The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

911 was an inside job

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 963 times Debate No: 37125
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)




Con claims national geographic debunked conspiracy claims, what a joke...


I accept the challenge. In my argument, I will prove that evidence supporting the "truther" movement is insufficient and does not meet the burden of proof required to show the government was responsible for 9/11. I await my opponents opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Scientific Evidence that the world trade centre was demolished using explosives and or incendiaries.

Iron microspheres.

Iron rich microspheres found in the wtc dust by RJ LEE and Stephen Jones indicate extremely high temperatures , high enough to melt steel in order to form iron spheres. Iron spheres have chemical signature of thermate/thermite.

Debunkers argument

1.Iron spheres came from building construction ,oxyacetylene torch.

The RJ Lee report also provides a micrograph and XEDS data for iron-rich spheres observed in the WTC dust; for example, their figure 21 (below, left) shows an “SEM image and EDS of spherical iron particle [1].” We likewise observe high-iron, relatively low oxygen spheres (e.g., below right and Fig. 4), which we find are unlike spheres gathered from cutting structural steel with an oxyacetylene torch.

2.Flyash,dust, Paint plus rust. Old buildings. Friction etc other causes..

Moreover, the RJ Lee report provides provocative data regarding the abundance of observed iron-rich spheres. A WTC dust sample acquired at 130 Liberty Street shows a “mean of composition” of “Fe spheres” of 5.87% which is very high compared with “Fe spheres” found in ordinary building dust of only 0.04% [1]. As the report notes, the WTC dust has unusual identifying characteristics – in particular, the WTC Extremely high temperatures during the WTC destructiondust in this sample has nearly 150 times (5.87/0.04) the amount of iron-rich spheres as ordinary dust(where Fe spheres can arise from micrometeorites, for example).

“Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension...”

'These types of particles are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust...”

“Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust...”

Evidence of Extremely high Temperatures

Official explanation of temperatures found at wtc .

Finally, we consider the temperatures reached in normal building fires, jet-fuel fires and in the World Trade Center buildings. Maximum temperatures due to fires in the WTC of around 1,000 C are argued by Thomas Eagar:

All of these estimates for the WTC fires (including burning jet fuel) put the temperature well below the melting point of steel, about 1,500 °C [17]. In fact, the non-melting of WTC steel is emphasized by NIST – but they fail to address the presence of large numbers of iron-rich spherules in the dust published in USGS and other reports before the NIST study was published in October 2006 [16, 18].

Whats wrong with this

NIST fails to explain evidence of extremely high temperatures found in the WTC dust.

We agree with the RJ Lee report that the abundance of “spherical particles of iron and silicates” is proof of high temperatures, and that these particles are not common in normal office dust, but we do not agree that this abundance is necessarily due to the “fire that accompanied the WTC Event”. Before drawing such a conclusion, one must scrutinize the temperatures and other conditions needed to form these molten spheres (iron melts at 1,538 °C (2,800 °F) while iron (III) oxide melts at 1,565 °C (2,849 °F) [6] and aluminosilicates melt around 1,450 C [7]) and then compare with conditions reached in the WTC fires. We will turn to this task, after considering other data which also point to anomalously high temperatures during the WTC destruction.

4.2. Volatilized lead

The RJ Lee report notes “extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].” Again, “metals were vaporized at the WTC during the WTC Event and either deposited on WTC Dust or deposited directly onto surfaces in the Building [1].” Where do the requisite high temperatures come from?

The temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C or 3,164 F [8]. No explanation for the origin of the indicated “extremely high temperatures during the collapse” is offered in the RJ Lee report.

4.3. Molybdenum spherule in the USGS data set

Mo melts at 2,623 °C (4,753 °F) [10], although addition of other elements may lower the melting point. No explanation of the high temperature needed to form the observed Mo-rich spherule is given in the USGS material (either published or obtained by FOIA action).

4.4. Materials from WTC with a “Swiss-cheese appearance” corroborate high temperatures

Dust particles from the WTC collapse show a “Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation,” as reported in the RJ Lee report:

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 [WTC7] and 2 [Towers] are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified [13].

It is interesting that the FEMA report discussed the “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation” and called for further investigation, [13] – but the subsequent NIST report [15] failed to address this evidence. Nor did NIST address the published observations of abundant iron-rich spherules in the WTC dust [1, 2]. We find that these effects are important to understanding the events of 9/11/2001 and should not be neglected.

