The Instigator
heart_of_the_matter
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Resolved: There was a cover up on 9/11/01 of the demolition of WTC 1 and 2.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 11 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,996 times Debate No: 18261
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (97)
Votes (11)

 

heart_of_the_matter

Pro

During the debate I will attempt to show that it is much more likely that the towers were destroyed by demolition than by fire as the official story claims. There are other parts of the cover up that I will discuss also.

1. Towers (WTC 1 and 2) ---The towers exhibit more characteristics of being destroyed by "controlled demolition" rather than being destroyed by a plane crash and fire like described in the NIST report.

A. The Towers were built to withstand a plane flying into it.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... THE BUILDING STRUCTURE WOULD STILL BE THERE."

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

"One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure"

In other words the designers of the buildings prepared the buildings to withstand this exact type of scenario (actually OVERDESIGNED them to handle much more)...so why wouldn't they be able to?

http://911research.wtc7.net...

B. There were 47 steel beams in the core and the outside of the building had reinforced steel beams also. A normal plane made of aluminum would not be able to go completely through the building.

Allegedly an aluminum plane penetrated a reinforced steel frame which is as thick as armor. In order to penetrate armor usually missiles are used and when fired they are going MUCH faster (Mach 2- Mach 3) and are made out of MUCH harder material than aluminum.

A Boeing 767-200 has a cruise speed of 530 mph (well below the speed of sound ie. not even Mach 1)(Mach 1 = 768 mph) and then is shown hitting the building and the nose of the plane is also shown coming out the other side of the building!...An aluminum nose on a tip of a plane would not even survive the armor-like outer steel beams upon entry!...let alone cut through the middle of the 47 steel columns and come out the other side of the building (and through the OTHER steel reinforced frame on the other side) and have its NOSE INTACT...so how did that happen? Did a normal aluminum plane hit the towers? I will wait for my opponent's explanation.

2. Other skyscrapers that have been hit by planes have all still stood after being struck in spite of the impact of the planes and the fires.

A. WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 are the only steel-structure buildings ever to have collapsed (allegedly) as a result of fire. There are several cases of fires in other such buildings, none of which collapsed.

a. In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse

b. In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse

c. In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing.

d. In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing.

e. Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.

f. The still-uncompleted Beijing Television Cultural Center, containing the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, caught fire on 9 February 2009 (due to uncontrolled use of fireworks at Chinese New Year). 140,000 tons of steel was used in its construction. It burned for five hours, but it did not collapse.

g. It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975. It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for three hours. How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on 9/11?

h. Empire State building - a heavy plane hitting the skyscraper delivered a tremendous shock but the building did not collapse. In 1945 the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber, when the B-25 hit the Empire State Building its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames. The Empire State Building withstood airplane impact and explosion and fire.

http://www.serendipity.li...

B. Impact

a. Each of the Twin Towers was still standing 50 minutes after being hit, so it was not the impacts which caused them to collapse.

C. Jet Fuel Fires

a. According to NIST's chief WTC-investigator the jet fuel burnt itself out in less than ten minutes.

Now, several of you have heard about or thought about the fact that the jet fuel would have burned, caused the building to burn, and probably think the jet fuel played the sole role in the fires. The jet fuel acted much like a matchstick. It was something that spread throughout the building in those affected floors and caused ignition of the fires. But the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes. So what burned over the next hour, or hour and a half, was really the contents of the buildings, the everyday contents of the buildings. — Transcript of NIST Public Meeting in New York City — February 12, 2004

The rest of the fire was burning the combustibles inside the building, those materials ignite at a far lower temperature than the jet fuel (not nearly hot enough to weaken steel!). So in order for the official story of the steel being weakened by the fires causing the collapse...it would have had to been accomplished in the first 10 minutes...And it has already been shown (above) that even raging fires that last a very long time don't weaken steel enough to make them fall!

b. Also if fire was to be attributed as the cause of collapse much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

http://www.serendipity.li...

c. Also there is no way for jet fuel to burn any hotter than 1110� F.-1740� F. and only when steel is at a temperature of 2000� F-2550� F can it be deformed by heavy force.

I'm out of space for this round but rather than abridge the ideas I have prepared to squeeze them in - I will wait to post the other arguments:

I want to also debate the following related ideas in other rounds:

Science more fully supports a controlled demolition explanation rather than destruction by fire (pancake theory of collapse)

FEMA and NIST reports did not test for explosives.

and

Planted evidence

I welcome Tarzan to the debate and wish him good luck!
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Much thanks to Heart_Of_The_Matter for posting this 10th anniversary debate on the events of September 11, 2001. I will try to respond quickly and succinctly to his points so we are not buried by a snowball of new information as we move through the rounds.

Those familiar with my debate style know that quoted comments preceeded by >> indicate that the quote is from my opponent. I'll stick to this style, but also let it be known I'm experimenting with this new "Rich Text" feature =)

>> "In other words the designers of the buildings prepared the buildings to withstand this exact type of scenario (actually OVERDESIGNED them to handle much more)...so why wouldn't they be able to?"

The root response to this line of argument is that in the 1960's, nobody had the information to make accurate assumptions about large-scale systems like this. The only practical experience anybody had with planes crashing into buildings was the plane that hit the Empire State Building in 1945 - a B-25 bomber that weighs about 33,000 pounds (http://www.b25.net...). The Boeing 767-200 that hit the WTC towers has a load weight that far exceeds the B-25 (http://www.boeing.com...). So the long and short of this is that nobody actually knew for sure what they were talking about. But researchers at Purdue University, one of the nations top engineering schools, put together this simulation with modern techniques that fairly conclusively shows that no matter what the engineers thought in 1965, the building was not built to withstand getting hit by a jetliner - .

>> "An aluminum nose on a tip of a plane would not even survive the armor-like outer steel beams upon entry!...let alone cut through the middle of the 47 steel columns and come out the other side of the building (and through the OTHER steel reinforced frame on the other side) and have its NOSE INTACT...so how did that happen? Did a normal aluminum plane hit the towers? I will wait for my opponent's explanation."

I am curious where my opponent gets the idea that the nose of the plane was still intact? I'm aware that many 9/11 clips show debris exiting the far side of the buildings, but I'm not aware of anyone that says that te nose cone from one of the planes was intact.

>> " WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 are the only steel-structure buildings ever to have collapsed (allegedly) as a result of fire..."

Let's get the whole story here... A major component of the structural strength of the WTC towers was that they had much of the weight supported by the outer "grid" of pylons that made up the tower. The floorspace was essentially stretched between the core columns and theouter columns. Nobody disputes that the impact severed many of the outer columns - we can see the gaping holes in the buildings on hundreds of videos. And while it is true that steel can withstand very hgh temperatures, what occurred on impact was basically a firestorm for about 15 minutes, and then a regular fire afterwards. By a firestorm, I mean a massive explosion of jet fuel, metal, glass, dust, concrete chunks, etc... that not only tore through the building, but sucked a massive windburst of fresh air in to fuel the jet fuel inferno. This firestorm ripped the fireproofing insulation off the support members of the surrounding floors, which were then subjected to a fire for quite some time. While steel structures can withstand fires, they are not particularly good at doing so when missing crucial support members. The basic hypothesis here is that the fires inside the building expanded the steel, which caused the remaining outer pylons to bow outwards - a perhaps survivable amount, had all the pylons in fact been there. The destruction of couple of the core columns would have also transferred more weight to the already stressed outer pylons.

>> "It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975. It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for three hours. How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on 9/11?"

Because in 1975, the WTC1 had all of its support pylons and all of its fireproofing still in place.

>> "If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes."

As I recall, the impact on the South Tower occurred at a corner, and the primary cause of collapse for the South Tower was that the top began to tip...

>> "Also there is no way for jet fuel to burn any hotter than 1110° F.-1740° F. and only when steel is at a temperature of 2000° F-2550° F can it be deformed by heavy force."

This is definitely not correct. This picture shows the strength of steel as temperature rises (in celsius)(http://911research.wtc7.net...). Wikipedia has an excellent color scale for determining the approximate heat of a fire (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I invite the readers to watch any video of the 9/11 fires and look up the approximate heat range. For argument's sake, we'll conservatively say they were "cherry red" at a lovely 900-1000 degrees celsius, where unprotected steel would be at about 10% strength. Of course the steel wasn't actually *in* the fire, and was probably subjected to lesser temperatures, so even if we half our estimate, the steel would still only be at 75% strength... with many support beams missing.

