The Instigator
fuckboysteve101
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ligthabll12
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Was 9/11 an inside job

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
ligthabll12
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 372 times Debate No: 80385
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

fuckboysteve101

Pro

The events of 9/11 were huge. The body of evidence that the administration, or other agencies within the US government, were involved is also huge. The problem with summarizing the information is that the scale of the operation and its cover-up are so vast. Finding smoking guns is like picking up litter on a field. It's hard to move in a straight line. That makes it hard to create a simple narrative.

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.
ligthabll12

Con

let me ask you something why would one of our very own Americans try and destroy one of our own towers no. after the war with iraq after suddam hossain gave up osama bin laden went over to kuwait and destroyed one of are very own navy ships i would know my dad was one of the people who rushed over there as fast as the boat would go he told me that osama bin laden sent a message to the government and told them he was behind it later the 9/11. and all this would have stopped if bush did not send people to attack iraq
Debate Round No. 1
fuckboysteve101

Pro

let me ask you a question why would anyone vote for barrack obama? beacuse they hate glorious country and they dont care. bush did 9/11i in conjunction with his good friende osama bin laden. jet fuel cant melt steel beams so how would the towers fall down. vote trump
ligthabll12

Con

yeah of course 'but my friend you are forgeting things as in the items in the twin towers and trump is also another reason he will ruin america and by the way why we going on about politics when we are supposed to be debating about if the 9/11 was an inside job.
Debate Round No. 2
fuckboysteve101

Pro

fuckboysteve101 forfeited this round.
ligthabll12

Con

my opponents account has been closed
Debate Round No. 3
fuckboysteve101

Pro

fuckboysteve101 forfeited this round.
ligthabll12

Con

ligthabll12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ninjahammer 1 year ago
Ninjahammer
It doesn't and it's also wrong. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams, but they can make them soft enough that they break under the wieght.
Posted by Bosoxfaninla 1 year ago
Bosoxfaninla
How does questioning the physics of it make it an inside job? Last time I checked the government doesn'tr have anti-physics technology.
Posted by Bosoxfaninla 1 year ago
Bosoxfaninla
How does questioning the physics of it make it an inside job? Last time I checked the government doesn'tr have anti-physics technology.
Posted by Ninjahammer 1 year ago
Ninjahammer
Dank fuel can't melt steel memes.
Posted by Reeseroni 1 year ago
Reeseroni
Jet fuel can't melt these memes
Posted by soccerisfun 1 year ago
soccerisfun
Jet fuels can't melt steel beams
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
fuckboysteve101ligthabll12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff more than Con, so conduct to Con.