The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
MrMarkP37
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Conspiracy IV: WTC 7

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 8 votes the winner is...
MrMarkP37
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,294 times Debate No: 8679
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (8)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that the building known as WTC7 collapsed on 9/11/2001 as a result of damage sustained from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and the subsequent fires inside the building.

*****************************************

There are 2 primary contentions that argue against the story above.

1) WTC7 collapsed very quickly - in about 7 seconds.

If you actually watch a video of the collapse, it takes more like 12 or 13. The collapse begins in the upper penthouse, which falls several stories into the building before the rest of the building begins to collapse. This internal damage accounts for not only the apparent fast fall of the rest of the building, but also for why it fell into its own footprint.

2) There was very little damage to WTC7.

The answer to this is simple. There was little damage that could be seen in the majority of news reels due to the angles of the shots. Here's a good one of WTC7 burning out of control (http://www.debunking911.com......). A quote from the NIST team - "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." Photos like this (http://911research.wtc7.net......) show exactly how the damage happened...

AFFIRMED.
MrMarkP37

Con

WTC 7 was, in fact, demolished and did not collapse due to damage from the other buildings. As point of fact, this demolition was not nepharious in nature. The building was empty and the demolition occured to free up room and visiblitiy (the smoke from WTC 7) for the rescue workers. The reason the government didn't just admit they did this, which wouldn't have been a big deal, is because they didn't want rumors to spread that they demolished the north and south tower, which I believe they did not.

Evidence:
1. In a PBS documentary Larry Silverstein admitted that he and the New York Fire Department made the decision to demolish the building.
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." http://whatreallyhappened.com...
Jon Miller admitted that the collapse of WTC 7 was a good thing for the rescue workers.
9/11/2001 ABC News broadcast:

John Miller: "If there can be any good news about a day like today the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, the building they were so worried about injuring rescue workers, has freed up rescue workers to go into the area and they are now moving in in groups of 20 and 50 as their teams are designated..."

Peter Jennings: "So the principal danger to the rescue teams has been eliminated..."

John Miller: "The biggest danger has literally removed itself."

2. Fires have never before lead to the collapse of a steel building, until WTC 7 (if you believe it wasn't a controlled demolition) and the collapse of the building was very consistant with controlled demolitions.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to place videos on here, but this link takes you to a youtube video of both the west broadway and CBS shots of the collapse of WTC 7. These videos show a fall that is very consistant with controlled domotitions.
Here is another video, which shows the damage from WTC's 4, 5, 6 as well as the demolition of WTC 7. It is clear that the damage to WTC's 4, 5 and 6 were all worse then WTC 7 and yet, although they all were destroyed, the bases of all their buildings remained intact, not so with WTC 7.

I will save the rest of my arguments for the later rounds. For now I will say thank you to Pro for a very stimulating and interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Silverstien's quote regarding a decision to "pull" building 7 refers to evacuating the firefighters in the area, not demolishing the building. The quote clarified by Silverstien's spokesman:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

WTC7 was a raging inferno for several hours as they attended to other buildings - the interior structure destabilized, especially the cantilever beams that held the building over the power station below it. And after the towers collapsed and destroyed the south side of the building... Interior damage to the building on lower floors weakened the building enough to collapse (http://www.911myths.com...).

A proper collapse video of WTC7:
MrMarkP37

Con

the video you posted was the same as I posted. As you can see in both videos the building follows the path of most resistance and falls in it's own footprint, despite the fact that it was not hit by a plane and was only the victim of fires. This is unprecidented in the history of steel frame buildings.

As far as Mr. Silverstein is concered, for more than a year he refused to explain what he meant by the term "pull it". It was only after several news articles came out pressuring Mr. Silverstein that he came up with the story that "pull it" meant to withdraw fire-fighters from the building. However, the term "pull it" is a well known term used in construction to demolish buildings, it has never (that I could find) been used as a term to evacuate a building.