4.5. Summary of Temperatures Required by the WTC Data

The formation of spherules in the dust implies the generation of materials somehow sprayed into the air so that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes. That shape is retained as the droplet solidifies in the air. Spherules observed in the WTC dust include iron-rich, molybdenum-rich and silicate varieties. The temperatures required to melt iron, silicates, and molybdenum, and to vaporize lead and aluminosilicates (as discussed above) are summarized in table 1.

To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel 1000Celcius
To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1450C

To melt iron (spherule formation) 1538c
To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) To vaporize lead 1740C
To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) To vaporize aluminosilicates 2623C

Molten steel

Video of molten steel flowing from south tower , eyewitness reports of flowing molten steel , FEMA report on corroded steel column melted steel .

What the debunkers say

The molten material was aluminium from the plane.

Molten aluminium cannot turn yellow or orange as according to NIST office furniture melted together with aluminium to cause a yellow orange color..
In experiments as expected any office furniture added to molten aluminium burns off and doesnt melt with aluminium to create an orange color...
Noone has been able to replicate this magical theory of aluminium melting with other 'stuff' to create an orange color.

What the yellow orange color means

The molten material was above the melting point of steel which has a yellow orange hot color .


Debunkers such as national geo claim that thermite with their experiment is not powerful enough to melt through steel, another experiement actually proved them wrong

Not to mention nanothermite was also used which is more powerful than thermite


nanothermite found in wtc dust, partially reacted nanothermite forming iron spheres prove a thermitic reaction. calorimter prove an explosvie reaction, elemental aluminium at nano scale prove high energy reactants in wtc dust.



I will begin my argument by stating that I have absolutely no qualification to discuss or interpert scientific data collected. In fact, I am absolutely atrocious at science, as it's potentially the most challenging discipline for myself. Thus, I will only provide the opinions of people who are qualified to discuss this matter.

Dr. Stephen Jones and His Thermite Gibberish

Let's start with Stephen Jones. Stephen Jones is a Physics professor at BYU. He conducts research on solar energy, and nuclear fusion. Nothing in his academic career suggest he knows a damn thing about building-collapse forensics. He has no background, history, or qualification to discuss civil engineering, let alone a building collapse as complex as the WTC. (On a side note, I could not find a thing about RJ Lee)

"But David" You may say, "Your adversary just presented scientific evidence that the building was sketchy, you can't make your case without addressing these points."

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sit infront of a computer screen reading through forums and scientific journals for a week and a half to debunk my opponent. Instead, I will allow professionals who know what they are talking about do it for me.

Not only was Stephen Jone's paper NOT peer reviewed by a civil engineering journal (where people may have some credentials in the feild of civil engineering) but even Stephen Jone's collegues say that his paper is (now I'm going to paraphrase here) stupid.

Here I will give you quotes of people who are qualified to speek on the matter:

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims." - BYU Chairman of the department of Civil and Enviornmental engineering.

"I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents." - Dr. Allan Firmage, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

""The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department

I can give you several more, but you get the idea. All these quotes and more can be found here:

Thus, we can conclude that Stephen Jones is not qualified to speak on the matter, therefore rendering my adversaries evidence as unreliable. I have also given several quotes from people have credentials in the matter saying Stephen Jone's hypothesis is (once again, paraphrasing) stupid.

Gibberish About High Temperatures

I'm not going to lie to you guys, I have no clue what any of this is saying. I am not proficient with science, I've never claimed to be, and I struggled to get through half of that. So, I will not be debunking these points. HOWEVER, I noticed my adversary put this together pretty damn well on such short notice. So out of curiousity, I took a few of his passages and Googled them. What did I find? Well, he damn near plagarized from this website.

I would like to ask my adversary to reword this, and make it comprehensible to someone who isn't proficient in the sciences to understand, so I can actually know what it's saying, thus debunk it. If my adversary understands it, he should be able to word it differently, and format it differently. If he does not truly understand it, then he is no more qualified to speak on the matter than I am. I think it's only fair to ask for a rewording seeing as how this was almsot directly stolen from another website.

Molten Steel Business

Once, again I'm not going to pretend I'm qualified to have this discussion. While, I could, in theory, sit on this for a few days, really digest the information and find a way to elequently word it in a few thousand characters, I'm really not going to put that much effort in. I'm a college student with more important things to fill my time, and I regret accepting this debate because it's beginning to take up more of my free time than I intended. So, instead of arguing about all this molten steel business, I am going to give a link that makes a very convincing case that what my adversary says inhabits BS mountain (Jon Stewart reference)

I'm sorry, but life really isn't long enough for me to personally research this matter to great detail, and write an essay on Molten Steel, melting points, and all of that.

My Turn

Ahh, now it is my turn to go on the attack. This should be fun.

