The Instigator
AngstChrist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TN05
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Was 7 World Trade Center Intentionally Demolished on 9-11-2001?

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 3 votes the winner is...
TN05
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,441 times Debate No: 38858
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (3)

 

AngstChrist

Pro

I submit to you that 7 World Trade Center was intentionally destroyed by either the US government or someone else attached to the wider 9-11 conspiracy. The fact that it was not struck by a plane is as damning as the fact that 7WT was a steel building - a steel building, even if it burns completely, should leave a structural skeleton when done.

Not so with 7WT- it, like towers 1 and 2, collapsed inward. This lends credence to conspiracy theorists and anyone with a lick of common sense, who saw the building fall as if it were a controlled demolition.
TN05

Con

7 World Trade Center was not hit by a plane, but it was hit by something that can be just as bad - heavy falling debris from another building, damaging it's south face.[1] I don't care what you think, but when two 110-story steel office buildings dump debris on your building, you are screwed. As an example, let's look at 3 World Trade Center - a hotel complex convienently located between the two towers,[2] was totally destroyed during the collapse due to falling debris.[3] All the other buildings in the complex suffered damage severe enough to warrant demolition.[3] In 2011, UK publication The Daily Mail reported of a rare video circulating that demonstrated clearly that the building was suffering heavy fire damage. Among other things, this video demonstrates that, well prior to its collapse, the building was demonstrating clear signs that it's structure could not handle the fire.[4] The sprinklers in the building failed, and the fire was allowed to burn so long that it was able to critically damage the building - the youtube video I linked explains why. The temperature was not enough to melt the structures, but it was enough to weaken it until, part by part, the building failed.

As you can see the collapse of WTC 7 was due to two things - being literally hit by another building, causing major damage and starting fires, and then suffering major fire damage to boot. This is more than enough for it to have collapsed. My opponent's conspiracy theory garbage is utterly refuted.

References:
Debate Round No. 1
AngstChrist

Pro

As much as my opponent wishes to shut me down and as much as I appreciate a well cited post, these refutations still don't pass the smell test on the basis that the 7WT was a steel structure.

I do not doubt in any way that 7WT was damaged. Nobody doubts that this building was damaged - what I have a problem with is how the building came down so completely and so cleanly. It has been stated in my opponent's argument that the building could not withstand the fire that raged within - its a steel building, built to rigid NY fire codes and as such, the building should have retained its internal skeleton.

Instead, it fell, floor upon floor, into itself. Is this some part of the fire code that I missed or was it a planned demolition designed to allow the building owner to collect on the insurance? Was there something hidden in 7WT that had to be destroyed? The building should have had something left after the fire, but instead, it fell as if it were by design.

This also jibes with eyewitness accounts of what happened that day, that they were ordered to clear the area prior to the "collapse" of 7WT - reports of a "countdown" popped up, supporting the claim of a controlled demolition:

http://activistnyc.wordpress.com...

http://www.liveleak.com...

Disparage me all you want, ladies and gentlemen - there are a lot of unanswered questions out there that should be addressed. We were led into a war based on false pretenses, the biggest of which was the 9-11 attacks themselves.
TN05

Con

Before I get started, I want to make it very clear that my opponent has not rebutted any of my arguments. Why? Because he cannot rebut them. Facts are facts, and facts are not on his side here. The fact my opponent expects a steel building to remain completely intact after a very big fire is enough to show you his knowledge on the topic (zero).

As my video stated, the building did not fall symmetrically. To quote it:
"From the 7th floor to the 47th floor, [the building] was supported by 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns... the building was not symmetrical. 21 of the interior columns formed a rectangular building core. The remaining three interior columns (columns 79, 80, and 81)... had to support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. Fire introduced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding column 79 led to the collapse of floor 13. This triggered a cascade of floor failures all the way down to the much stronger fifth floor. This left column 79 unsupported, and therefore it buckled eastward and collapsed. The effects of this can be clearly seen in the video, as the east penthouse was directly above column 79. When it collapsed, so did the penthouse... The load of the building was then redistributed on to adjacent columns, which were also having to deal with debris falling on them. This led to column 80 and then 81 buckling as well, which led to all the floors on the east side collapsing, leaving the east side of the building essentially just a hollow shell. Failure of the interior columns then proceeded towards the west because of loss of lateral support and falling debris, and as the exterior columns were still standing, it funneled in all of the debris down, accounting for the relatively neat pile of rubble at the end. With... essentially the whole of the core of the building falling, all you're left with is just this empty shell of World Trade Center 7, and the perimeter columns could no longer support its own weight, so it began to buckle between floors seven and 14, and the entire building came down as one single unit."

In other words - this was no demolition. It was a building collapse caused by fire and debris, as the collapse of the penthouse proves. My opponent's case is utterly and thoroughly refuted.


Debate Round No. 2
AngstChrist

Pro

I get that my opponent does not like this topic to be questioned and that I am asking questions that make him uncomfortable.

For that I am sorry, but perhaps this just wasn't your forum?

That said, at no time did I indicate an expectation that the building remain intact. I question the means by which it was brought down and how it was brought down, leaving no steel skeleton behind. I am not a physicist or engineer, but I do have a basic understanding of both and of how fire affects building materials such as steel.

