about it. So hard to see that video. You've failed yet again mate ad your going to continue to fail. Remember in that other debates comment section where you brought up DENIAL!!!! Dies that only happen to people that are against your side or is it possible, just remotely possible, that your side might be guilty of it too?
Posted by truther1111 4 years ago
I forgot to make this debate 5 rounds , oh . let me refute him here then

Con relies solely on assumptions in his argument.

1. A conspiracy needs 10,000 people to be successful ASSUMPTION I dont know where this number came from out of nowhere
2.CON assumes the videos are full of lunacy without even watching them....
3.CON source NIST ASSUMES that a certain column in the building failed without any hard evidence only computer simulation
4.CON assumes I have no hard scientific evidence that 911 was an inside job because he wont watch the videos or read the website i provided that clearly show it to be the case.
Posted by truther1111 4 years ago
CON didnt even watch the videos which clearly debunk all of his arguments, he admits not reviewing my evidence.What can I do convince the blind that colors exist.....
Posted by truther1111 4 years ago
no, they do show that corner actually, anyway NIST does claim that the corner was a factor in the collapse,WHY?
Because the building would have fallen over on its side.
90 % of engineers and architects that see the evidence for 911 change their mind , problem is getting them to even see the collapse video of building 7.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 years ago
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: Granted I could not find any direct plagiarism. I even ran it through Google and another plagiarism checker, so I could not find where he direct quoted or plagiarized anything. Pro had the burden of proof in this and had to meet it and failed horribly. All con had to do was shoot down his arguments, and he succeeded at that. Pro made very noticeable spelling errors such as simultaneously and many others. Pro also had horrid sources and used a lot of videos to back up his points. Cons were more to the point and went to add relevance to the points he was making.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Asked to Google exerpts of the OA to check against plagarism, I found large sections were identical to text from a website titled "Rethink 9/11." Ad Homen fallacies and character space lost to explaining the plagiarism, over-use of websites and such things secured the "Arguments" score. An unusually high, but justified, score for CON.