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

I should note that my opponent has some glaring issues with the way he has phrased this debate that must be addressed. For example, if, as he says, "Science more fully supports a controlled demolition explanation," then why were the buildings clearly destroyed in a non-controlled manner? Also, why go to the trouble of crashing some planes into the buildings - buildings that were supposedly going to resist the crash? Why not just use the explosives and blow them up without a plane crash?

Essentially, my opponent's objectons to the official story are at odds with his theory of controlled demolition. I also found it interesting that he did not present any evidence of the presence of the incredible amount of high explosive that would take, or how the teams snuck past the quarter-million residents, tourists, and workers that are in the towers on a daily basis...

As it stands now, the resolution is certainly,

NEGATED.
Debate Round No. 1
heart_of_the_matter

Pro

I thank Tarzan for his logical rebuttal. On this 10th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy I would like to send out condolences to those who are suffering from the destruction of that day, and I'm sure my opponent does as well.

I like to put my opponent's statement in quotes and my response after an arrow -->

=======================================================

1. "...nobody had the information to make accurate assumptions..."

-->I believe PRO still has a stronger case on this point. 707's were making trans-Atlantic flights as early as Oct. 26, 1958. And the fuel capacity difference is 23,000 gal. for the 707-320 vs. 23,980 gal. for the 767-200. So the weight is VERY similar! See CONS own source from Rd. 1 (Boeing) for confirmation of both the date and weights.

-->Also, the amount of fuel each plane was carrying was only (approximately) 3,500 gallons - which is far less than capacity.

===========================

2. "Nobody disputes that the impact severed many of the outer columns - we can see the gaping holes in the buildings on hundreds of videos."

-->Actually there are people who dispute that there were planes used (NPT)(no plane theory). But instead, first let me ask CON this question:

If the aluminum jets could cut through the steel on the WTCs like butter, then why didn't the wings also cut through the Pentagon's outer walls?
http://911research.wtc7.net...
http://www.911docs.net... (20:00-21:00)

===========================

3. "what occurred on impact was basically a firestorm for about 15 minutes, and then a regular fire afterwards. By a firestorm, I mean a massive explosion of jet fuel, metal, glass, dust, concrete chunks, etc... that not only tore through the building, but sucked a massive windburst of fresh air in to fuel the jet fuel inferno."

-->CON's "firestorm" theory seems to have some explaining to do. For example:

a. If this supposed "firestorm" of such heat and magnitude existed after the explosion and during the fire then why is there a woman standing there in the picture (and also in 2 videos waving for help) looking perfectly fine and with her hair not even singed? (there is also another survivor shown in a picture below)
http://whatreallyhappened.com...

b. Does CON dispute the "10 minute" claim of the fire burning as was reported by NIST? (PRO's source in Rd. 1) If so, could CON provide a source for the fire lasting 15 minutes instead, or we can go with the ten minute fire if desired.

c. This brings me to another topic to discuss: the "Magic Passports" - How did 2 of the hijacker's passports survive this alleged firestorm and explosion?...and also the destruction, pulverization of steel into dust and the collapse of the building, while remaining intact and in such good condition? Also why were the planes' black boxes destroyed ---they are made out of near indestructible material aren't they? definitely tougher material than passports!

d. While we are examining highly suspicious evidence being found: The "Magic Luggage"

"The FBI was able to quickly identify the hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta, when his luggage was discovered at Boston's Logan Airport. Due to a mix-up, the luggage failed to make it aboard American Airlines Flight 11 as planned. The luggage contained the hijackers' names, assignments and al-Qaeda connections. "It had all these Arab-language papers that amounted to the Rosetta stone of the investigation", said one FBI agent."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Oh, that's not suspicious at all!...the luggage just "happened" to not get on board ...and just "happened" to have all the names, assignments, and Al-Qaeda connections in it (Really? that is unbelievable! ---uh no really...it IS UNBELIEVABLE!).

==========================

4. "As I recall, the impact on the South Tower occurred at a corner, and the primary cause of collapse for the South Tower was that the top began to tip..."

-->But in the video CON posted in Round 1 (simulation)...it appears that the simulated plane goes straight through the building rather than through the corner of the building. This doesn't seem consistent with your statement of the plane going through the corner.

===========================

5. What are CONS views on the Pancake Theory of collapse? (PRO doesn't want to attack a strawman if CON doesn't believe in that theory)

===========================

6. To address another of CON's statements " then why were the buildings clearly destroyed in a non-controlled manner?"

-->It appears to be VERY controlled! The Towers exhibited all the classic signs of demolition (ex: Rapid onset of "collapse", Symmetrical, "collapses" into its own footprint, Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds,Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor)

A better question is: Why didn't NIST search for explosives at all? I mean, if it looks like a controlled demolition and sounds like controlled demolition...and if it has all the characteristics of controlled demolition...then why not check if it was possibly controlled demolition? It seems like NIST started their investigation already knowing what conclusion they wanted to reach and that isn't good science.
http://www.youtube.com... (3:00-3:10)

==========================

7. "Also, why go to the trouble of crashing some planes into the buildings - buildings that were supposedly going to resist the crash? Why not just use the explosives and blow them up without a plane crash?"

-->One possibility could be that the planes were a distraction - so that demolitions as a cause of destruction would not be looked in to - which would throw investigators off the trail. Another possibility could be that there were other explosives that were planted on the plane which did not detonate for whatever reason.

==========================

8. "I also found it interesting that he did not present any evidence of the presence of the incredible amount of high explosive that would take, or how the teams snuck past the quarter-million residents, tourists, and workers that are in the towers on a daily basis..."

-->Again there are certainly other logical explanations for that. For example: 1. A suitcase nuke - Would not require sneaking past residents, tourists or workers. 2. Nuclear Demolitions placed below the building before construction. - Would not require ANY sneaking.

Also if nukes were involved it would really explain why there was a coverup, can you imagine the authorities actually announcing to the people that there had been a nuclear demolition? the panic that would ensue would be too great to contain, so to avoid that scenario, even if it was a nuclear demolition it certainly would not have been admitted.

The nuclear explanation also explains a lot of other things such as: Why first responders have so many cases of cancer now. And why there were pockets in the rubble with thousand degree temperatures up to 6 months after the destruction. It also actually explains how steel could be pulverized into dust.

The nuclear explanation seems more likely than that 3,500 gallons of jet fuel (most of which was burned up in the initial fireball)...and the ensuing fire for 10 whole minutes (which wasn't even hot enough to singe hair)...could completely devastate and reduce steel girders completely into dust.
http://www.debunking911.com...
http://drjudywood.com...
http://irishantiwar.org...

There WAS a coverup on 9/11/01 that demolitions were used to bring down the towers and I am hoping that is becoming more and more clear!
I thank Tarzan and the readers and look forward to the next round.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

For the sake of saving space, I'll adopt my opponent's numbering system and just continue that way... and ask Pro to kindly remember that it takes me a lot more space to answer a question than it does him to ask it.

1. "...nobody had the information to make accurate assumptions..." [Concerning the buildings' survivbility in regards to plane crashes].

The point here isn't about whether aircraft of comparable size existed, the issue is the ability to accrately predict the sort of interactions between the building and the plane. There was no capability to model that sort of interaction in the 1960's. The statements of officials in this capacity is no more than conjecture, and should not be taken as gospel in regards to the actual mechanical stability of the buildings. Or to rephrase - the engineers *thought* the buildings might survive the impact, but they didn't have any real reason to be confident.

2. "Nobody disputes that the impact severed many of the outer columns - we can see the gaping holes in the buildings on hundreds of videos."

PRO suggests here that the"No-Plane-Theory" has merit. There are literally thousands of eyewittnesses to the event. And for very witness that says they saw a missile or no plane, there are hundreds that say they saw a plane. Dozens of videos both professional and private clearly show airplanes.... the NPT has no merit whatsoever.

To answer the second question concerning how aluminum could slice through steel... it's the same principle by which unlikely objects get stuck in trees during tornadoes. The principle is called time-tempeature superposition, but essentially states that in high-velocity impacts, materials do not have time to react properly to the collision, and thus materials react as though they were more brittle than they are. A good example of this is a bullet. Lead is much softer than steel, and will flatten if it impacts a steel plate at low speed. But fired from a gun, it will puncture the steel plate.