I will not hold it against anyone who believes I have conceded the molten steel point. Yes, in fact I would probably do the same. However, lets look at the big picture here.

My adversary claims that thermite was placed in the World Trade Centers.

My question is, who placed it there?

Next, why is it very FEW true professionals and experts in the feild have come out and said they believe 9/11 was an inside job? Why is it a very fringe minority that is dismissed by the rest of the scientific community?

Next, what about the government officials who orchestrated this plot? One certaintly couldn't have done it. There would have to be many people involved in order for this operation to work.

What about the people flying the planes?

What about all the families that have claimed to loose victims in the plane crashes? Are these just actors?

Next, if these points my adversary has made is true, why hasn't the news media picked up on it? They must be part of the conspiracy theory too then.

A 9/11 conspiracy requires something absolutely illogical to believe in. A MASSIVE cover up. The people I alluded to earlier would ALL have to be in on the conspiracy for this to work. Not one of them can come out and show either a government check, letter, conversation, phone call, ect. that shows the government was planning this. Every single one of these actors would have to walk around and NEVER say a word.

"Well, maybe they weren't all involved," you may say "That would just be stupid. There's just too many people. They are just afraid the government will kill them, so they cover their tracks."

Well now, we have identified that this whole opperation is working because not a single person is brave enough to stand up and say, "Look what the government has done!" Sure, a few "experts" have, but a few experts also don't believe the holocaust happened.

I'm running out of characters, so I'll keep my conclusion short.

9/11 was not inside job.

(I know, the formatting is weird. My computer refuses to cooperate. This is definately a government conspiracy.)
Debate Round No. 2


Yes I too dont have the time to spend weeks researching scientific papers and proving to you the scientific impossibility of 911.
The strongest evidence that the official version of events is wrong is found in the chemistry of the 911 dust and not Structural Engineering. You are right Steven Jones is not a structural engineer and he doesnt claim to either.There are however Structural engineers who have written peer reviewed scientific articles on the questions surrounding the collapse of the towers in regards to how it collapsed etc.
Steven Jones character was asssasinated by the pressure forced on that university.His science remains unanswered noone has proven him wrong merely saying hes a nut wont convince me otherwsie.

The Irony of 911 denialism is that the Con side of the argument gradually started using more and more pseudosciencific arguments. There is a reason why NIST doesnt use pseudoscientific websites like as the saviour to all of questions about the scientific impossibilities of 911 because its written by some overly patriotic nerd in a basement somewhere. Its unknown if RKOWENS or these debunking websites even have a degree in chemistry or engineering.It seems the answer is no .

Meanwhile the truth movement has raised serious scientific questions to NIST that they have failed to answer properly.These are in the form of peer reviewed scientific papers and noone has proved those papers wrong or been able to explain the anonomlys .
If you can find a paper discrediting the Bentham nanothermite paper or any other of their papers please share it with me.

The official rebuttal from NIST is that there were no explosives found there because they didn't find and evidence of explosives. When asked how or where did they test NIST replied they did not look for evidence of explosives so they didnt find any.. lol
Thats not good enough for me thankyou, I dont go on just the blind faith of what a goverment organization tells me.


When we realise the scientific impossiblity of 911 it raises very serious questions.
The shocking and undeniable truth is that we 'general public' have been decieved for a very long time . We dont know what is really going on behind the scenes in the world.
Any further discussion on the topic becomes conspiracy theory.
What I was discussing before was the fact, from this point on we are only theorising .



Scientifically Impossible?

How is it a scientific impossibility? Let me break down the collapse for everyone, so we're clear what the official story says (also, the scientifically accepted theory).

Lets begin with how the WTC was built.

Unlike most conventinal building, the WTC did not have concrete outer coulmns, core, or truses. They were steel.

Now how did it collapse?

1. A plane crashed into it, pushing debree into the corner of a building that acted as a fuel for the fire to be persistant.
2. The fires were 1800F, not enough to melt steel, but at 1100F steel will lose 50% of it's strength.
3. Because the steel was weakening, the trusses began to sag (imagine here putting a fire under a pen, think about how the pen looses it's form)
5. These trusses were connected to the outer columns, thus pulling the columns in.
6. This pulling continued until the columns reached their breaking point, and snapped.

This can all be found, along with accompanying videos and pictures to demonstrate this here:

Stephen Jones and "Serious Scientific Reports"

I've already discredited Stephen Jones, and while my adversary my call his collegues calling his paper (paraphrasing) stupid, he just says that it's a character assasination. This is what the truth movement does, whenever someone pokes a hole in their evidence, they just make this an unfalsifiable claim competition and start saying that it's because the University is apart of the cover up (why else would they say the paper is stupid? And if they are apart of the cover up, refer to my final point in round 2) Yes, it must be real luxorious to be a truther. When ever you're wrong, you can just say, "liar" and "they are government ponzis" or maybe "they are afraid they will be killed for speaking the truth!" In the face of evidence, truthers often flee from the scene and start going off on completely unfounded claims.

