The Instigator
truther1111
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Sitara
Con (against)
Losing
2 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 1 vote the winner is...
truther1111
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,144 times Debate No: 37729
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

truther1111

Pro

The 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).

http://rethink911.org......

and

http://rethink911.org......


2.
Implausibility of the Official Theory
Both theories about the buildings collapsing are the least plausible explanation
http://rethink911.org......
http://rethink911.org......

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.

http://rethink911.org......

3.
Hundreds of Eyewitnesses report explosions
http://rethink911.org......

4. Forknowledge of collapse

http://rethink911.org......

5.No deacceleration of the top of the north tower during collapse proves the columns below were removed
http://rethink911.org......

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.
http://rethink911.org......


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.


http://antioligarch.wordpress.com......
Sitara

Con

What about the planes that flew into the building? I am willing to be proven wrong, I am here to learn.
Debate Round No. 1
truther1111

Pro

The planes were real and did hit the towers, Nist claims that the plane impact removed the fireproofing from the steel, to prove this they shot at it 15 times with a shotgun ( no joke ) .

NIST’s only test for fireproofing loss, never included in the draft reports, involved shooting a total of fifteen rounds from a shotgun at non-representative samples in a plywood box. Flat steel plates were used instead of column samples and no floor deck samples were tested at all. After criticism of the lack of testing provided in its draft report, NIST inserted the results into a 12-page appendix to the final report.3

These shotgun tests actually disproved NIST’s findings. One reason is that there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts. Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides. It is much more likely that the aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones, and that it was directed asymmetrically along the path of the impacting airliner. Moreover, there is no indication that fireproofing could have been stripped from beneath the aluminum cladding on the exterior columns, but in subsequent steps of its explanation, NIST depends on this.

NIST’s shotgun tests indicated that 1 MJ of energy was needed per square meter of surface area to shear the fireproofing off. For the areas in questionR13;more than 6,000 square meters of column, floor deck and floor joist surfaceR13;the extra energy needed would be several times more than the entire amount of kinetic energy available to begin with.4


http://rethink911.org...;


Sitara

Con

Sitara forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
truther1111

Pro

In response to those who are negative about me using one sight, I used this one site as it has the videos which summarize all of the information, for the viewers . Learning can be fun and the use of videos helps this.

If you would like more detailed scientific information please visit this blog which has links to to peer reviewed scientific papers which go into extreme detail .

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com.au...

A great website also is AE911truth.org
Sitara

Con

Sitara forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Sitara

Con

Sitara forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
The complaint is (mostly) not over one "sight," it's over the fact that you did not use sub-pages thereof. It'd be like if you linked google.com nine times, without relevant searches set into the link.

Anyways congratulations for scoring a victory on this one.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
lol it was a joke , google them
Posted by alexatsjs 3 years ago
alexatsjs
you cant use google as a site
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
In response to aramer who said there are more engineers who dont believe that 911 was an inside job . Yes that is true as the majority of people have belief systems about the world and when that belief is in jeopardy they naturally go into denial.
When scientists discovered the world wasnt flat most scientists disagreed.
When scientists found out the world was not at the centre of the universe most disagreed.
When Einstein discovered Relativity most disagreed.

I can ask any Engineer or Architect out there to answer the questions I have raised but none of them can provide an answer. My uncle is the owner and manager of a large Engineering firm , I asked him about the collapse of the towers and how it was possible that building 7 collapsed.
Guess what he hadnt heard or seen the video of Building 7 collapsed or knew that it collapsed.
Why is that that Engineers dont know about the Worst Structural collapse of a high rise building in the history of the world ?!!!!

Almost all Architects and Engineers who see the evidence for 911 agree after that it was a controlled demolition, the really really hard part is getting them to see the evidence.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
ok heres more sites...
https://www.google.com...
Posted by StarTrek 3 years ago
StarTrek
One site is not reliable. You should cite at least two.
Posted by alexatsjs 3 years ago
alexatsjs
yes but it is still just one site
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
because if you open the source, each page has a different video, I was just trying to make it easy for you guys to access the information, sorry !
Posted by alexatsjs 3 years ago
alexatsjs
I just love it that you are only using on site for all your information.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Anonymouse your why there should be an age restriction on this website. 15 year old kids on their daddy's computer who have no concept of what the real world is dont belong on sites like these.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
truther1111SitaraTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. However I refuse to award conduct, due to having caught plagiarism in the R1 links (con failed to catch this, so I cannot vote against pro's conduct and arguments for it). The weaknesses in sourcing, hurts pro more than benefits him.