The Instigator
truther1111
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
black_squirrel
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Twin tower was demolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
black_squirrel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 908 times Debate No: 43794
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

truther1111

Pro

I argue for the hypothesis of a controlled demolition vs the official version in which fire weakened the steel , the official version states the planes only removed the fireproofing of the steel causing the fire to weaken the steel which caused a initiation of a 'global collapse'

NIST however do not explain how this global collapse occured.

I argue that it had to have occured with the help of explosives or incendiaries.

Based on two simple observations.

1. The material of the twin towers is ejected outwards from the collapse zone and is not piling or stacking up like you would expect from a progressive collapse.
The ejected material cannot create a gravitational force on the building below it as its no longer above the building below it.
The building self implodes from top to bottom , all the material is turned to dust so where does the energy come from to crush the building below it while self imploding into dust in an outward manner.
IE Dust cannot crush concrete below it causing it to turn into dust which in turn crushed the concrete below it into dust.(1)

A simple explanation for these observations however is the use of explosives.

2.If gravity caused the collapse of the building sending shockwaves down the building pulverising material outward then how come in you can see the sections of the building self imploding themselves at a faster rate than gravity as would be expected from a gravitational collapse.Notice the right hand side of the building Seconds 29 -35
(1)


black_squirrel

Con

Perhaps a better title would be the “twin towers were demolished”, because my opponent claims that the collapse of both towers of the world trade center were the result of a controlled demolition on 9/11/2001.



To decide which hypothesis is the most likely one we have to ask ourselves three questions: “How?” “Who?” and “Why?”.



Here is the official story that I support:



How? Two jet-fuel filled airplanes hit the towers.


American Airlines flight 11, a Boeing 767, hit the North Tower at 8:46:30.





(You can hear the plane and if you watch closely you can see it too, even though it is very fast. Because it was unexpected, there is not much footage of the first hit.)



United Airlines flight 175, also a Boeing 767, hit the South Tower at 9:03:02.





The South Tower collapses at 9:58:59.



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



The North Tower collapses at 10:28:22.



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



http://en.wikipedia.org...




Who?


Flight 11 was hijacked by


Mohamed Atta


Abdulaziz al-Omari


Waleed al Shehri


Wail al Shehri


Satam al-Suqami


http://en.wikipedia.org...



Flight 175 was hijacked by


Marwan al-Shehhi


Feyed Banihammad


Hamza al-Ghamdi


Ahmed al-Ghamdi


Mohand al-Shehri


http://en.wikipedia.org...



These hijackers were members of al-Qaeda. The attack was ordered by Osama bin Laden.



Why?


Osama bin Laden declared a holy war against the united states


http://en.wikipedia.org...


“Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”


His hatred against the USA comes from his objection to USA involvement in the middle east.



My opponent answered “How?” (controlled demolition), but not “Who?” and “Why?”.



The collapse does not look at all like a controlled demolition. In a controlled demolition,


the whole tower falls, destroying the first floor, then the second floor etc.



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



But in the twin towers, the floors crumbled from the floor of impact downwards. Were the alleged explosives on the exact same floor as the impact of the planes?



If it was a controlled demolition, the demolition and the planes had to be coordinated.


If one is going to make a controlled demolition, why bother flying two planes in the buildings as well? This does not make any sense to me. Please explain.


Rebuttals:



PRO: “The material of the twin towers is ejected outwards from the collapse zone and is not piling or stacking up like you would expect from a progressive collapse.”



Why would you expect that?



PRO: “The building self implodes from top to bottom , all the material is turned to dust so where does the energy come from to crush the building below it while self imploding into dust in an outward manner.”



If it turns into dust it would still have the same weight. It is also not obvious to me that all the material is turned to (fine) dust. There is a big dust cloud, so we cannot really see what is happening inside the cloud.



PRO: “If gravity caused the collapse of the building sending shockwaves down the building pulverising material outward then how come in you can see the sections of the building self imploding themselves at a faster rate than gravity as would be expected from a gravitational collapse.Notice the right hand side of the building Seconds 29 -35”



How fast did you expect it to implode? Can you show some calculations and give us the assumptions you base these calculations on?




I am looking forward to my opponents explanation, who made the alleged controlled demolition, and why. And also his explanation how the airplanes and the demolition were coordinated.