My opponent, while attempting to be well cited and argumentative, posted citations and links, good for him, but fails to answer HOW exactly the building fell without having taken a direct hit to its internal structure. I say again, if you buy the line that towers 1 and 2 were destroyed by planes destroying their internal structures, that's one thing, but 7WT was not hit in this manner, and no, the fire did not burn hot enough to melt the steel in ANY of these structures.
TN05

Con

To repeat the obvious fact here - WTC7 was hit by two 110-story buildings, and then caught on fire. It collapsed from a combination of the two. How is that hard to believe? The correct answer is, unless you are a conspiracy nut, it isn't.

My opponent has not challenged anything I have said, and is simply repeating the same nonsense over and over. He has provided no real, reliable citations for his information, and is simply repeating the same denialist lines over and over. He has not proven WTC7 was intentionally demolished, and as such he should lose this debate. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
But it is that simple mate. And I challenge your assertion that "because our government has done shady $h!t in the past it must mean they are responsible now" and I sure as hell will take you head on with your gulf of Tonkin claim of conspiracy. I am a huge history buff and the GoT incident Is a subject I have spent many an hour in study of. I'll spin your head round with what I can tell you on that. I'd even accept a debate challenge on wether it not the GoT incident was a conspericy.
Posted by AngstChrist 3 years ago
AngstChrist
Its not as black and white as picking one side or another - the fact is, there are many unanswered questions out there and because our government has engaged in horrendous conspiracies in the past, such as the Gulf of Tonkin, a reasonable person leaves open the possibility that we're being lied to.

I don't have the answers, but when it comes to how the building came down in the way it did, neither does anyone else. I stand by my assertion that the building came down in too clean a fashion to have been hit in the manner the official story suggests.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
You say you don't have the answers but then insist that 9/11 was an inside job. HOW CAN YOU DO THAT?
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
You've completely contradicted yourself here since you are doing far more then just asking a question or urging people to ask questions. You have already stated that you believe you know that 9/11 was an inside job, the government was behind it, and that two reasons for said false flag was so they could invade Iraq and the patriot act implementation. This is no longer you asking a question but making a statement on what you believe that truth is regardless of wether or not your question was even answered. It's one or the other dude. Either you do know and this you are the one who needs to provide the proof to prove your claim or you don't know and this you need to accept when the truth is shoved in your face. "I just flat out refuse to believe what's in front of me because it just doesn't "APPEAR" to be truthful". So this makes you believe in all the BS conspiracy crap we've discussed?
Posted by AngstChrist 3 years ago
AngstChrist
All Im doing is urging people to look beyond the official story. I don't claim to have the answers, I just flat out refuse to believe what's in front of me because it doesn't appear to be truthful.
Posted by AngstChrist 3 years ago
AngstChrist
All Im doing is urging people to look beyond the official story. I don't claim to have the answers, I just flat out refuse to believe what's in front of me because it doesn't appear to be truthful.
Posted by AngstChrist 3 years ago
AngstChrist
All Im doing is urging people to look beyond the official story. I don't claim to have the answers, I just flat out refuse to believe what's in front of me because it doesn't appear to be truthful.
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
Your comment on Iraq is a negative ghost rider.

I'd explain why but I'm going to eat lunch instead =)
Posted by ararmer1919 3 years ago
ararmer1919
As to show my good faith and to be fair I will not be voting on this debate, but I'm pretty sure you all know how I would vote. The one thing I will say on that is that Pro did in fact lose the argument since it was his debate proposal and burden of proof wasps him, NOT con. In his opening statement pro states that the tower was brought down by controlled det, BUT not one single time did he offer any evidence or facts to support this and instead resulted to asking con multiple questions many of which were the same ? Just worded differently in an attempt to push the burden of proof on to con. This is a shady tactic. And As I have stated before have already stated a question, no matter who's asking or what it is asking is not a fact nor is it proof or evidence. This is a complete failure on pros part and since he has not proved his case he losses. Sources and grammar and conduct were pretty much the same though con had better sources. You would tie on those 3 aspects. So Pro of you could actually present a case that actually provides proof of your claims and not just a random bunch if questions with the assumption that if these questions were not answered then something sinister happened then I would LOVE to hear it.

It isn't that I blatantly refuse to hear out truthers theories. On the contrary I hear them all out completely and intently. The only reason I refuse to accept them and why I an so harsh on them is because I have yet to hear a single theory that actually makes sense or is based on ANY proof whatsoever. If you have any please pass it along.
Posted by AngstChrist 3 years ago
AngstChrist
I didn't lie. Bush and people around him, cited Iraq as a suspect in 9-11. The only disrespect to the fallen was being there in the first place. He had no WMD, he was not a threat to the United States and the pretense for the invasion, 9-11 was a lie because no connection was ever proven.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
AngstChristTN05Tied
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: "To repeat the obvious fact here - WTC7 was hit by two 110-story buildings, and then caught on fire. It collapsed from a combination of the two. How is that hard to believe? The correct answer is, unless you are a conspiracy nut, it isn't." Pro really should have responded to con's case, instead of spewing the same dogmatic argument of his religion over and over again.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
AngstChristTN05Tied
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: pro simply repeated his own arguments over and over that con had refuted, and con presented overwhelming evidence that it was more then feasible enough for WTC to collapse on its own on 9/11 because of damage it sustained from the collapsing twin towers located right next to it..... Arguments and sources to con
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
AngstChristTN05Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Questions aren't rebuttals.