In regards to why the plane that hit the Pentagon didn't slice through the walls, there are two reasons. The first is that the Pentagon plane is thought to have hit the ground with the engines first, partially shredding the airframe. The second, and primary, reason is that the Pentagon is built to withstand attacks. The plane at the WTC hit a (ostensibly) hollow tower. The plane at the Pentagon hit a bunker.

3. "what occurred on impact was basically a firestorm..."

I'll first note that I don't dispute the "10 minute claim" - it makes little difference. The point is that the firestorm destroyed the heat-treatment on the steel in those floors at the initial explosion.

The people waving at the impact site... how long after the impact were they there? Pro makes no mention of the time between the impact and the pictures. Also, at that altitude in southern Manhatten, there's quite a wind... meaning that area of the building wasn't going to be nearly as hot as portions further in. Furthermore, you can be pretty close to very hot surfaces without being burned, and even so, those pictures are not of nearly high enough quality to determine if the people have already been burned.

The "unscathed passport" (or Magic Passport) - (http://www.historycommons.org...) - hardly "unscathed." Almost looks like it was propelled out the far side of a building by an explosion.

Questions concerning what got destroyed and what didn't aren't terribly dispositive of an explosion in any event... And luggage getting lost at an airport? Is that really so unbelievable?

4. "As I recall, the impact on the South Tower occurred at a corner, and the primary cause of collapse for the South Tower was that the top began to tip..."

The Purdue video didn't model the south tower - they modeled the north one.

5. What are CONS views on the Pancake Theory of collapse?

The short version is that it has some merit as the cause of the beginning of the collapse, as you can clearly see sagging floors in images of the side of the building, but the root cause of collapse is that the outer mesh failed.

6. To address another of CON's statements " then why were the buildings clearly destroyed in a non-controlled manner?"

I suggest that Pro look up videos of controlled demolitions. They are extremely loud - loud enough to be overheard by anyone in the area. Furthermore... I'm just flabbergasted that Pro would make these statements about a controlled demolition...

This is the building that was a "controlled demolition":
http://ww1.prweb.com...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

This is the "symmetrical" collapse:
http://www.blogfornoob.com...
http://cnparm.home.texas.net... - where the south tower tilts very symmetrically.

This is the building falling "in its own footprint":
http://odd.0catch.com... - See the pieces falling neatly in the footprint?
http://upload.wikimedia.org... - Debris 2 blocks from the footprint

By contrast - here's a video of a building that is a controlled demolition - note that you can hear the explosions from the distance they are at, even over the helicopter rotors. (www.youtube.com / watch?v=hdqWRHe4AKs ) - I split the url so it's not at the top of the screen.

7. "Also, why go to the trouble of crashing some planes into the buildings - buildings that were supposedly going to resist the crash? Why not just use the explosives and blow them up without a plane crash?"

I'm not really sure this point bears further discussion.

8. "I also found it interesting that he did not present any evidence of the presence of the incredible amount of high explosive that would take, or how the teams snuck past the quarter-million residents, tourists, and workers that are in the towers on a daily basis..."

My opponent keeps coming back to nuclear detonations. First of all, the fallout would mean that many more people than just the rescue workers would be getting radiation sickness. Second, any actual nuclear blast would not have been confined just to the towers - it would have vaporized the entire block. The Wiki article on suitcase nuke (http://en.wikipedia.org...) estimates a fraction of a kiloton warhead for a "snuke" - they say 0.190. Here is a video of a detonation of a 0.01 kt nuke (www.youtube.com / watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE&NR=1) - at 50 sec in.

Come on. There were no nukes at the 9/11 site. Even a snuke would have simply vaporized the entire WTC complex... not to mention left a huge mushroom cloud, been instantly visible to the entirety of New York, and irradiated a massive section of Manhattan... none of which is evidenced anywhere.

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

Objections aside, Pro has yet to put forth a reasonable explanation for is demolition theory. We've shot down the nuclear idea... what's next?

As it stands, the resolution is firmly,

NEGATED.
Debate Round No. 2
heart_of_the_matter

Pro

I thank Tarzan for his quick reply. As far as cutting back I did make an effort. As far as my numbering this round - it just divides a new point from other points and doesn't correspond with previous rounds necessarily. but is generally in order.

1. "the engineers *thought* the buildings might survive the impact, but they didn't have any real reason to be confident."

-->PRO wanted to simply point out that the building was designed to withstand the type of impact which actually happened. The building's design was engineered to withstand more than that which actually hit the buildings. Also, since the towers did not fall due to impact (both buildings were still standing after 50 minutes) the designs did actually hold up. The resultant fires in the buildings can then be compared to fires that have happened in other skyscrapers (see list of buildings -PRO rd. 1)

2. "PRO suggests here that the"No-Plane-Theory" has merit"

-->PRO had just wanted to point out that there were some people who contested even that point...just a tangent, but oh well, while we are on this point - this will provide additional evidence of the coverup and support PRO: "The Magic Plane"

(0:00-0:30)
Was that Wonder Woman's jet that hit the tower?

Here's the other angle:
Why does the wing of the plane disappear before impact?

3. "why the plane that hit the Pentagon didn't slice through the walls, there are two reasons. The first is that the Pentagon plane is thought to have hit the ground with the engines first, partially shredding the airframe. The second, and primary, reason is that the Pentagon is built to withstand attacks. The plane at the WTC hit a (ostensibly) hollow tower..."

--> As far as CONs first point - Nothing appears to have hit the ground in front of the Pentagon, no marks are seen leading up to the building. So the "plane" would have been going full speed. And since the impact was allegedly at full speed, then why didn't the titanium engines under each wing even mark the building? It appears that we are supposed to believe that the aluminum fuselage (made of only 2 mm. of aluminum) penetrated the outer wall, and also penetrated 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete.
(0:25-0:28 = picture of lawn)(0:00-1:45 = other information)

4. "root cause of collapse is that the outer mesh failed."

--> Why wouldn't the outer walls have even slowed the planes down at all? According to the videos, are we supposed to believe that the breakaway wings also penetrated the steel frame? (and also the tail fin)...with everything going into the building and the steel framework stopping NOTHING?? This is clearly a fake video = more evidence of coverup.

(Steel outer wall of WTC)

But, if the outer walls were so easy to go through - and since the plane hitting the south tower simply went through a corner of the building without hitting the stronger girders in the center of the building...why didn't the plane just continue to easily bust through the OTHER outside corner wall (if it is "just" outer mesh) and fly right out of the building? The videos show it going in easily, yet it stayed fully inside the building. Perhaps there was a "Magic desk" in the corner office made of adamantium that stopped the "plane" dead in its tracks?

(Video of plane clipping the corner of South WTC - nothing comes out the opposite side)

5. "controlled demolitions. They are extremely loud..."

--> CON you had 2 links that were broken (#4 and #6). But PRO will argue more about the type of demolition that explains what more likely happened! (see #10)

6. "Firestorm" --> will mostly set aside this round. Except to say that the black smoke shows that the fire was not burning hot.

7. "And luggage getting lost at an airport? Is that really so unbelievable?"

--> Magic Luggage -- Yeah it could happen - But statistically there is less than a 1% chance of that happening though. (about 1/2 of 1% chance). "Your abundance of faith is NOT disturbing though!"...That is good that you can believe in things that are improbable but still may be true!...But, personally, I find that point difficult to believe.

In the United States, an average of 1 of 150 people have their checked baggage misdirected or left behind each year.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

--> Still that would not explain why the materials (plans, and connections all written down, etc.) would have been in the luggage in the first place?? If these were masterminds able to pull off 4 hijackings and bring down Towers, why wouldn't they be smart enough to destroy the evidence before they left? It's not like they were going to look at it again if it was going to be in the luggage compartment and blown up.

8. Magic Passports --> Yes it is possible they (2 passports) flew out and were found by FBI...just highly unlikely. Good faith though again.

9. "The short version is that it has some merit as the cause of the beginning of the collapse,..."

-->PRO also accepts CONs explanation posted in the comments section. But PRO will set aside this point mostly for this round.

10. Nuclear demolition

"...mushroom cloud, been instantly visible to the entirety of New York, and irradiated a massive section of Manhattan... none of which is evidenced anywhere."

-->My opponent seems to not understand the basic differences between an "above ground" nuclear demolition vs. a "below ground" nuclear demolition. An underground nuclear demolition would have SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT effects than an above ground explosion would have! There are GOOD REASONS why nukes are tested underground! It filters out radiation! (and filters the blast wave etc...)