Debate Round No. 1
truther1111

Pro

Ok thanks Con for having the guts to challenge this sensitive debate topic.

First off the topic was of debate was whether the Twin tower was demolished not who or how they did it .
Why did I keep it to that?
Because people get emotional or sensitive talking about who did it.
How they did it is too broad a topic to be discussed online but we should start a new criminal investigation into the matters.

By the way im sure most people know the official story of 911 and have seen the planes hit the towers on TV repeatedly.


Back to the debate:

1.
You make a good point the tower does not look like a classic controlled demolition.
The building had to be demolished from the top down, otherwise it would be too obvious.
Building 7 which was not hit by a plane however was the classic controlled demolition.

The explosives were likely in the core 47 columns and elevator shafts of the tower protected from the explosion of the plane.
The explosives were likely all throughout the building .
The planes were likely remotely hijacked via remote control

Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control. In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement:

"There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..."


"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..."

The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.

Why fly the planes into the towers?
For pychological warfare purposes, 'shock and awe'.
Also to cover up the demolition of the towers.





(1)
http://911review.com...

Rebuttal

-I would expect that as a progressive collapse is when the weight progresively builds up and causes subsequent failures of the steel columns below it.

Really ? Dust is in the air, the dust is in the air and obviously not piliing up.


How fast did you expect it to implode? Can you show some calculations and give us the assumptions you base these calculations on?

Good question, and the answer is no one expected it to implode, so I and no one else can give you such a calculation .




black_squirrel

Con

PRO: "First off the topic was of debate was whether the Twin tower was demolished not who or how they did it ."

If the towers were demolished with explosives, then someone must have done that. If the answer to "Who?" is nobody,
then the towers were not demolished.

Also, I do not think anyone would go through the effort of blowing up two towers, without having some reasons. If "Why?" does not have an answer, then the towers were not demolished.


PRO: "You make a good point the tower does not look like a classic controlled demolition.
The building had to be demolished from the top down, otherwise it would be too obvious.
Building 7 which was not hit by a plane however was the classic controlled demolition. "

Demolished from the top down? Have you any examples where a building was demolished like that? Can you post a video?
But OK, suppose that in the unlikely event that someone planned the demolition from the top down.
Then WHY did they make the demolition of building 7 look like a classical demolition?

"The explosives were likely in the core 47 columns and elevator shafts of the tower protected from the explosion of the plane.
The explosives were likely all throughout the building .
The planes were likely remotely hijacked via remote control "

This is pure speculation. I think all those things are very unlikely.

Andreas von Buelow

Let me first point out that he was "secretary of defense", but a secretary of defense in Germany is one of the 2 deputies to the minister of defense. He did write a book on a 9/11 conspiracy book, and sold lots of copies. I am not sure if he believes what he writes. His book consists of many unproven assertions, without providing a consistent alternative theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(book)


"The author admitted that much of the material came from the Internet and discharged the burden of proof by claiming that it was for the American government to refute the allegations rather than for him to prove them.["


"There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..."
Not a shred of evidence:



von Buelow claimed that some of the hijackers were still alive. But:
"If Below had inquired with the airline, he would have discovered that the name of the pilot who lives in Casablanca is Walid al-Shri and not, like that of the assassin, Walid al-Shari. This minor detail makes a big difference, namely the difference between a dead terrorist and a living innocent man. But to conspiracy theorists, discovering the truth is like solving a crossword puzzle for children: What's a four-letter word for a domesticated animal? Hrse."

http://www.spiegel.de...

"The third example concerns a supposedly ominous computer company in the town of Wentorf near Hamburg, where some of the later attackers and their friends worked. "There are said to be anonymous indications from secret service circles suggesting that the company may have been nothing more than a letterbox company," claims Bülow.

Complete nonsense. Although the Hay Computing Company does have a letterbox, it's firmly attached to a red brick building in which flesh-and-blood employees actually perform real work. And the company has about as much to do with the secret services as this former German minister has to do with the truth: nothing.

"It is not my job to develop a provable hypothesis," says Bülow, "I can only gather the pieces of the puzzle and state that this or that element happens to be unusual." "

http://www.spiegel.de...


Well, maybe I leave it at this. Andreas von Buelow is not credible.

CON: Why fly the planes into the towers?
PRO: For psychological warfare purposes, 'shock and awe'.
Also to cover up the demolition of the towers.

