The Instigator
DIKFans
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cobalt
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

I believe that 9/11 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...
Cobalt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 300 times Debate No: 81420
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

DIKFans

Pro

Some reasons :
1. How the buildings collapsed
2. Why Tower 7 also collapsed
3. Impossible a giant big tower can collapsed by a plane
4. How US military campaign attack oil rich country
Cobalt

Con

I will be arguing that 9/11 was not an 'inside job'. I assume my opponent will be arguing that the US government orchastrated the 9/11 attacks, as opposed to a group of Islam extremists.

This is the first round and the BoP falls on the opponent, so I won't make much in the way of arguments just yet. I'll simply ask for clarification on each of my opponent's 'points'.

1. "How the buildings collapsed"

Please explain how the collapse of the buildings or the manner in which they collapsed indicate an inside job.

2. "Why Tower 7 also collapsed"

Please explain how the collapse of Tower 7 is relevant to your argument.

3. "Impossible a giant big tower can [be] collapsed by a plane"

Please provide some evidence for this. Are large buildings structurally incapable of being brought down by planes? Have you considered the role of the fire in the building, aided by jet fuel?

4. "How US military campaign attack oil rich country"

Elaborate on this point. How does this relate to the resolution?
Debate Round No. 1
DIKFans

Pro

1. "How the buildings collapsed"

According to the tv report. Buildings collapsed by bombs planted like controlled demolition.

Source :
https://youtu.be...

2. "Why Tower 7 also collapsed"

By controlled demolition. This tower never hit by the plan. Why collapsed itself? Mystery.

Source :
https://youtu.be...

3. "Impossible a giant big tower can [be] collapsed by a plane"

Fires can not molten steele.

Source:
https://youtu.be...

4. "How US military campaign attack oil rich country"

This tragedy design by US government itself to then blame it to the terrorists. Then sending their troops to controll oil rich country.
Cobalt

Con

I thank the opponent for their response. I'd also like to remind the opponent that I am debating him, not a youtube video. While sources are encouraged to support an argument, they do not constitute an argument alone. For instance, on your first point you essentially said "[my source reports] that buildings collapsed due to a controlled explosion. You didn't explain what evidence there was for that idea. Next round, if you're going to use sources, thoroughly explain what they are saying.

Now, I'll jump into each of my opponent's arguments.

1. Controlled Explosives

My opponent('s source) argues that there is evidence that the building collapsed due to thermite, as fires don't typically burn hot enough to melt steel beams. One way in which experts have argued against the "thermite theory" is by analyzing a) how much thermite would be necessary to create the destruction witnessed and b) if thermite behaves in such a way that it would be useful in the 9/11 scenario. [http://www.debunking911.com...]

As for how much thermite would be necessary, a comparison is made to how much is needed to burn a small how in a car's engine block -- about. When we look at the minimum amount of destruction necessary to collapse the building, we see that you would need literal tons of thermite. The problem with this is that it's not realistic to assume that someone snuck thousands and thousands of pounds of thermite into a building and managed to strategically place the loads, all without be seen/suspected.

Many people also note that thermite, being a powder, doesn't burn in any type of controllable manner. Most notably, it isn't capable of making straight cuts in things. If thermite was placed into a building like the WTC and even if you had a bunch in there, it would be difficult to actually sever any steel beams, certainly not the number necessary to collapse a building.

I will now go through the science of what actually happened that day. To note, the steel beams in the world trade center did not actually melt. I'll get into this next, but it's worth mentioning, as it makes the thermite argument particularly irrelevant. [http://www.tms.org...]

The fire that burned in the WTC was not nearly hot enough to melt steel beams. It burned around 600C, while melting steal takes in excess of 1500C. However, a 600C fire does weaken the beams by about 50%. Additionally, the fire was burning at different intensities in different areas, due to the splatter/drip pattern of the jet fuel. This caused the beams to expand (due to temperature) to different degrees on different sides.

It only took a few steel beams to buckle before the entire building came down, the remaining beams unable to support the additional weight due to the failures of others.

2. Tower 7

The collapse of Tower 7 is largely due to fire and the collapse of the taller towers. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk...]

Just as fire weakened the larger towers, Tower 7 was equally weakened by the fire. The video provided above shows the building frame beginning to give. Additionally, when the two large towers game down, there was a great amount of debris that swept out horizontally, buffeting Tower 7 and further weakening it. Remember, it wasn't the plane that brought down the larger towers, but the resulting fire. Tower 7 didn't need a plane to collapse either, just the fire.

3. Fire Cannot Melt Steel

While this isn't technically true, it is true in the case of the WTC collapse. See Point 1, as it explains in detail what happened. The steel beams did not melt, but were instead distorted and weakened.

4. US Gov't Motive

While the government may or may not have gained an advantage from the WTC attack, there is no evidence that the government actually orchestrated the event. I have detailed above the how the tower collapsed with no influence from the government.

This argument is just like those used to prove that school shootings are a government conspiracy to make stricter gun laws. While the government may take advantage of situations, you cannot attribute the event itself to the government without evidence.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
DIKFans

Pro

DIKFans forfeited this round.
Cobalt

Con

Opponent forfeited. Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
DIKFans

Pro

DIKFans forfeited this round.
Cobalt

Con

Extend. The number of forfeits thus far is unacceptable.
Debate Round No. 4
DIKFans

Pro

DIKFans forfeited this round.
Cobalt

Con

Opponent gives round to me via concession.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
DIKFansCobaltTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.