Also my opponent seems to not make a distinction between nuclear "demolitions" vs. nuclear "warheads". Nuclear demolitions weren't designed to kill people, but rather to just take down buildings.

CON didn't respond to 3 things that nuclear demolition explains, that the other theories don't explain.

A. Steel pulverized in midair into dust

The piles of rubble were only 3 stories tall when they should have been 10 stories tall:

Steel was still standing from WTC tower, then it just vaporized into dust in the air and blew away:
(1:00-1:25 especially around 1:22)

B. Temperatures in the rubble months later were still hotter than they should be.

PRO showed some pictures in the previous round.
Also:
"Some beams pulled from the wreckage were still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile were well in excess of 1,000�F"

"The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400�F to more than 2,800�F..."

"As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

The top picture of the molten steel is from Oct. 21, 2001 (about a month and a half later!)
http://thermalimages.nfshost.com...

C. Firefighters rates of cancer

"9/11 NUKE DEMOLITION PROOF: Firefighters Radiation Cancers "Off the Scale"
9/11 FIREFIGHTERS ARE GETTING CANCER AT A FASTER RATE THAN OTHERS, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER REVEALS"
http://www.veteranstoday.com...

The nuclear demolition theory is more likely than the official jet fuel theory. Also the evidence points to a coverup.

Thank you to Tarzan and the readers.

AFFIRMED!
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Lots of ground to cover, so forgive my short intro...

1. "the engineers *thought* the buildings might survive the impact, but they didn't have any real reason to be confident."

I think we are in agreement here that the impacts did not cause the collapse - I should note that I mean this only in the sense that the building did not toppel over immediately. The obvious difference concerning the fires that Pro mentions in other towers is that these towers did not have their support members' fireproofing blown off, and also retained their structural components, but these issues are, I think better addressed in sections 4 and 6.

2. "PRO suggests here that the"No-Plane-Theory" has merit"

We could sit here all day trading videos that purport to show a plane or not. The fact of the matter remains that YouTube video is not presented in (nor is content uploaded in) a high enough resolution to be dispositive one way or the other on this issue. That said, this gentleman (http://www.abovetopsecret.com...) has taken his time and treasure to procure source video and has uploaded comparisons of some of the images as the appear on YouTube, and in 720p. Further, this article (http://www.questionsquestions.net...) gives an extraordinarily thorough refutaion of the NPT. I'm quite frankly surprised that Pro would even bring it up.

3. Difference between the Pentagon impact and the WTC1/2 impacts.

Pro contends that there is no evidence of something hitting the ground in front of the Pentagon. Perhaps my statement was a little confusing. I mean to say that the plane hit the ground and the Pentagon at about the same time. There is good evidence that the wing or engine of the plane did impact the onsite generator. Any images of the ground itself in front of the wall would of course be obscured by the debris on the lawn. Not to dwell on this issue, but here is a picture of the generator (http://files.abovetopsecret.com...) showing not only has it been hit, but also swung out of position (http://files.abovetopsecret.com...).

Again, I'd like to reintimate that the point is that the Pentagon is a reinforced bunker, and the WTC towers are basically tubes by comparison. Matchsticks and two-by-four are both pine, but one is a lot easier to slice through.

4. "root cause of collapse is that the outer mesh failed."

I think Pro is referring to the Purdue video I posted above. However, if you watch the entire video, you can see that the pieces of the aircraft penetrated the building with almost total destruction of the airframe almost instantly. Starting at 1:32, they offer an inside view, which shows in great detail the extent to which the steel framework shredded the airframe. Furthermore, videos show (http://www.youtube.com... / watch?v=oprbCOup4O4 - at the end where it is replayed in fast speed) that the tower exhibits considerable sway after the impact - which proves that a considerable amount of kinetic energy was transferred to the tower as the steel framework did what it could to stop the plane.

Pro then contends that if the plane in the South Tower hit a corner that it somehow should have emerged from the other side. Given the degree of fragmentation evidenced in the Purdue video, I think it's safe to say that by the time the plane (really, debris) got to the other side of the building, it was in no shape to punch through another wall - or at least not through the steel frame members.

>> "Video of plane clipping the corner of South WTC - nothing comes out the opposite side"

I was at first vey confused by this video considering other clips of the 2nd crash very clearly show a LOT of debris exiting the far side of the building. Then I realized that this clip views both towers straight on. We're looking at the side of the NORTH tower in that clip - see how the only tower visible is already burning much higher up? The rest of the videos in that series (by the same YouTube user) very clearly show a lot of debris coming out both the far, and relative right of the impact side.

5. "controlled demolitions. They are extremely loud..."

Yes, I noticed the broken links. I think the site disallows hotlinks...

6. "Firestorm" --> will mostly set aside this round.

>> "Except to say that the black smoke shows that the fire was not burning hot."

The color of the smoke depends on the fuel, not the heat of the fire...

7. "And luggage getting lost at an airport? Is that really so unbelievable?"

Pro contends that because the probability of one of the Hijacker's luggage getting misplaced on 9/11 is relatively low, that it must be a conspiracy. I say, let's go ahead and use probabilities! Let's assume the probability of any 1 person's luggage getting lost is, as Pro states, about 1/150. But there were 19 hijackers, which means the probability of any one of their luggage getting lost is, cumulatively, 19/150.

Also, it's not like the people that flew the planes actually planned 9/11 themselves. It's no stretch of the imagination to think that these people would have been arrogant enough to think that it wouldn't matter what they did with the plans... Not that it was really plans (http://911research.wtc7.net...) - it was just "a copy of the Koran, instructions on how to fly a commercial airplane and a fuel consumption calculator."

8. Magic Passports

The sheer amount of paper that survived not only the explosions and fires, but also the collapse of the towers is almost magical, isn't it? And it's hardly more "magical" than the people they pulled alive from the rubble of the fallen towers.

9. "The short version is that it has some merit as the cause of the beginning of the collapse... (set aside)

10. Nuclear demolition

>> "An underground nuclear demolition would have SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT effects than an above ground explosion would have!"

Why, yes, that's correct! I must have missed the explosion that would have, among other things, backed up all the sewer systems in the area, torn the E line subway to shreds, propagated a massive pressure wave through the entire subway system, caused the equivalent of a minor earthquake, left a massive crater under the buildings that all manner of things would have slid into...

>> "Also my opponent seems to not make a distinction between nuclear "demolitions" vs. nuclear "warheads". Nuclear demolitions weren't designed to kill people, but rather to just take down buildings."

I invite readers to google "nuclear demolition" - the only reference of any legitimate scientific value is the Wikipedia Article on a never-used low-yield nuke the US developed for (completely) demolishing enemy positions. Nuclear demolition by underground explosion that magically only disturbs the building above it is a fantasy.

A. Steel pulverized in midair into dust

Nevermind the fact that this is concrete you see as a dust cloud, there is no reason to suppose that rubble piles should have been 10 stories high. The WTC debris covered SIXTEEN CITY BLOCKS, not the 2-acre building footprint. Without a better quality image, I would hazard a guess that the beams that appear to vaporize are simply covered in dust from the rest of the collapse that is shaken off as it falls.

B. Temperatures in the rubble months later were still hotter than they should be.

This is not terribly surprising given that there was ample fuel for debris to be burning, and they sprayed the steel building with water to cool it... which causes oxidation, which releases heat. A lot of heat, as it turns out (http://www.debunking911.com...).

C. Firefighters rates of cancer

Pro's own source doesn't mention radiation anywhere else than the title. Here's a reliable source on the same phenomenon mentioning, among other things, the sheer volume of chemicals in the buildings (http://www.cnn.com...).


(Out of characters)
NEGATED.
Debate Round No. 3
heart_of_the_matter

Pro

Thanks again & short intro also!

1. Building structure/ fireproofing/ pancake theory: I am going to go back to a quote that CON made in Round 1 to make a point about the building structure. My opponent jumped the gun, thinking I was going to argue for conventional demolitions and he tipped his hand.

"I also found it interesting that he did not present any evidence of the presence of the incredible amount of high explosive that would take, or how the teams snuck past..."