Well, I think blowing up the two towers would have been "shock and awe" enough. And why not fly a plane into building 7?
If it was a cover up, it was a really bad one. This is not believable.

PRO: "Really ? Dust is in the air, the dust is in the air and obviously not piliing up."
I don't think the dust cloud we see at the tower's collapse is like regular dust in the air.
It is a mixture of small and large debris, so much that of it that you cannot see through it.

PRO: "Good question, and the answer is no one expected it to implode, so I and no one else can give you such a calculation . "
No one expected airplanes to fly into the towers. There is very little precedent of airplanes flying into buildings, certainly not with large fuel-filled planes such as the Boeing 767. I would not be sure what to expect. Do you have any calculations that show you what must happen when a large airplane flies into a large building?


Now back to:

WHO?

My opponent does not want to answer this question but he already has. If the American government has the technology of remote controlled airplanes, he is suggesting that the American government is behind this. (Which is also von Buelow's theory.)
But this opens up a lot of questions. Mostly...

WHY
would the government of the USA do this? To justify a war in Iraq and Afghanistan? (This is von Buelow's theory.) Why then, would they put Saudi hijackers in their "remote controlled" airplanes? Why not a mixture of Iraqi's and Afghanistani's? The Bush administration had such a hard time justifying the war in Iraq.





Debate Round No. 2
truther1111

Pro

Who and how and Why the did it is a topic that could last several years on a debate forum, that is why I wanted to have a debate about just the technical collapse of the building itself.
But oh well lets do a little conspiracy theorizing. I can only theorize about who or how or why .

The towers were demolished top down to make it look like it had been destroyed by a result of the plane hitting the tower, if they put the explosives in the lower part of the building it would look like a controlled demolition. Therefore it was very smart of them to make it a top down controlled demolition.
This requires extreme technical capabilities far greater than any terrorists could have planned.
So we can rule out terrorists.

There is no precedent for a top down demolision that is true.
There is also no precedent for a high rise skycraper to collapse due to fire yet on 911 it happened 3 times on the same day and never before or again and there have been worse fires in skyscrapers like the chinese meridian hotel.

Why did they make building 7 look like a controlled demolition ? good question but they didnt and still dont show the collapse of that building on mainstream TV.
The power of the mainstream media is such that you can cover up the collapse of one of the worst high rise buildings to collapse and even today less than half of new york citizens know it happened, I have talked to engineers who hadnt heard of it yet its the worst and only collapse of a skyscraper due to fire lol apart from the twin towers of course.

Andreas Von Buelow
He served as secretary of state in the German Federal Ministry of Defence (1976-1980) and Minister for Research and Technology (1980-1982) . Not qualified enough?

Lufthansa removed the ability of remote hijacking from their planes according to Von buelow.

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.
From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.

Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control

In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement:-
"There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..."
Not quite so much a theory as might first appear. When I released the above report about "Home Run" remote control in October 2001, I mentioned that one European flag carrier was aware of the technology, though at that precise point in time I thought it prudent not to name the actual airline:-
"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..."
The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.
How very clever (and discreet) of Von Buelow to sort of "drop the information" into the middle of an interview about the 9/11 attacks!


The technology existed for some time and therefore its not far fetched or unlikely. Especially considering that the terrorists could barely fly a Cesna and no profesional pilots themselves cannot replicate what the terrorists did in a flight simulator.

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org...


The claim is not that some of the alleged hijackers were still alive, but rather that men with the same identities were reported alive after 9/11. Furthermore, while it is true that some of the "alive" stories were simply cases of mistaken identity, there are also instances where this is not the case.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org...

Building 7 was demolished for the reason the securites fraud documents were kept there it was kept secret. If it was a cover up and such a bad one then why did they get away with it, it doesnt matter what they do the american publich will believe what they want to believe , its very obvious.

The dust and debris was ejected horizontally and did not stack up that is why at the bottom of the towers there wasnt stacks or debris of 90,000 tonnes of concrete , where did it go remember those big dust clouds .


Com'No one expected airplanes to fly into the towers. There is very little precedent of airplanes flying into buildings, certainly not with large fuel-filled planes such as the Boeing 767. I would not be sure what to expect. Do you have any calculations that show you what must happen when a large airplane flies into a large building? '

Irrelevant as a plane crashing into a building will not cause the undamaged areas to self implode however the towers were specifically designed to withstand multiple jet airliners crashing into them.