Here is another video:

This one shows a BBC report of the collapse of the Soloman Brother's building (WTC 7) before it actually did collapse. Now the BBC claims that they were not told what to say, though they claim they no longer have copies of their reporting on 9/11. They also claim that this was merely a mistake, however it does seem odd that neither the reporter in studio nor the reporter in New York city would recognize the error. Especially since the building was clearly visible behind her.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The videos weren't exactly the same - the important difference was the highlighting of the penthouse's collapse to show that the popular 7-second collapse is wrong. Furthermore, WTC7 did NOT fall into its own footprint:

- WTC7 leaning to the south as it collapses (http://www.debunking911.com...)
- Massive amounts of debris clearly outside the building footprint (http://www.debunking911.com...)

Also, WTC7 was not "only the victim of fires" as can clearly be seen here:

- North Tower crashes into the south side of WTC7 (http://www.911myths.com...)
- SW corner of WTC7 ripped away (http://www.rense.com...)
- Entire south side of WTC7 smoking after the collapse of the North tower (http://www.911myths.com...).

Descriptions of damage to WTC7:

"on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good."

"Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."

"we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

(http://www.911myths.com...)

>> "As far as Mr. Silverstein is concered, for more than a year he refused to explain what he meant by the term "pull it"."

Silverstein is neither in the construction/demolition business, nor in the firefighting business. The language of pulling firefighters from the building is obvious, but does not entirely explain the connection between pulling people out of the building and "pull it," which is used in cases where buildings are demolished via high-tension cables, such as was done to WTC6. Buildings as tall as WTC7 cannot be demolished by "pulling" them.

Sliverstien's quote also says, "They made the decision to pull" [the building]. The pronoun "they" refers to the Fire Department. Why would the fire department be demolishing buildings?

In a different, often-quoted interview, Silverstien said, "I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it." In this case, the pronoun "it" refers to the team of firefighters in the building.

>> "They also claim that this was merely a mistake, however it does seem odd that neither the reporter in studio nor the reporter in New York city would recognize the error. Especially since the building was clearly visible behind her."

In this case, it is indeed simply an egregious error. The most likely explanation is that the reporters had received notice that WTC7 was going to collapse, a conclusion the fire department reached by 2 PM. Mis-communication simply led to the reporters mistaking "is going to collapse" for "has collapsed" or even twisting the story in hopes of being the first network to accurately report the collapse. Furthermore, the announcer states that details on the collapse are "very, very sketchy," which may simply mean that details are guesswork.

Also, this is not the first example of the media being completely wrong about something. A few good examples:

Dewey defeats Truman.
13 miners alive, 1 dead.
Kerry/Gephardt running for office.
WTC7 has collapsed.

AFFIRMED.
MrMarkP37

Con

Larry Silverstein's background is in real estate and development. He won a bid to construct WTC 7. He has obviously worked with construction crews in the past and would likely know the lingo. Now in his quote on the documentary he said "pull it" not "pull them". Why would he refer to human beings as it? The quote where he said they decided to pull the building is not part of the same quote as the "pull it" line. He could have easily been referring to someone else, a construction crew that worked with his company perhaps.

Now when a building falls on it's own it does not fall straight down in it's own footprint or even close to it. When a building collapses from the top down the top part of the buiding must pass over the footprint of the building in order to be affected by gravity. This did not happen with WTC 7 as is clearly evident in the videos. WTC 7 fell nearly straight within it's own footprint, something does not unless it is a controlled demolition.
Here is a video of building's been imploded:

Now you'll notice that the damage to the building you showed was at the bottom, however, you'll notice that the building collapsed from the top down, within its own footprint.

There was nothing evil going on, just a building owner that decided that it would be better for the workers to destroy his empty building.
Debate Round No. 3
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Responses:

>> "Now in his quote on the documentary he said "pull it" not "pull them". Why would he refer to human beings as it? "

In that case, as I explained above, he was referring to the team of firefighters. The entirety of the confusion surrounding the "pull it' remark stems from the use of cables to literally pull down WTC5 and 6. In the case of WTC7, the Fire Department made the decision in conjunction with Silverstien to pull the team from the building.

>> "When a building collapses from the top down the top part of the buiding must pass over the footprint of the building in order to be affected by gravity."

This is obviously false, since a building will collapse from the top town (or appear to) if supports under the collapsing section fail.

>> "WTC 7 fell nearly straight within it's own footprint,"

As I displayed in the last round - this is false. WTC7 fell at an angle to the south and spread debris out over a considerable area.