Those "serious scientific reports" are whole heartedly rejected by the scientific community. Sure, a few proffessors and scientists buy into it. But they make up a very, infitecibly small percentage of the community. That's why no one takes the truther movement seriously. All of the claims and accusations are but rumours that have been disproven time and time again.


Since you clearly did not read a thing from the website I gave you which absolutely derails the nanothermite theory, I guess I have no choice but to do it myself.

For this point, I will be looking directly into the study itself found here:

Surprise everyone, this was done by Stephen Jones. The same guy I talked about earlier (
the one with absolutely no creadtials in this field. His collegues, both people in civil engineering and not, all dismissed his paper as complete bolony. (see round 2 and beggining of 3 for a refresher)

So, we've already established that the person who performed this study has absolutely no background in the matter, but lets pretend he does and continue on anyway.

A LOT of this paper is back story on how he collected the samples. Guess what? One of the people gave it to him years ago, another just kind of had it, and the other refused to give his/her name and gave no explination on how he/she managed to get their hands on it (now that's how science is done!). So we've already established that these test subjects are quite, sketchy to say the least.

Anyway, lets once again give the benefit of the doubt and say that all of these chips were legitamately found on ground zero right after 9/11. Now, what were these chips? Just some red chips... what's the mean? Well, to Stephen Jones, that means it's clearly unignited nanothermite. To the rest of the scientific world, it's aluminum and ironoxide. The same thing that can be found in computers (which I believe the WTC had plenty of). But nope, it was definately nanothermite.

Okay, so we're not off to a great start with this paper. So far we've established the person writing it has no credentials, the test samples aren't all that trustworthy, and the findings mean absolutely nothing. But just incase someone out there isn't convinced, lets keep poking holes in this paper.

Acoording to this paper "unreactive nanothermite" (alluminum and ironoxide a.k.a. computer/television parts ) made up 0.1% of the samples. So tell me, how much nanothermite do you think they used?! The mass of the twin towers was 450,000,000 kg ( Following Stephen Jones logic, there was at least 4,500,000 kg of nanothermite used to bring down the towers!! WOW. That's quite a lot of thermite. How did the government manage to sneak 4.5million kg into the twin towers without drawing any suspicioun.

So we found that the conclusion to this paper says nothing, and even if it did, it would be absolutely perposterous to believe the government snuck 4.5 million kg of thermite into the WTC. But, I'm not done. There are more holes to be poked.

Where was this published. The Open Chemical Physics Journal. This is... to say the least, not a respected journal among scientists. These journals are supposedly "peer reviewed". Some skeptikal people sent in joke papers to see what happens (The scientific study of C.R.A.P. for instance) and it was accepted. People would literally put in research papers that were absolute gibberish, and it was accepted. Really goes to show the presteige of this research paper Stephen Jones has created. The only journal that accepted Stephen Jone's research paper, is the same journal that literally accepts gibberish. (

When Stephen Jones' paper became famous, a bunch of people resigned out of embarassment. Not only has Stephen Jones failed to provide his test subjects for other people to replicate his experiments, but people who have managed to get their hand on the dust have found that (guess what) Stephen Jones is full of fecal matter.

I could keep going, I really could. There is SO much wrong with this paper, that I could use up all of my character limitation, plus some, just poking holes in it. I really want to talk about the experiments done that prove Stephen Jones wrong, but I want to move on. Here's a link for any body who is interested:

My Point Revisited

Well, I guess another truther has proved, yet again, that they can not answer how a 9/11 conspiracy is still safe gaurded (by George W. Bush?) considering the scope of this conspiracy, and all the people involved. Hell, everyone who I talked about earlier that discredited Stephen Jones is in on the conspiracy. Plus all of the government officials, journalists, scientists, witnesses, WTC security, people who planted the "thermite" ect. So, I will assume my adversary has conceded that point to me. If not, than please explain in the RFD or comments.


No, I'm not going to tell my adversary to grab his tinfoil hat. There is reason to believe Washington may have had prior knowledge of 9/11, and without knowing how massive the attack would be, allowed it to happen. But every conspiracy theory on 9/11 has been thoroughly debunked, and this debate proves that the truther tactic of clinging to the discredited few who buy into their baloney, can be easily debunked with just a little bit of research.