On 911 there were drills in which terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the wtc, when i heard that I knew that it was an inside job regardless of the other evidence. So people were expecting that possibility.

;

Do I have calculations for a jet hitting a building? no,the engineers who built it do apparently but asymetrical damage due to a plane impact would cause the top of the building to topple over towards the damaged are it would not collapse symetrically .

Who ? I can only theorize but investigative research has been done and cant be explained in this topic , I therefore recommend you read the book or watch the video . Some call them the 'global mafia' corporate criminal elements which have subverted our democracy.




WHY? Many reasons , one being the iraq afghanistan war the other the securities were to expire on sep 12th also the 2.3trillion dollars of black operations covered up in the pentagon strike.
Why saudis? because Saudi Intelligence works with Mossad and the cia ,Bush and prince Bandar, and the bin laden family

http://www.presstv.ir...
black_squirrel

Con

PRO:"Who and how and Why the did it is a topic that could last several years on a debate forum, that is why I wanted to have a debate about just the technical collapse of the building itself. "

Yes, the debate about "who" and "why" could last several years indeed, because the conspiracy would grow and grow and make it more unlikely. So far, my opponent has argued the the USA conspired with the Mossad, Osama bin Laden, the Saudi government, and the mainstream media. If this debate had continued for some more rounds, he probably would have implicated the NYFD and NYPD as well.

PRO:"There is no precedent for a top down demolition that is true."
Which makes it very unlikely that such a demolition was used here.

PRO:"Why did they make building 7 look like a controlled demolition ? good question but they didn't and still don't show the collapse of that building on mainstream TV. "
My opponent doe not have an answer for why they would make building 7 look like a controlled demolition, and throws in a red herring.

I am not arguing that Von Buelow is not qualified. But he has no proofs and he does not claim to have proofs. According to him, the burden of proof is with the USA government. All he does is say that certain things are possible, not that they actually happened, or that it is even likely that it happened.

Could theoretically the USA government use technology to remote control Boeing 767? Probably. But did they? Probably not.

I conclude with:

Occam's razor

The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor
(if the link doesn't work: this is the wikipedia page on Occam's razor)


We have 2 theories:

Theory 1: We say two planes fly into the WTC. The towers came down. The collapse was caused by the planes flying into the tower.

Theory 2: The USA put explosives in the two towers and building 7. They conspired with the airlines to put remote controls in the planes. Then they used remote controls to make two passengers airplanes fly into the two towers, but not into building 7. The explosives in the two towers were placed such that the demolition looks top down, even though such a demolition is unprecedented. However, they made the demolition of building 7 look like a regular demolition.But they also conspired with the mainstream media, so that they would not show the demolition of building 7 on tv. Then the USA put the names out of Saudi terrorists, so that the American public would blame Afghanistan and Iraq. Then the USA government conspired with Osama bin Laden, so that he would
claim the blame.

Theory 1 is simpler than Theory 2.
Theory 1 explains better what happen than Theory 2, because Theory 2 has more inconsistency and unexplained details than Theory 1.

By Occam's razor, Theory 1 is the best.

VOTE CON!!!!

I thank my opponent for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
Can anyone answer my first questions without diverting the topic to who did it ?
Posted by black_squirrel 3 years ago
black_squirrel
OK that still did not work. But click on the link, and then
click on "The CIA and September 11 (book)".
Posted by black_squirrel 3 years ago
black_squirrel
The first link should be

http://en.wikipedia.org...(book)

(Somehow, when you copy and paste links, it does not always work.)
Posted by Cheetah 3 years ago
Cheetah
Your enemy would be Noam Chomsky, he is probably the father of anti-truthers
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 3 years ago
Speakerfrthedead
This is something I've always thought about. Glad I'm not the only one
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
truther1111black_squirrelTied
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: I am awarding arguments to Con in this debate as I believe Con made a far more reliable debate which relied on logic and pointing out flaws like Who did it?. Also I am not sure why Pro trusts a source from the German government (who agrees with his views) rather than other government figures (that don't agree with his views). This rational makes no sense. I thought both debaters were well conducted and so conduct points are split. S&G was equal, but I would recommend some work on that. Regarding source points, I am not awarding as the sources cited seem biased and not balanced or wiki.