The Instigator
deb8ter
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Building 7 was a controlled demolition

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...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,717 times Debate No: 40098
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (68)
Votes (3)

 

deb8ter

Pro

The only explanation for the free fall acceleration of wtc 7 was a controlled demolition.
Ragnar

Con

I'm going to to disagree. I propose seven hours of uncontrolled fires did it, no magical demolition ninjas needed.

I've provided a short video (just over three minutes), that summarizes matters quickly (1).

Sources:
(1) YouTube video:
Debate Round No. 1
deb8ter

Pro

Fire has never in the history of mankind caused a Steel skyscraper to collapse.
There are many other examples of fires in skyscrapers , longer and more severe than the fire at building 7.
http://911research.wtc7.net...

Not only that but the fire in the building was not totally symmetrical across all the steel columns of the building, in order for the building to collapse at free fall acceleration requires all of its steel members to fail with a second of each other something impossible due to fire.
Ragnar

Con

Since the firefighters knew it was going to happen approximately three hours prior to it finally collapsing (1), for it to have been demolition the fire department would have needed to be in on it; meaning any that died that day would have been willing martyrs under the same mentality as suicide bombers. Doubtful to the point of moronicy.

The majority on listings on your source were shorter in direction, and none have similar cause. Most in fact had active battles with the fire department. Plus of the six total, not all of which even used the same support type; hardly "many" as claimed. These facts line up to make the source utterly useless. This is aside from the entire point being a huge logical fallacy. To quote one of the contributors of LiveLeaks.com talking about this very issue "just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happen
just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happen
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com...
just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happen
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com...
just because something does not always happen does not mean it will never happen
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com...
" (2).

However as you have pointed out, the building collapsing the way it did would be "something impossible due to fire." Please explain the method of demolition that did not employ fire.

Sources:
(2) http://www.liveleak.com...
Debate Round No. 2
deb8ter

Pro

How and why would firefighters know it was going to collapse if a high rise structural steel building has never collapsed before, because they were told thats why. It would be literally impossible for a firefighter to predict such a thing or an engineer for that matter.

According to the scientific method , a scientific theory such as NISTs computer simulation cannot contradict real observations.
The NIST computer simulation however is in direct conflict with the real observed event of the WTC 7 collapse.
The NIST simulation does not fall at free fall . If you pause at various intervals the Real collapse is faster than the simulation.
Meaning the NIST model is bunkum.

This conclusion is reinforced by NIST"s refusal to release its computer models, combined with the fact that progressive collapse resulting in freefall could never be replicated experimentally " for the simple reason that a progressive collapse involving freefall is physically impossible.
Ragnar

Con

"How and why would firefighters know it was going to collapse"
To quote my first source (1:28): "At one point firefighters measured a bulge forming in the southwest corner, and determined that building seven was likely to collapse" (1).
Since you are accusing them of having prior knowledge of a series of scheduled demolitions (some magical type of cold demolitions I might add), I'd like to remind you that three-hundred-thirty-one firefighters died that day (3).
So aside from how to convince that many Americans to randomly commit suicide, how do you get the rest to keep any odd behavior a secret?
Basic deductive reasoning, is the anti-Christ of conspiracy theorists.

"for the simple reason that a progressive collapse involving freefall is physically impossible"
Plagiarism! Anyone who wishes to verify, may highly pro's text and do a websearch on it.
At least this explains why pro is talking past me, instead of actually responding to my points, or answering the actual cross examination questions.
To anyone with a working brain, pro has just claimed that the building falling the way it was seen doing was "physically impossible." Thus either he's saying the building is still there, or it never was there to begin with.

Further breaches of conduct:
"only stupid people join the army"
When I did not post another argument round immediately (since I actually respond to opponents, rather than copy/paste from other websites), he started randomly posting hate content in the comment section; such as the above quote, which I can only assume is based on my profile information. Yes I signed up as a medic for the army, because I wanted less Americans to die overseas... I fail to see how wanting less death in the world, is an idiotic act.

Sources:
(3) http://www.nytimes.com...
Debate Round No. 3
deb8ter

Pro

I did not come here to argue strawman arguments about who was involved but rather a valid scientific hypothesis of any other means in which fire could bring down a high rise steel structure in its own footprint with moments of free fall acceleration.
I do not accuse the firefighters of being in on it , It would have been literally impossible for the firefighters to have predicted how the building collapsed the way it did as fire has never brought down a steel skyscraper.
There was however asymmetrical damage to the building resulting in a bulge, like the firefighters said but that was only their opinion at the time 3 hours before in which the building did not subsequently collapse due to the bulge. If the building had however collapsed due to this bulge it would have fallen over on its side as the damage is asymmetrical.
No engineer or firefighter could have predicted that the building would collapse in its own footprint the way it did.

Because the building did not fall asymmetrically we know that it wasn't caused by this bulge and so do NIST.