-->The implication of this statement is that the building is actually VERY solid! and unless a team could sneak TONS of explosives into the building there would be NO WAY to bring it down! (they would need an "incredible amount of high explosive" We get CON's view that even if a team could sneak in "just enough" demolitions to destroy 1 floor only--that it would NOT BE ENOUGH to take down the building!...yet that is ALL THAT THE "PLANE" DID. (actually the plane didn't even start off doing that much)

The only significant difference mentioned is that fireproofing was allegedly torn off. What is the proof that the plane removed all the fireproofing anyway? Also EVEN IF the fireproofing was removed and the steel actually weakened all that would do would be for the plane to collapse ONE FLOOR! What the "plane" allegedly did could be duplicated by a terrorist group. (ie plant bombs on one floor and remove fireproofing on one floor). Actually, it would be much EASIER to ensure destruction of one floor with explosives (placed in key places) rather than with a plane (and fireproofing wouldn't need to be removed). So, if explosives can't do it by destroying one floor, then neither can a plane.

Since demolishing one floor by conventional explosives (or a plane) doesn't bring buildings down. We know that the building structure was still solid and a LOT MORE was necessary to bring down the towers. No wonder why NIST ditched their OWN previous "pancake theory" of collapse:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...

2. NPT/Building Structure

"One of the most serious problems with every single video produced by this "NPT cult/sect" is that their productions are not based on high-quality original video footage."

-->Con's source starts off with 2 logical fallacies in his very first sentence! (universal dismissal and ad hominem) his sweeping generalities and bias undermine his credibility.

1: In some videos (ex: using Cons own simulation video) a lot of debris (ex: alleged tip of plane or whatever) went
through the building and exited the opposite side.
2: In the first case - the debris went through the CENTER of the building (where the 47 steel girders are at) and at a MINIMUM penetrated a SECOND wall of steel outer mesh.
3: In the South Tower the "plane" went through just a corner of the building (we know this because of the tilt of the building) but then somehow that plane (and none of it's parts) could make it through the SECOND outer mesh wall. But In that case there wasn't even a chance of the stronger 47 steel girders (in the center) stopping anything.

This outer mesh was not like a matchstick! Actually it was thicker than tank armor! (easily more than thick enough to stop the 2 mm. aluminum fuselage of the plane - which even "a Boeing designer suggested it was like a 'flying beer can'"...)
http://www.dailypaul.com...

CON has even cited that these outer walls were part of the support of the building.

The actual measurements:
"These steel columns were incredibly thick - each wall measuring 2.5 inch (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of either of the columns was 5 inch (12.7 cm). To imagine how thick this is, here is a good example to compare with: front armor of the best tank of the WWII period - T-34 - was only 1.8 inch (4.5 cm) and it was single-walled. Yet there were practically no armor-piercing artillery shell available that time that would be capable of penetrating such front armor. Of course, no explosives whatsoever would ever be able to tear throw such front armor of a tank either (except only a hollow-charge shell which would still not be able to tear a complete piece of such armor, but only to burn some narrow hole through an armor plate). Considering that the Twin Towers' steel frames consisted of double-walled steel columns that were almost trice as thick compare to the T-34 tanks' front amour,..."
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Are we supposed to believe this armor couldn't even stop the breakaway wings or the tailfin?

3. "But there were 19 hijackers, which means the probability of any one of their luggage getting lost is, cumulatively, 19/150."

Con's statistics are based upon if ALL of the hijackers had THE plans in ALL 19 luggages. Most likely only ONE set of luggage would.

4. Nuclear Demolition

"I invite readers to google "nuclear demolition" - the only reference of any legitimate scientific value is the Wikipedia Article"

-->The current wikipedia article on "nuclear demolition" contains practically NOTHING of any scientific value! It mainly talks about treaties and things of that nature. But, there actually used to be a technical article on wikipedia at one time though...but it was suspiciously removed:
http://www.nuclear-demolition-wikipedia.com... (removal from wikipedia)

"...explosion that would have...left a massive crater under the buildings that all manner of things would have slid into."
-->Uh Yes...that is actually the point of nuclear demolition--to create a crater under the building so that the building falls into it.

-->As far as other underground things being harmed:
There actually were other holes and underground phenomenon, for example: holes under WTC5 and WTC6...etc. and also a 60 foot deep hole on Liberty Street that just appeared:
http://www.youtube.com...

But destroying far away subways or sewers...no, the damage underground would not have been that far:
"Just as an example: detonation of a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge buried sufficiently deep in granite rock would result in creation of a cavity measuring roughly 100 meters in diameter..."

Also at this point, a short general overview explaining how nuclear demolition works may be in order:
"All skyscrapers have their lowest foundations lying 20-30 meters beneath the Earth surface. So, it is possible to calculate a position of a "zero-box" under such a skyscraper in such a way that a nuclear explosion would produce a cavity upper end of which would not reach the Earth surface, but would reach only the lowest underground foundation of a skyscraper it intends to demolish. For example, in particular cases of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, their lowest underground foundations were 27 meters beneath the surface. While the 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear demolition charges were positioned as depths of 77 meters (measuring from the surface), or 50 meters below their underground foundations. Such a thermo-nuclear explosion at a depth of 77 m would create an extremely
overheated cavity with its upper sphere touching the lowest underground foundations of the Twin Tower it intends to demolish. But it would still be short of reaching the Earth surface by 27 meters - so surrounding structures would not to be affected by any destructive factors of this underground nuclear explosion (except by, possibly, only its radioactive contamination). The Tower that is to be demolished supposes to lose its foundations completely, and to be sucked-in into this overheated cavity, temperatures inside of which are deemed enough to melt the entire Tower. Nuclear demolition schemes of the WTC building # 7 and that of the Sears Tower in Chicago were calculated in the same way."
http://www.nuclear-demolition.com...
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Responses:

1. Building structure/ fireproofing/ pancake theory

Pro raises an interesting point here, but one that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the pancake theory. First, I'd like to correct the idea that only one floor was damaged in the initiall impact. Photos clearly show breaches spanning multiple floors, and if nothing else, the height of the plane is large enough that even if it had gone in perfectly level, it would still damage the floor/ceiling spanning at least 3 floors. This picture illustrates an approximation of the areas of damage from impact and immediate explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

There is little to no dispute that the impact caused the floors to sag at the impact site. Here's a good image showing the progression of the sag over time (http://www.debunking911.com...). Computer models also suggest that the floor sag had more of an effect than is commonly realized. Note the far side of impact in this image (http://www.structuremag.org...) showing a considerable amount of sag for only a few missing columns. The missing exterior columns and the damage to the core columns caused more weight than was ever designed for to be transferred to the outer mesh.


2. NPT/Building Structure

I'm confused by Pro's initial statement here. If you look, you will never find the "quote" Pro attributes to me anywhere in my argument. I am making a claim about the insufficiency of YouTube resolution, not a dismissal or ad hom against the people who support the theory. I also provided very clear refutations of the points Pro re-raises. I'm not sure if he missed them or just ignored them. I have addressed the issues of material that Pro raises. If I was unclear, I suggest readers look at the intro of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org...) describing steel's brittle nature under high impact loads, as well as the increased brittleness of all materials at high speeds.

Furthermore, even water can cut steel if given sufficient energy (http://science.howstuffworks.com...).

Lastly, I should note that while Con pretends as though WWI tank armor is dispositive of the impact mechanics at play here, the primary reason armor piercing rounds don't pierce armor is the angle of impact. Bullets ricochet from angled materials, yet pierce the same material head-on. A stone will skip off water at a shallow angle, yet drop right through if simply dropped.

Also, the thickness of the columns tapered as they went up the tower (http://911research.wtc7.net...). At the top of the tower, the exterior columns tapered to as thin as a quarter inch. But remember that these are hollow tubes that are carrying weight in compression, so their vertical strength is still very high. But, like a straw, they kink if hit with, say, a plane.

3. "But there were 19 hijackers, which means the probability of any one of their luggage getting lost is, cumulatively, 19/150."

I simply remind readers here that not only were there no "plans" found in the luggage as I intimated last round, but the idea that lost plane luggage is dispositive of conspiracy AND evidence of controlled demolition is simply absurd.

4. Nuclear Demolition

Pro's claim concerning the Wikipedia article for Nuclear Demolition ignores the possibility that there is no article for it because it is a complete and utter fantasy based on pseudoscience, and has never been actually used in the real world.

>> "a 60 foot deep hole on Liberty Street that just appeared:"
The terrible, terrifying "hole" (http://img528.imageshack.us...) is most likely a simple pavement crack down into the N/R subway line that runs... you guessed it, right under Liberty St. between Cortlandt and Rector stations. Not that the energy from the falling buildings couldn't have actually caused a minor localized earthquake... the kinetic energy alone (not the fires, etc...) is calculated (http://www.debunking911.com...) at 0.272 kt of energy - certainly not as power as Pro's magic nukes, but certainly enough to cause some real damage on impact.