Yes, we would all like to think 9/11 was a conspiracy, because face it, that would be kind of cool. We the people, standing up against a murderous tyrannical government that hatched a plan to kill thousands of it's own civilians for an excuse to go to war. But that's just not reality.

I thank my adversary for the debate, and for forcing me to do some scientific research. It's not something I'm good at, but practice makes perfect.

Sorry about any weirdness in the formatting, as my computer is still being a silly goose.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DavidMGold 3 years ago
The 9/11 truth has been debunked time and time again. Even Noam Chomsky said there was no credible evidence.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
Posted by davidjohn1994 3 years ago
And one day, Steven Jones will be among their ranks.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
Galelaio , Tesla, Einstein etc were ridiculed by there peers at the time and other scientists did not support their findings.
Just like with the case of 911, scientists claim that Dr steven jones or any scientist that researches explosives in the wtc is crazy.
But these scientists havent shown why the work is crazy or false.
Posted by davidjohn1994 3 years ago
Extend all arguments
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
Dr Steven jones never claimed Aluminium Oxide was proof of thermite !
The important part about the aluminium oxide it is formed on the iron spheres which indicate they melted together due to surface tension. This indicates a chemical reaction known as thermite. Aluminium oxide is otherwise found randomly in dust but not fused together to iron spheres like we found at 911.

No clear explanation has been given for these spheres.
No clear explanation has been given for the steel samples found by fema.
No clear explanation has been given for the extreme temperatures at 911.
This evidence was not found by Steven Jones but by FEMA and RJ lee so we cant assume that its false.

Where are these formal scientist you claim , where is their response, Im not the typical truther whose fundamentalist , I could accept that thermite wasnt found.
There still would be the question of where the high temperatures were present.
Im still not convinced that it was a natural event in that sense.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
You know you are making stuff up when you say steven jones wont give samples of dust and that scientists have formally debunked him, please give me sources to prove your claim .
Posted by davidjohn1994 3 years ago
You know, I really don't even care anymore. You're just making stuff up now. You must have watched that video with your ears plugged, because the person speaking was talking about aluminium oxide (which is what Stephen Jones claimed was thermite) I'm extremely tempted to argue everything you say, but all you're going to do is talk about how everything I'm saying is wrong and link me another Stephen Jones article. Listen. Scientists haven't formally debunked Stephen Jones because; 1, he wont provide the samples he used in his study to replicate the experiment. And 2, they have more important things to do than write out an entire paper on 9/11.

I'm beginning to argue again, so I'm done with the comments. If you want to have another 9/11 debate, than start one. If you're just going to attempt to save the last remnants of your pride in the comments section, then just go back to your 9/11 forums, close your eyes, plug your ears, and blindly follow the truther movement like so many others.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
With Steven Jones work im unconvinced that just because his peers say hes crazy etc his research is rubbish but noone has explained why , all people say is bentham is a bad journal etc etc.
I have never seen a scientific rebuttal to his work , I would like to see one. Bentham for example even if it wasnt peer reviewed due to the failings of Bentham a publisher , I fail to see how that could be Steven Jones fault or a fault of the science in the paper. If someone could peer review it please it would be appreciated and all your 'professionals' and experts could give reasons why hes wrong.
Steven jones has another paper peer reviewed by the Enviromentalist the scientific respectability of this journal is well know, but debunkers or all your experts and professionals that you constantly quote shouldnt have a problem debunking that paper if hes a nut and doesnt know anything about chemical science.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
Elemental Aluminium isnt found in computers,cats collars etc.
What debunkers cant explain is why there is aluminium in elemental form the cant come from random background materials as aluminium is highly reactive and therefore found in nature as aluminium oxides.

The point is anyone can make a video on youtube , smart or stupid, in this case the guy is stupid,my video however had the scientist Niels Harrit which i based most of my claims on and not the work of steven jones.Although noone has disproved the work of steven jones but only called him a quack.I would like to see a paper discrediting his instead of a youtube video.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 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 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: Of course Pro clings to the discredited Steven Jones for all of his evidence, which ended up being refuted and crushed several times over by con's counter arguments. Easy win by the con
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 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 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: Steven Jones a quack, and Con backed this up. Con was much more convincing. It should be obvious 911 wasn't an inside job.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 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 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'm not an expert on this topic, but I found I had the same doubts that Con had about the resolution. More importantly, Con showed that experts in the scientific community consider one of the primary advocates of this position - Stephen Jones - to not be a credible scientific expert on this topic. Pro's arguments depended heavily on Stephen Jone's assessment of the collapsed World Trade buildings. I therefore awarded the win to Con.