2.
One sentence is plagarism ? This is just a simple engineering fact. I liked the wording.Regardless I will use a quote from Shyam sunder (1)

“ free fall time would be [the fall time of an object that has no structural components below it. The time that it took for those 17 floors to disappear was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”

Later Shyam sunder admitted free fall therefore contradicting himself.(2)


'To anyone with a working brain, pro has just claimed that the building falling the way it was seen doing was "physically impossible." Thus either he's saying the building is still there, or it never was there to begin with.'

This logic fails because as the first round of the debate mentions Im asking Con to provide a scientific hypothesis of how the building would have collapsed in another manner without the use of explosives.
If the building had fallen over there wouldnt be this debate.

"only stupid people join the army"

This wasn't part of our debate so It is irrelevant. It was merely an opinion in the comment section aimed at some Marine who is not a medic.
I actually admire medics who go to combat to save lives and do not think its a stupid thing.



1.


2.




Ragnar

Con

"It would have been literally impossible for the firefighters to have predicted how the building collapsed the way it did as fire has never brought down a steel skyscraper."
Already addressed "the firefighters knew it was going to happen approximately three hours prior to it finally collapsing (1)." Since pro admits "I do not accuse the firefighters of being in on it," it was not a scheduled demolition, but the predicted result of the massive damage done by terrorist action. Note the complete lack of coherence in pros case.
Adding to this, the twin towers fell not from planes hitting some central support, but from the ensuing blaze. Two examples of fire taking out steel buildings, literally the same day as the prediction in question.


"If the building had however collapsed due to this bulge it would have fallen over on its side"
This mirrors the 'into its own shadow' hypothesis, which is easily disproven by actual pictures of the wreckage. Just because from one camera angle it looked to have fallen pretty straight downward, doesn't mean it a perfect clean collapse.
The building did not fall into its own shadow.

"No engineer or firefighters could have predicted that the building would collapse in its own footprint the way it did."
Also see the above photograph.

"One sentence is plagarism ?"
Yes.

"This is just a simple engineering fact. I liked the wording."
And the plagiarism is admitted to.

"Shyam ... contradicting himself"
Twenty minutes of videos, with one small quote taken from only one... Please indicate which timestamps are of importance; particularly from the second (right now it sounds a lot like something out of context).

"the first round of the debate mentions Im asking Con to provide a scientific hypothesis of how the building would have collapsed in another manner without the use of explosives"
That statement is longer than pro's entire first round, which in fact made no requests. I am still awaiting pro's actual case for it having been a controlled demolition.
Nevertheless I have provided a simple hypothesis: "I propose seven hours of uncontrolled fires did it."

"only stupid people join the army" was "aimed at some Marine"
Insulting the army, a favored marine pastime, was aimed as insult against a marine... I can't actually turn this into an Ad Hominem, such would be a fallacy.

Anyway thank you for the respect given to medics, even if your views are firefighters is rather confusing.
I await your actual case for why it was a controlled demolition, and how such a feat was done without the use of any fire (a research article on 'Cold Thermite' perhaps?).
Debate Round No. 4
deb8ter

Pro

Im sorry I should have stipulated in my debate that the opponent con must be an Engineer, this debate has turned into a typical nitpicking session by a debunker.
I did not want the debate to get off topic with what the firefighters claimed or believed at the time.
A firefighter has very little engineering background and their comments are irrelevant to the discussion.
Like I said the building does not topple over as it would from damage to the one side of the building.
The building does not topple over if any viewer out there does not believe me just watch the video .
When does building wreckage ever form a completely symmetrical pile from controlled demolitions ?
An asymmetrical collapse would cause the building to lean to one side and fall over causing the wreckage to have fallen in one direction not spread out randomly .

'Twenty minutes of videos, with one small quote taken from only one... Please indicate which timestamps are of importance; particularly from the second (right now it sounds a lot like something out of context).'

The entirety of the videos are important if you understood what they were saying.

"I propose seven hours of uncontrolled fires did it."

you proposed this argument.
I already showed that a Scientific hypothesis must be in accordance with key observations , the fire explanation however does not account for free fall acceleration of the tower as fire can not symetrically cause all steel members to fail with a split second of each other.

The computer simulation doesnt match the key observations as shown in my video , they do not correlate.
Three main observations conflict with the NIST simulation.


1.As I showed in the videos NIST ended up admitting the building had moments of free fall acceleration however the simulation is not consistent with a building that is coming down in free fall .

2.The NIST simulation does not look the same at the actual collapse.

https://www.youtube.com...


3.NIST admits their simulation doesnt match .

“The results of this scenario were consistent with observations except that the screening wall on the roof fell downward before the west penthouse.” NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 612

http://www.nist.gov...
Ragnar

Con

In short:
"I await your actual case for why it was a controlled demolition, and how such a feat was done without the use of any fire"
No case is given to in any way suggest a controlled demolition; in fact some of pro's claims make Godzilla a more likely cause (as he insists fire could not be involved in the demolition, and most demolition methods involve that pretty heavily; such as thermite).
Only slightly dumber than most conspiracy theories...
Vote con!