Just some notes from Pro's source on this theory...

First, the source states that Nuclear Demolition was patented by Controlled Demolitions, Inc. While CDI has demolished several buildings, isn't it a little suspicious that the phrase "nuclear demolition" appears nowhere on their site? (http://www.google.com...).

Second, there are no internal sources to substantiate any of the claims concerning how CDI began to study Nuclear Demolition (ND). There are some high profile names (Rockefeller) tossed around, but no actual verification. There's also the ludicrous assertion that the government would allow private corporations to use nuclear weapons inside the United States.... right.

Third, there is a glaring flaw in the science presented. The article states (http://www.nuclear-demolition.com...) that rock would turn to gas and the pressure of this gas would somehow expand the cavity created by the explosion. But the cavity is supposed to extend to the edge of the building foundation. If there was such an energy conversion with the pressure claimed, it would erupt like a large pimple and send a pillar of superheated granite gas up through the tower, escaping at the first opportunity out the bottom floor. Yet, in videos we clearly see that the collapse propagated downward - it did not start at the base.

Fourth, where is the radiation?? Sedan (http://en.wikipedia.org...) was a similar test to the claimed application at WTC. But Sedan left a huge radioactive cloud, caused a localized 4.75 Richter earthquake, and left a crater almost 400 meters across. Where is this crater in Manhattan? Of course, the Russians had to try it too (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and met with similar experiences, though a larger crater because everything is bigger in Soviet Russia. Yet neither of these bombs was as big as the ones claimed to be under the WTC.

Fifth, Cited figures for creation of a cavity are a physical impossibility. The article states that for dry granite there is a 69 ton/kt yield of vaporized material. That means that a 150kt bomb would vaporize (69 * 150) 10,350 tons of granite. The density of granite is between 2.65 and 2.75 g/cm^3 (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Volume = Mass/Density. So 10,350 tons / 2.65 g/cm^3 is ~ 3900 cu. m. Volume of a sphere is 4/3 * pi r^3 = 3900/ (4/3pi) = r^3 = ~930. r = 9.75... giving us a sphere with a diameter of around 20 meters. Not 100 meters.

Sixth, the article claims that it is impossible to demolish modern steel frame building with conventional explosives, yet that is precisely what the source's champion company, CDI does for a living.

I can continue all day listing the various factual and scientific inaccuracies that this article is riddled with, but I'm not sure there is much point, given that the first few completely disprove the theory.

I might suggest Pro also spend some more time developing his theory of demolition in the final round, because it's in pretty sorry shape so far.

As it stands, the resolution is clearly,

NEGATED.
Debate Round No. 4
heart_of_the_matter

Pro

I thank Tarzan for his response and for a good debate!

SUMMARY:

1. BUILDING STRUCTURE - PRO has demonstrated how the towers were actually overdesigned to withstand this exact type of scenario. The buildings survived the impacts easily and were still standing, just like the other 8 buildings mentioned in Rd. 1. Fire didn't destroy those buildings even though EVERY ONE of those fires burned longer than the WTC fires (one of them even burned for 2 days). CON provided no proof that the fireproofing was actually removed (as CON asked for in Rd. 4), that is just speculation. As far as 3 floors vs. 1: Other buildings had multiple floors damaged or collapsed (see Rd. 1 examples) (c) had floors collapse and didn't fall & (e) Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. The fact remains that fires do NOT take down steel buildings. Even if it is 10 whole minutes of jet fuel burning (h). Never in history!

2. PLANE IMPACTS - 1st, PRO has shown that the thin aluminum planes would not have been able to do what was claimed they did. The breakaway wings and the tailfin would not have penetrated the armorlike steel outer walls. 2nd, Pro showed a lot of plane videos which were obviously faked.

-the quote from CON: PRO was quoting and discrediting your SOURCE! not you. (Rd.3, first source, 2nd sentence)

3. PRO had intended on debunking the "pancake theory" of collapse with scientific evidence again (like in an earlier debate):
http://www.debate.org...
(Point F)
But I found that NIST had changed it's official findings and had dropped that theory altogether!(PRO source - Rd.4)(Also proving I was correct in that debate). To those who are trying to stay aligned with the "official story" you are to no longer spout the "pancake theory" of collapse (that is a conspiracy theory!) Your new orders are to align with the "sagging floor" theory! Keep up! It reminds me of George Orwell's book 1984 how the stories always got changed!

"Right in the middle of Hate Week, history took an abrupt about-face and Oceania was not at war with Eurasia at all. Oceania was at war with Eastasia; Oceania and Eurasia were fighting side by side."

The new building sag theory doesn't explain why the 47 steel columns in the middle of the building would fall or implode (there would have been MASSIVE resistance). The official theory can't even explain why the towers fell at all...so it certainly has no explanation of how the steel was instantly pulverized into DUST!

Also FEMA and NIST reports did not even test for explosives.

4. OTHER STUFF

Magic PassportS = obvious evidence planting by FBI.
Magic Luggage = My 1st source & its wikipedia source #245 clearly spell out the items in the luggage. Is CON confusing what was found in the VAN instead?

Mayor Bloomberg of NYC wants to change the name:
"Ground Zero' is a term that no longer applies, according to NYC mayor"
http://news.yahoo.com...

They can't have anyone looking into what "ground zero" referred to!
Ground Zero -
1: the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

5. "Magic nukes" - Touch� :)

-->PRO will gladly explain the theory! I realize that some people may have a difficult time accepting the nuclear demolition idea, but it is the ONLY theory that supports the evidence. 1. Jet fuel/fire couldn't have knocked the towers down. 2. Steel turned into dust requires a LOT more energy than the official story explains 3. The high temperatures in the rubble months later.

Sherlock Holmes was fond of saying, "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

The nuclear demolition idea definitely explains what happened better than the jet fuel theory does.

vs. CONS points:
1. No it wouldn't be unusual for that info to not be public due to national security.

2. More verification by a nuclear scientist/Russian officer talking about some things in his book: (PRO will annotate which minutes to watch)

Video 1

-Some dictionaries are being scrubbed: (0-1:00) & (1:27:30-1:31:45)

-Plane impact comments (9:45-12:25)

-Knowledge of the nuclear demolition of WTC plan was known by him personally in 1984. (26:00-28:00 = main) also (28:00-30:30)(33:10-33:30 -blueprints)

-Devices were planted in the building (accd. to fire chief) AND the Sears Tower in CHICAGO evacuated (it had same demolition plan as WTC) but Empire St. Bldg. (in NYC) or Trump tower weren't evacuated as quickly. (49:55-51:30)& (1:26:40) & 2nd video (50:00-51:00)

-Purely technical article on nuclear demolition removed by wikipedia (52:30-53:30)

-GENERAL differences between above ground vs. underground nuclear explosions: (53:45-1:12:00)

-Pulverized/ disintegrated material keeps its form but it is like volcanic glass/ dust (1:09:15-1:10:00)

******KEY INFO*******
-Placement of nuclear demolitions for WTC (1:13:00-1:26:00)
(1:21:30-1:23:00 = tower shakes from underground demolition/ 3rd explosion) & 2nd video (1:01:00-1:02:00)
(The large amounts of dust that Con has been talking about are actually proof of the nuclear demolition!)
********************

-The dust was mostly made of STEEL (1:36:00-1:37:15)

-Temperatures still high due to the nuclear explosion. (1:38:00-1:39:30)

Video 2

-Firemen had to use "Pyrocool FEF" which contains 2 powerful ultraviolet absorbers - to absorb high energy emissions (25:45-27:00)

--FBI agents wore FULL HAZMAT SUITS because they knew there was radiation at ground zero (1:36:50-1:41:15), (more than 10,000 people filed a lawsuit!)- Video 1: (1:33:30)

3. The nature of the process: The energy goes up through the bottom (to a certain point on the building) changing the building into a type of "volcanic glass"...maintaining its outer shape and color-- but is actually already dust waiting to crumble. (See 1st Video 1:09:15-1:10:00)

4. Chagan = an obvious strawman -->1. They were "shallow subsurface (open) cratering explosions" (Con's source) again, much different than UNDERGROUND. 2. For CON claiming it is such an untested, theoretical science his 1 source alone mentions 124 peaceful nuclear explosions!