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

>> "Now you'll notice that the damage to the building you showed was at the bottom, however, you'll notice that the building collapsed from the top down"

This article (http://www.structuremag.org...) explains how the failure of Column 79 at a lower level of the building could have caused the collapse of the entire thing. Recall that the construction of WTC7 includes several cantilever beams at the lower levels that, if failed, would bring down the entire building. So even though the top of the building was not as damaged, the problems at the lower half of the building could still cause a top-down collapse.

>> "There was nothing evil going on, just a building owner that decided that it would be better for the workers to destroy his empty building."

I agree that there was nothing evil going on, but I maintain that WTC7 collapsed naturally. Here's a couple questions for those supporting the controlled demolition theory:

1) Why use explosives on WTC7, but not on 4, 5, and 6?
2) The objection to using explosives on 4, 5, and 6 was that it would be unsafe for workers to enter the buildings. WTC7 was damaged far worse. Why send workers into 7 to plant explosives?
3) Why plant explosives since many people that had been inside the building and seen the damage said it was going to collapse on its own soon anyway?
4) If using a controlled demolition, why not purposefully topple the building to the south into the rubble from WTC1? Why bring it straight down, causing more damage to the surrounding buildings?

AFFIRMED.
MrMarkP37

Con

Here is the definition of a building footprint: http://www.answers.com...

WTC 7 might have fallen slightly sideways but it did not lean very far at all as both your own pictures and the video prove.

Here is a link to the official explaination for why WTC 7 came down: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com...

Their opinion is that only fires and not exlosives or damage could have brought the building down in the way it collapsed. This doesn't make any sense.

Here is another article that references a new phenomenon as to why WTC 7 collapsed: http://rawstory.com...

These official explainations do not mention the damage that you do as a main cause of the collapse. In fact, some of the "official accounts" seem to contradict each other or site different reasons. If the collapse of a WTC 7 was so simple, wouldn't the explaination be the same no matter who investigated? Wouldn't it be easy to understand?
There are enough questions surrounding WTC 7 to provide more than reasonable doubt, which means that your case and your thesis are not affirmed. Please vote Con, because even if you personally believe that WTC 7 collapsed on its own you must admit that there are enough questions, bizzare occurences and inconsistances surrounding the event to pose reasonable doubt.
Debate Round No. 4
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Responses:

>> "WTC 7 might have fallen slightly sideways but it did not lean very far at all as both your own pictures and the video prove."

As you can see in the photo of the debris above, the debris extended across the streets and onto the buildings to the sides of the lot where WTC7 stood. And of course, by your own definition, a building that falls outside its own lot did NOT fall in its footprint.

>> "If the collapse of a WTC 7 was so simple, wouldn't the explaination be the same no matter who investigated? Wouldn't it be easy to understand? There are enough questions surrounding WTC 7 to provide more than reasonable doubt..."

What questions? I've answered the ones you've posted here...

***********************************************************************

The simple fact of the matter is this:

When the North Tower collapsed at 10:28, debris ripped a hole approximately 20 stories high in the South face of WTC7, setting it on fire at the same time. The fire then burned out of control until 5:20 - almost seven hours. By 2 PM, it was obvious to firefighters and other personnel on site that WTC7 was going to collapse.

The mechanics of the collapse point towards a failed support in one of the lower floors. One of the articles above gives a strong case for the collapse of Column 79. Another possibility is the failure of one of the cantilever beams that supports the portion of the building over the power station. The collapse of one of the columns is more likely, as it explains the visible kink in the penthouse and in the North wall of the building as it collapses.

Please also note that if the building was brought down by explosives, my opponent must address the following from the last round:

1) Why use explosives on WTC7, but not on 4, 5, and 6?
2) The objection to using explosives on 4, 5, and 6 was that it would be unsafe for workers to enter the buildings. WTC7 was damaged far worse. Why send workers into 7 to plant explosives?
3) Why plant explosives since many people that had been inside the building and seen the damage said it was going to collapse on its own soon anyway?
4) If using a controlled demolition, why not purposefully topple the building to the south into the rubble from WTC1? Why bring it straight down, causing more damage to the surrounding buildings?