New point:
How the heck would controlled demolition devices even survive in that inferno, in order to be triggered with such perfect timing?

Final Rebuttals (very skippable):
"A firefighter has very little engineering background and their comments are irrelevant to the discussion."
Firefighters predicted the collapse, based on obversable damage and warping of the building. Claiming they are unskilled, only makes how obvious their observations are greater proof to relevance; as even the untrained eye could see how bad the damage was.

"Like I said the building does not topple over as it would from damage to the one side of the building."
Fire left unattended for several hours spreads out, you can test this in your own home. If you are right, post pictures of the fire having stayed put and not consumed anything outside of where you left it.
As shown in my first source at 1:40 (showing the NIST computer model, backed up by a live recording) the building did not fall all at once; the fire spread throughout it, eight seconds before the final collapse started inner ones could be observed.

"The entirety of the videos"
We heard it straight from pro, he was unable to find this alleged claim of full free fall acceleration within his own source, merely the quoted denial of it.

"all steel members to fail with a split second of each other."
Observable evidence disagrees, as shown in the videos and pointed to above (first source, 1:40).

"The computer simulation doesnt match the key observations as shown in my video"
You've shown multiple videos of people talking, none of the collapse.

"NIST admits their simulation doesnt match"
The quote provided was not on the page linked, nor on any of the immediate sub-pages. Throwing out 'it says on the Internet' is first lazy, second invalid.
However even if they say their simulation is flawed, this does nothing to support any demolition theory, leaving such still firmly in the realms of the Invisible Pink Ninjas, or
David Icke's (perhaps the best known truther) Shapechanging Jew Lizards.
Debate Round No. 5
68 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by deb8ter 3 years ago
deb8ter
"ALL REMAINING", in other words ALL LEFT or ALL STANDING or ALL.
All debunkers do is look for discrepancies in wording without trying to understand a simple concept.
I don't think you understand my analogies
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I agree with all of the sentiment from ararmer.

First claiming ALL must have been taking out within a fraction of a second (which the videos provided by pro directly disagreed with), then claiming the bombers could have destroyed it in any order and timing they pleased to make it look like fire damage... Any particular reason at that point, they would not have made it look exactly like you'd predict fire damage to look?
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Your such a hypocrite but I really admire how hard your clinching to this even though you have been disproven. You go from saying, and this is what you freaking said in your arguments, that "all of the columns would have to fail within a fraction of a second." ALL being the key word there. Now that you've been disproven you and were made to look like a jackass you are failing at an attempt to cover your arse by saying what you meant was that you could take out some or even most of columns at any time before hand and it would still reach free fall acceleration so long as the last group or even last 2 coulmns fail at the same time. WHAT????? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? How utterly ridicules your whole line of thinking is? Forget the fact that you've changed your argument completely cause this alone is stupid enough to discredit you. For a guy always preaching about how "science doesn't lie and science proves my case" you just crapped out a bunch of $h!t that makes your scientific intellect look like cave drawings with chalk. Grow the hell up kid.
Posted by deb8ter 3 years ago
deb8ter
if half of the steel columns were removed before that would leave one half which would need to be simultaneously removed within a fraction of a second,
if two-thirds were removed it would leave 1/3 which would need to be removed simultaneously within a fraction of a second.
If only 2 columns were left it would still require those 2 columns to fail within a fraction of a second.
Posted by deb8ter 3 years ago
deb8ter
not at all , how has it changed ?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Again disagreeing with your own provided argument. Are you are least functioning enough to agree that your reasons have shifted?
Posted by deb8ter 3 years ago
deb8ter
"in order for the building to collapse at free fall acceleration requires all of its steel members to fail with a second of each other" "simple, you take out some of the columns with explosions before the main collapse"

in order for the building to collapse at free fall acceleration requires all of its (remaining) steel member to fail with in a second of each other.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
How can someone who has already won give up?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Your arguments continue to directly counter themselves, therefore there is no need to give you the attention. If you wish to challenge another debate you are welcome to it, however your behavior in the comment section is pathetic.

"in order for the building to collapse at free fall acceleration requires all of its steel members to fail with a second of each other" "simple, you take out some of the columns with explosions before the main collapse"
Posted by deb8ter 3 years ago
deb8ter
Y'all given up already lol ?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
deb8terRagnarTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was pretty straight forward. You can look at the comments and get the gist of my RFD but basically even if you prove that A didn't happen it still doesn't prove that B happened unless you can prove that it did. Pro offered no evidence to support his claim and simply tried, and failed to disprove the official story. tried to tell him this is not proof but I don't think he gets it.
Vote Placed by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
deb8terRagnarTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con for graphic appeal and more reliable sources (NYT vs 911research.com, for example). Args to Con. Pro has a big BOP to support a position rife with crankery. Unfortunately, Pro tries to poke holes in the conventional Govt/Popular Mechanics findings rather than assuming his burden of proof. To prove a crime has been committed, Pro must present plausible means, motive, and opportunity. Even if NIST findings are proved 100% wrong, Pro's case does not advance.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
deb8terRagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.