Was 9/11 an inside job
Debate Rounds (4)
My personal questioning of the events of 9/11 began a few years later, when my sister went to a 9/11 conference and brought back books, DVDs, and enthusiasm. I watched the DVDs and became especially fascinated with one clip where the North Tower appeared to be literally erupting as it fell. One streamer caught my eye because I was able to follow its trajectory. I did some simple measurements right on the TV screen and estimated that the horizontal ejection velocity of that stream of debris was around 60 mi/hr. These ejections of material were from high in the building. How could heavy steel members be thrown sideways so fast when even the downward collapse had not picked up very much speed? This did not seem to me to be consistent with a purely gravitational collapse. I was hooked. I started using some video analysis tools I use in my teaching to analyze the motions of various ejecta and the buildings themselves.
Several videos of the collapse of both towers show waves of horizontal mass ejections that race down the faces of the buildings, nearly keeping pace with material falling outside the building, well below the zone of destruction itself. (YouTube: South Tower Coming Down and Race with Gravity.) The ejections appear to come from many floors at the same time, which is inconsistent with the idea that the ejections consisted of debris blown out floor-by-floor as the floors pancaked together. In addition to the massive waves of ejections there are many photographs and videos showing individual, focused, high-speed ejections of material many floors below the point of collapse. These are easily explained as explosive ejections. They are not convincingly explained as escaping jets of compressed air.
The lack of sufficient cause for the collapse has been thoroughly documented, disputed, rationalized, and obfuscated. The jet fuel would have burned off within the first ten minutes. Most of the fuel burned up in a fireball outside the building, especially in the case of the South Tower where the plane mostly missed the core columns. The fires in the buildings, beyond the first few minutes, were essentially office fires, and not very large ones at that, ignited by the jet fuel, like lighter fluid on charcoal. Jet fuel is kerosene. Temperatures from either kerosene or office fires are insufficient to melt, or even catastrophically weaken, the massive steel columns running up the core of the building. Even if the flames and air temperature were maximally hot, the large mass of steel would wick away the heat and not raise the steel temperature sufficiently. For the steel temperature to come close to the air temperature the fires would have to be of long duration, but these fires were very brief, on the order of an hour. There are photographs and video footage of a woman leaning on a girder and waving in the hole where one of the airplanes crashed waiting to be rescued. This would seem to be direct testimony that the fires on the floors where the impact and the jet fuel had their greatest effect, had subsided, and the air and steel temperatures were moderate enough for people to walk around and touch the steel: nowhere near hot enough to cause failure of the structural steel columns. The fact that the fires were emitting black smoke is a sign that they were not burning at high efficiency, so high estimates for fire temperatures are unwarranted. Furthermore, no steel beams recovered by NIST during its investigation showed temperatures over a few hundred degrees"far below the temperatures needed to weaken steel. (The small sample of steel studied after the event is a problem in establishing steel temperatures conclusively, but by the same token, it speaks to the rapid and near-total destruction of the crime scene. Destruction of any crime scene is itself a crime. In this case it is part of an ongoing criminal cover-up of mass murder.)
On the other extreme of temperatures, the research of Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and others have established that there were very high temperatures present in the building, not just enough to weaken steel, but to melt it. They found evidence for thermite in the rubble pile. There were pools of molten steel under the rubble piles of Buildings 1 and 2 (the North and South Towers) and Building 7 that remained molten for weeks after the building collapses, indicating a continuing energy source. NASA thermal images show evidence of high temperatures on the surface of the rubble pile for literally months, indicating even higher temperatures below. Furthermore, several research groups found tiny iron spheres in the dust scattered all over Manhattan. These are from tiny droplets of molten iron that solidified before hitting the ground. For there to be tiny spheres of iron in the dust, there had to be temperatures above the melting point of iron, and a blast event to atomize the molten iron into droplets during the collapse of the building, for it to be distributed with the dust. These are droplets of iron, not steel. They did not come from the structural steel of the towers. Iron spheres are an expected byproduct of the thermite reaction. Along with the iron spheres, Steven Jones also discovered red and gray layered chips in the dust samples, which turned out to have the signature of thermite.
In April 2009 an international team of scientists published a seminal paper identifying the red and gray chips found in the dust as high-tech nano-thermite, also known as super-thermite. Unlike ordinary thermite or thermate, which could be considered high-temperature incendiaries, nanothermite releases its energy at a much higher rate because of the high surface-to-volume ratio of the particles. When combined with suitable volatile materials, nano-thermite can be formulated as an explosive. The ignition temperature is also much lower than ordinary thermite.
Everyone has seen the destruction of the Twin Towers. Many people have never seen, or even heard about, the destruction of Building 7, a 47-story building across the street from the North Tower. For many people it was seeing Building 7 fall that brought them into the 9/11 Truth Movement. Building 7 came down at 5:20 in the evening of 9/11, even though it was not hit by an airplane and only had fires on a few floors. If you have ever seen a controlled demolition on TV, that is what the collapse of Building 7 looked like. It was a bottom-up demolition. It looks like the building is just sinking into the ground. The roof line stayed level as it fell, implying that the onset of collapse was simultaneous across the whole width of the building, and it came down in freefall, implying that it met zero resistance. I had heard others claim that it fell at freefall, which seemed hard to believe, so I measured the rate of collapse myself. I can confirm that the first 2.5 seconds of the collapse is indistinguishable from absolute freefall. Everything about the collapse points to controlled demolition. The 9/11 commission omitted any mention of Building 7, and the main NIST investigation offered no explanation for its collapse.
fuckboysteve101 forfeited this round.
fuckboysteve101 forfeited this round.
ligthabll12 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff more than Con, so conduct to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.