5. Cons Math/ size of crater --> there are different zones of damage of different sizes ex: cavity, crushed zone, damaged zone (video: 1:06:00-1:08:30)

6. Impossible to demolish a modern steel bldg. -->era consideration - not as advanced back then.

Other:
Steel oxidization theory- Are we to believe that adding water to the fires HEATS THEM UP?...AND that the firemen were incompetent and didn't add necessary chemicals to their water to prevent that? Or why would they do it at all? Also, why would they need to be still hosing down the rubble in March 2002?

Why was the remaining steel immediately shipped off for recycling and tracked by GPS? (one driver even fired for taking a break)
http://911research.wtc7.net...

A better heat graph chart (blacksmith website) (very bottom of page) -steel being removed by the crane STILL in the 2000 (F) range:
http://thermalimages.nfshost.com...

Craters under WTC5,6 were not addressed (Also Fiterman hall was damaged). (also rubble disappeared)
http://drjudywood.com...

And for their final trick they will make a steel building vaporize into dust!
snowball picture:
http://drjudywood.com...

Towers are dust:
(6:55-end)

TA DA!

res ipsa loquitur
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Much thanks also to Heart (can I call you Heart) for another excellent debate on the WTC Towers... I'll move quickly through the minor points, and try to spend most of the time rebutting what little we have to go on of Con's Nuclear Demolition fantasy.

1. BUILDING STRUCTURE

Con's major contention on this point is that other buildings had fires more severe than the WTC. He also makes the point that steel buildings do not collapse from fires. By and large, this is correct. But steel buildings with no fireproofing on the burning floors that are missing crucial support members have collapsed in 100% of similar cases, of which exactly two exist.

Fireproofing on the truss members of the floors: http://www.debunking911.com...
Missing fireproofing on at edges where plane went in: http://forums.randi.org...
Some indication (yes, hardly dispositive) that fireproofing wasn't very good to begin with: http://www.debunking911.com...

Nobody is contending that somehow the fireproofing was burned away by jet fuel or the like - it was physically removed by the tornado of debris blowing through the building. This exposed the steel directly to the fire. And, had the outer support pylons been in place, the floor would have not sagged nearly to the extent that it did, and the building probably would not have collapsed.

2. PLANE IMPACTS

Actually, Pro has shown nothing of the sort, but reiterates his insistence that aluminum planes cannot pierce steel despite considerable evidence to the contrary. Con presented evidence of impact mechanics, time-temperature superposition, lead piercing steel, and even water being used to cut steel, all of which are ignored.

3. PANCAKE THEORY

At the risk of strawmanning Pro for strawmanning me... I said that pancaking was a symptom of the collapse, not a cause. Pancaking certainly did occur, as anyone can see in the building pressure wave that moves down as the buildings collapse. Conspiracy theorists often point to "squibs" as evidence of demolition, but if you look, the squibs eject MORE debris as time passes, which is precisely the reverse of how a controlled demolition charge would operate (http://www.debunking911.com...).


"Building sag" is no theory, as Pro puts it. There is clear evidence that the building was actually sagging:

http://www.debunking911.com... - note the deviation from vertical, particularly at the 80th floor.
http://www.debunking911.com... - note too the massive deformation just below the fire in the picture.

4. OTHER STUFF

"Magic Passports" & "Magic Luggage" - an unusual happenstance does not a conspiracy make.
"Ground Zero" - Your own source identifies other definitions indication the center of any large event.

>>"Steel oxidation theory"

If you would like to examine the science of it for yourself, it is right here (http://www.debunking911.com...). I'm not sure what more evidence I can give you - the chemical reactions are shown, the transfer of the building's kinetic energy (remember, about 0.3 kt) into heat... I'm not going to pretend to understand the science completely, but I will 'pretend' to let experts in the field describe in (excruciating) detail exactly how this occurs.

>> "Craters under WTC5, 6 were not addressed..."

Mostly because the resolution says "WTC 1 and 2." But even so, I thought your magic nukes only left craters under the single buildings they were meant to destroy?? Furthermore, you don't suppose the underground structures like parking garages and such would look like craters once a building collapsed on top of them?

5. "Magic nukes"

I'm mostly going to ignore the video evidence - if Pro cannot make the point stand on his own without videos as illustrations, I see no reason to let videos argue for him. It hardly matters though, because nuclear demolition is pseudoscientific fantasy.

>> "The energy goes up through the bottom (to a certain point on the building) changing the building into a type of "volcanic glass"...maintaining its outer shape and color-"

This is clearly an impossibility. You expect us to believe that a building changes to dust from the bottom up, yet then collapses from the top down? Really?

>> "FBI agents wore FULL HAZMAT SUITS..."

Cleanup crews certainly should have! But not because of any radiation hazard. It's possible there was some radioactive material from thing like radium, but the primary danger was from industrial chemicals. Here's a great article that explains how, while radiation on the nanocurie level was found, it was nothing like what would be left from a nuclear bomb (http://www.journalof911studies.com... )

>> "Chagan = an obvious strawman"

Hardly. My point here is that bombs of a similar size destroyed a much larger area. Granted, they were not in bedrock, but they were in fact underground tests at about the same depth as Pro alleges his magic nukes were. My question is twofold... if these tests produced a conical explosion and massive amounts of radiation that traveled in a cloud across several states (Sedan), why should we expect spherical craters and no cloud of radiation?

>> " Cons Math/ size of crater --> there are different zones of damage of different sizes ex: cavity, crushed zone, damaged zone "

Pro completely misses the point here... His source alleges the use of 150kt nuclear bombs, yet his own source gives a figure for destruction of granite that would mean the bombs would only make a 20-meter hole - that's off by FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT. Furthermore, in order to actually destroy a 100 meter sphere of granite, the math (see round 4) shows that you would need a bomb about two orders of magnitude more powerful.

The source is, simply put, lying.

>>
"Impossible to demolish a modern steel bldg. -->era consideration - not as advanced back then."

Yet curiously this statement is made in an article that could only have been written after 911. Is Pro suggesting that demolition of steel buildings on 9/11/01 was impossible, but now, ten years later, we are in such a new area that it's suddenly possible? No... the assertion was modern, and it is completely incorrect.

>> "
And for their final trick they will make a steel building vaporize into dust! snowball picture:"

This is actually pretty funny. What we see in Pro's picture is pulverized concrete dust in the foreground and the smoke from the still standing and still burning tower behind it rising into the sky. Hardly a "final trick". Oh and I almost forgot, we see the building collapsing from the TOP DOWN after the nukes turned the bottom portion into dust. Right.

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

Readers, aside from the rebutted propositions where Pro attacks the official story, he must also provide a prima facie case supporting his demolition theory. His theory fails utterly on three obvious counts.

First, the article he cites contains several physical impossibilities, not the least of which is egregious miscalculations and misrepresentations in the size and scope of the explosions involved.

Second, this theory is utterly at odds with every single piece of photographic or videographic evidence of the tower's collapse. Pro's theory can only collapse a tower from the bottom up. Every single visual of the WTC towers clearly shows them collapsing from the top down.

Third, Pro has repeatedly contended that the collapse was controlled. This, too, is directly contrary to every visual of the collapse. The buildings did not fall in their footprint in anything resembling a controlled manner.

The resolution is obviously and completely

NEGATED.
http://www.journalof911studies.com...
Debate Round No. 5
97 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
It is true that there is no way to know exactly what the industry thinks about the NIST report, but I think it is quite telling that only an insignificant portion of the industry has given their support for this cause. Regardless of whether the percentage who do not accept the NIST report is 0.05%, 1%, or even 10%, the whole point to my argument is that saying "thousands of scientists agree with me" is not a valid argument to support the belief that the buildings were demolished. The NIST report never had a chance of being an objective report, so disagreement on it's findings was inevitable. Yet it is completely unreasonable to suggest that the majority of the industry does not accept it. The results ten years later seem perfectly in line with what would be expected if the report was mostly accurate.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
I think Ive sen a few things by S.E.'s with high-rise expertise disagreeing with various conclusion of the NIST report, but no one that thinks there was a controlled demolition of any of the towers, and dear lord not that it was an underground nuke.

Im pretty sure I saw a pretty recent article by someone at SOM disagreeing about how the floors failed but I couldnt find it in 5 minutes of googling...