*************************************************************************

Readers, I have answered all my opponent's objections to the notion that WTC7 collapsed as a result of the damage from the collapse of WTC1 & 2 and the subsequent fires inside the building.

He has asserted that there are still "bizarre occurrences and inconsistencies" that surround the event, but curiously has not presented any of these... and, of course, in the spirit of fair debate, he cannot present these in the last round where I have no chance of rebuttal.

Nobody will ever know for certain EXACTLY what caused the collapse of WTC7, but there is enough evidence to pinpoint the cause of collapse beyond a reasonable doubt.

AFFIRMED.
MrMarkP37

Con

MrMarkP37 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Lex (and other people voting...),

While CON put forth another possibility for the collapse of WTC7, he completely failed to support his claim against counterattack, most notably these four points:

1) Why use explosives on WTC7, but not on 4, 5, and 6?
2) The objection to using explosives on 4, 5, and 6 was that it would be unsafe for workers to enter the buildings. WTC7 was damaged far worse. Why send workers into 7 to plant explosives?
3) Why plant explosives since many people that had been inside the building and seen the damage said it was going to collapse on its own soon anyway?
4) If using a controlled demolition, why not purposefully topple the building to the south into the rubble from WTC1? Why bring it straight down, causing more damage to the surrounding buildings?

I put forth the case that it collapsed due to structural damage, including pictures of the damage itself, explanation of how it happened, a detailed analysis that even showed exactly which column in the building likely failed, and a counterargument to my opponent's position. How did this fall short of my burden of proof?
Posted by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
(1) Tied. I had no foreknowledge or opinion re: building 7. Beyond "planes crashed into our buildings" I wasn't inclined to care about what happened afterward. Clearly this was an error. I will have to go back and reconsider this.
(2) Con. As he said, there is 'reasonable doubt' (although I decide these debates by a preponderance standard. I would say that the 'reasonable doubt' here is more properly a failure of Pro to meet his burden of proof).
(3) Pro. Forfeits are bad.
(4) Pro, for grammatical reasons.
(5) Con. Con claimed, correctly, that he needed only to show that there was enough doubt to not take the assertion on faith to argue against its acceptance as fact. Con then proceeded to explain, fairly well, why a building would not be expected to collapse as it did (even taking into account the penthouses).
(6) Tied.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Just curious - what's shady about the sites any more than a 911 conspiracy site is shady? Most of the links are pictures...
Posted by Volkov 5 years ago
Volkov
B: Tied
A: CON
Conduct: PRO; due to forfeit.
S & G: Tied
Argument: CON; much more reasonable explanation that I didn't even expect, backed up by good sourcing and excellent arguments.
Sources: Tied; I almost gave this to CON due to PRO's use of some shady websites, but I realized that it didn't matter.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Curious why CON has straight 7-point votes after forfeiting a round...
Posted by MrMarkP37 5 years ago
MrMarkP37
one note on not being able to post videos. Apparently all you have to do is post the link, so I guess I did know how to do it withouth knowing that I knew. lol.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
As opposed to it being purposefully demolished. Believe it or not, there are people that think it was...
Posted by BlackMask 5 years ago
BlackMask
wtf? it happened so i win....? a little confused here
Posted by Volkov 5 years ago
Volkov
Just a thought, because I'm not going to take this because after this question, you'll see I don't know enough about the entire 9/11 stuff to really make a point...

Wasn't WTC 7 connected to WTC 1 & 2 through underground subway/access tunnels/etc? Could there not have been concussion or jet fuel or whatever what may have hit WTC 7, weakened the structure and caused it to collapse?
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "A PLANE CRASHED INTO THE DANG BUILDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

WTC SEVEN - not the north tower or the south tower. WTC SEVEN.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
JustCallMeTarzanMrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by patsox834 5 years ago
patsox834
JustCallMeTarzanMrMarkP37Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
JustCallMeTarzanMrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Volkov 5 years ago
Volkov
JustCallMeTarzanMrMarkP37Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 5 years ago
MTGandP
JustCallMeTarzanMrMarkP37Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 5 years ago
tribefan011
JustCallMeTarzanMrMarkP37Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
JustCallMeTarzanMrMarkP37Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Levin 5 years ago
Levin
JustCallMeTarzanMrMarkP37Tied
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