Its also really irrelevant whether fiefighters or pilots believe the NIST report. Its like all the fisherman in the world disagreeing with a cancer diagnosis- irrelevant due to lack of relevant knowledge.
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 5 years ago
heart_of_the_matter
I guess my main point is that I don't believe it is 99% for the official story. Just because some of them didn't join any official site doesn't mean they would side with the official report either...they are neutral and can't be counted on one side or the other...unless they put themself on one side of the issue or the other. Also it isn't just "Architects and Engineers" there are also Firemen and Pilots who I know have officiale websites and there are probably other professional organizations out there as well...

Raisor - do you have any sites/ comments from high rise structural engineers?
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
Raisor says, "0wned"
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Adding to Double_R:

I skimmed over the petition and saw maybe 4 "S.E."'s- licensed structural engineers. A vast majority of the "engineers" are NON-structural engineer. It is also worth noting that a "Civil Engineer" is different from a "structural engineer." Structures is generally considered a subset of Civil, but almost always people will self identify as a "structural" if they work with structures. Basically, a huge chunk of the petition is people with zero relevance to this engineering problem - I even noticed a "Professional Land Surveyor" with a degree in structural engineering on the list.

Additionally, an architect is not who you would want to talk to about the complex engineering evaluation of failure forensics. Architcts often have decent understanding of the technical aspects of building design, but there is a reason construction drawings require both a licensed architect AND a licensed structural engineer- there is a technical gap between architects and S.E.'s.

Finally, even being an S.E. doesnt mean you have the expertise to evaluate the WTC collapse. High rise design is a very different beast than low rise offices, parking garages, or homes. An S.E. could practice in bridge design, which is TOTALLY different from building design. So if a handful of S.E.'s arent convinced by the NIST report and the backing of ASCE etc., that really doesnt say too much.

Now, if this was a petition of 1000 licensed Structural Engineers, I would absolutely sit up and take notice. Especially if a few worked in high rise design.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Too much to respond to, but I took a closer look around at the engineers thing, here are some interesting facts:

The number of Architects and Engineers who signed the petition is actually up to 1636 as I write this
http://www.ae911truth.org...

If you click on the number you can see the list. If you scroll down 3 quarters of the page you can see the section for foreign engineers. This means that the number of US architects and engineers is app 1200

According to the US dept of labor there are 2.3 million Architects and engineers employed in the US
http://www.bls.gov...

Therefore the % of the officially "on your side" amounts to 0.05% of the industry. Therefore to suggest that 1% of the industry believes this stuff you have to assume that only 1 out of every 200 of them signed the petition. Being that AE911truth is the leading voice for the CD theory by far, that is a bit of a stretch.

I also find it very interesting that if you read the profiles of these supporters you can see that many appear to have never read the NIST report. Many of them state that "not all questions were answered", which does not mean that they believe the building was blown up, and many make statements of how Richard Gage's presentation was compelling or that they knew since "day 1" that it was a conspiracy. These are not science based conclusions. In fact many of them do not give any scientific basis as to why they signed the petition, and hardly any of them demonstrate any kind of knowledge of what the NIST report says. This is kind of important when you are a profesional giving your "qualified" support to disregard the findings of a scientific investigation.
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 5 years ago
heart_of_the_matter
@Tarzan
it's also possible that the plans and such were supposed to be part of the wreckage - that this was no more than an attempt to destroy the evidence gone wrong...

-->maybe...but it is just seems like really poor planning...not at all congruent with the other parts of 9/11....I suppose its a possibility though...

I will need to look into the water (or aluminum) cutting steel videos I guess...

that's probably about all the questions I have for the moment! thanks!
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> " I still am skeptical that aluminum could go through steel like that."

Why? Google just about any video of a water cutting machine and you can see that kinetic energy can do incredible things. Are you skeptical that a lead bullet can pass through a steel plate?

>> "Someone capable of pulling 9/11 off certainly could have and would have avoided that simple mistake."

Aside from the fact that the person who planned 9/11 didn't actually participate in carrying it out, it's also possible that the plans and such were supposed to be part of the wreckage - that this was no more than an attempt to destroy the evidence gone wrong...
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 5 years ago
heart_of_the_matter
@Tarzan - they DID find WMD's in Iraq... they were just 15 years old and not of the nuclear type.

But as it applies to a 9/11 conspiracy theory, Double R is entirely correct.

-->It was still a frame-up...Saddam didn't do 9/11 ...they just used the WMD card because they knew they could get away with it and wage a war by using it.
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 5 years ago
heart_of_the_matter
@Tarzan - the impact angle was nowhere near shallow enough for a ricochet.
-->Thanks for finding that video. I concede the angle, but I still am skeptical that aluminum could go through steel like that. I'd like to see Mythbuster or someone do a segment on if that's possible.

What about it? A building fell on it...
-->Dang, I couldn't find my Fiterman video piece (in the 9/11 New Hiroshima) i wanted - maybe later.

does indeed say that there were a lot of papers in the luggage. But I'm not sure this is really evidence for a conspiracy. It may have looked MORE odd to not check luggage for a flight from Portland to Boston. Also, it may just have been a simple way to destroy their own paper trail without calling attention to anything before hand. I don't know... but I do know that a misplaced piece of luggage does not a conspiracy make.

"luggage hastily checked in at the Portland, Maine, airport by a World Trade Center hijacker on the morning of Sept. 11 PROVIDED THE ROSETTA STONE enabling FBI agents to swiftly unravel the mystery of who carried out the suicide attacks and what motivated them.

A mix-up in Boston prevented the luggage from connecting with the plane that hijackers crashed into the north tower of the trade center. Seized by FBI agents at Boston's Logan Airport, investigators said, it contained Arab-language papers revealing the IDENTITIES OF ALL 19 HIJACKERS INVOLVED in the four hijackings, as well as information on their PLANS, BACKGROUNDS AND MOTIVES.

The luggage saga represents what the former federal authorities describe as an untold story of 9/11 - offering explanations for questions long unanswered about the investigation of the tragedy, such as how authorities were able to identify the hijackers so soon after the attacks."

-->There was a lot more there than you were letting on during the debate! It DOES mention plans!Someone capable of pulling 9/11 off certainly could have and would have avoided that simple mistake.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
heart_of_the_matterJustCallMeTarzanTied
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: After I got a chance to read everything, I noticed that none of Pro's theories were substantiated and all were well refuted by Con. For instance, the nose cone coming out of the other side, and the probability of the luggage being found. Pro never actually tried to affirm the resolution that there was a cover-up, nor did he point out any possible motivation for such a cover-up, but focused instead on showing potential inconsistencies in the government's explanation which were all refuted by Con.
Vote Placed by NewCreature 5 years ago
NewCreature
heart_of_the_matterJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
heart_of_the_matterJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: If there was ever a more complete demolition than that of Pro's arguments by Con, then I would like to learn of it.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
heart_of_the_matterJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote to Geolaureate8. One cannot simply donate points based on his personal preference of sources and leaning on the issue.
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
heart_of_the_matterJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had good arguments, but Pro is correct on this issue. Pro gets the vote for sources for citing Alex Jones, clearly a superior source than what Tarzan offered.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
heart_of_the_matterJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con, because really if I'm going to read a 5 round debate I'm not going to watch 5 hours of video as well (no matter how well annotated). Pro made some good points but were well rebutted by Con. The nuclear crater was too implausible and Pro never really explained convincingly why the damage would be that local and without significant radiation. Plus, all Pro really did was poke at the official story which doesn't prove cover-up.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
heart_of_the_matterJustCallMeTarzanTied
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: Pro badly abuses the fallacy of shotgun argumentation. His burden was to show a cover up of WTC 1 and 2, yet all he managed to do was point out a bunch of suspicious reasons to doubt the official story without establishing how a cover up could have possibly been executed. His theories of how a cover up might have occurred are not consistent with reality nor consistent with each other. Meanwhile Con did a good job providing sensible answers.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
heart_of_the_matterJustCallMeTarzanTied
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: Counter to sandeman90 until he puts an RFD.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
heart_of_the_matterJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Sources: Some of Pro’s sources are way overstated. For example his source for saying a Boeing engineer said the planes were equivalent of flying beer cans says “if I recall a Boeing designer suggested it was like a 'flying beer can'.” So Pro’s source isn’t an engineer and doesn’t even reference a statement. His source literally says “Im pretty sure I heard this somewhere.” Conduct for 1+ hour of youtube vids. I rarely vote on anything beside arguments, but this deserves
Vote Placed by Samdeman90 5 years ago
Samdeman90
heart_of_the_matterJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:30