The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Were the twin towers brought down in a inside job?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/9/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 345 times Debate No: 92563
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




First I would like to thank Outlaw for accepting this debate.

My opening argument is simple. Their is no evidence that termite, or any other explosive was used. By this I mean their has been no trace of termite residue found in the dust and termite does not just disappear. I realize Outlaw has multiple possible responses to this but I'll refute them once they are provided.


Thank you for having me, always fun.

Firstly it should be stated that the explosives likely used weren't something you can buy at your local grocery store. It would be military grade thermite that the civillian population couldn't buy and possibly wasn't even aware of. While we do not know exactly what explosive was used, we do know that explosives of some kind were used. The usual argument heard is that "jet fuel cannot melt steel beams." One of my sources says Jet fuel burns at 1000C. Whatever fuel was left after the massive fireballs visible when the planes crashed would burn up very quickly. It is even doubtful any was left to burn minutes after initial impact.

The likely argument against the molten steel is this: that steel didn't need to be melted to bring them down.
"It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425"C and loses about half of its strength at 650"C."
And if the towers had simply fallen without molten steel being found for weeks afterward by dozens of people, this conclusion would work, seeing as the fuel burns at 1000 which is greater than 650. However molten steel was found at the site, meaning something caused it. Jet fuel alone could not do this.

This is also exemplified in a Popular Mechanics article:
"FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800" to 1500"F, [454-815C] not hot enough to melt steel (2750"F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength"and that required exposure to much less heat."

Again, I am not arguing against the proven FACT that Jet Fuel could WEAKEN the beams enough to bring the towers down. I am arguing that the molten steel found could not possibly have been present given the official story.

Steel melts at 1370C and Iron melts at 2750C. The highest temp jet fuel can burn at according to my sources is 1000C. This makes it unable to cause steel to melt. Weaken, but not melt.

"In common circumstances, the maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely exceed 1800"F. [982C] The average gas temperature in a fully developed fire is not likely to reach 1500"F. Temperatures of fires that have not developed to post-flashover stage will not exceed 1000"F." Given this, both jet fuel and regular building fires including furniture and such cannot exceed 1000C. Now some might say that the temperatures combine during a fire, making the heat reach 2000C. This is simply false. A match burns at about 800C max, two matches put together would burn at the same temperature. The same goes for a hundred matches. The duration and radius of the heat would increase of course, but the temperature would stay the same. As a little real world example, if you could increase the temperature of fire by adding more of the same fuel, you could reach the temperature of the sun 5,505"C, with about seven matches.

So while thermite residues may not have been found (we could debate that for hours) it doesn't matter, because none of the materials present according to the official story could've caused steel to melt.

Now that we've sorted all that out, wheres the molten steel?

q=pools+of+molten+steel+911&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=967&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJm_Ktj5zNAhUWc1IKHYgVDb0Q_AUIBigB (didnt feel like doing each picture)

Firstly I am not referring to the stuff "pouring out" of the sides of the towers moments before collapse. That has already been more or less debunked. Plus, if it were steel, the building would already be collapsing since the weakened state would've already been met if it were hot enough to melt.

II-A. Testimony from Firefighters:
New York Fire Department Captain Philip Ruvolo said: "You"d get down below and you"d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you"re in a foundry, like lava." [31]
Joe O"Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked on the rescue and cleanup efforts, reported that one beam lifted from deep below the surface months later, in February 2002, "was dripping from the molten steel." [32]
New York firefighters recalled in the documentary film Collateral Damages, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." [33]

This combined with images and even more testimonies regarding the presence of molten steel, added with the extremely high temperatures present for months afterward (caused by burning desks?) can only be seen as proof something other than jet fuel and office fires played a part in bringing the towers down.

I have no problem discussing only this topic in order to remain more organized than last time. I despise Shotgun Argumentatum despite using it myself. So unless we reach a mutual conclusion on the subject of fires/thermite we can discuss this for the entire debate, fine by me. Also I'm sure you're aware of how thermite is spelled, I imagine your phones autocorrect did it but I found the notion of refuting the presence of termites in a steel building quite entertaining. :)

Sources: (didnt feel like doing each picture)
Debate Round No. 1


I"ll first start with your claim that it doesn"t matter if thermite was not found. I don"t mean to sound condescending but without an explosive nothing you say could have happened. Unless thermite was found (or some other explosive), frankly, the rest of this debate is irrelevant unless you can propose a alternative means of your theory working without explosives.
Now to your claims of molten steel being found, which simply aren"t true. First off I"d like to spin your point back at you. How does thermite burn for so long? Next, the pictures you link to seem to fall into three categories. 1. Hot metal 2. Molten aluminum (which you conceded isn"t steel) 3. Water/A light (I don"t think you want to argue firefighters can stand in molten steel) since category 2 and 3 are irrelevant let us discuss category 1. It is important to note the difference between red hot and molten. I"ll provide a link below to a picture of molten steel and the picture clearly isn"t the same as what is in category 1. Your pictures of "molten steel" are really just red hot steel.
Lastly to your testimonials. The first response that comes to mind, and which itself is sufficient in my opinion, is how do they know what type of metal it is? Did they test it or can they just tell molten steel orangeish-red from molten aluminum orangish-red? How do they know what is dripping off beams isn"t water or another metal or a plastic? These seem to be far more reasonable explanations than a giant conspiracy.
I"d like to see the full quotes. I"m not saying you are intentionally doctoring them but the truther movement has a history of misquoting.
I"ll let you decide where you want to move the conversation to.


The reason it matters not whether Thermite was found is that the official story lied in saying jet fuel and office fires alone brought the towers down and created molten steel at the bottom. While there isn't much photographic evidence, there is tons of testimonial evidence. The building was made almost entirely of steel. There wasn't very much aluminum to begin with. Saying there were molten rivers of steel is not a stretch of the imagination seeing as the entire structure was primarily made of steel. Plus aluminum wouldn't stay hot for weeks and months afterward, whereas steel would. And no, I wouldn't argue that firefighters would stand in molten steel OR molten aluminum. I do not claim the entirety of Ground Zero was a lake of molten steel, I simply claim there were patches of molten steel scattered about, somewhat covered by rubble and wreckage. I gave you the sources of the quotes, I haven't doctored anything. I believe one or more of them was from video footage in the hours and days after the attacks, perhaps those could be found with a little digging.

For now I see no reason to get off the fire stuff, I feel we are getting further already than in our last debate.
Debate Round No. 2


Of course it matters if thermite was used. This is central to the standard conspiracy claim. Most CT"s, and I assume you, argue thermite is the only possible explosive because it is quote (ignoring the fact it would take way too much.) No thermite and you have no claim. Everything else is irrelevant. There has to be a catalyst and thermite is the only suspected one and none of it was found (nor any other explosive). No explosive no explosion and no conspiracy (of the kind we are debating).
Here are four reasons why I think your testimonials shouldn"t be given weight.
1. Why is there no photographic evidence? There clearly were plenty of cameras at ground zero. One of your testimonials described a river.
2. Why was no physical evidence take? This clearly would have been wired. They didn"t they pick it up and take it somewhere to show the investigators. That described river had to lead somewhere.
3. How do they know it is steel? The twin towers were office buildings and restaurants plus whatever else. While there would have been more steel there should have been plenty of other metals. I doubt they tested the pools to see what substance they were.
4. The thermite explosions were in the tower prior/during the collapse. During the collapse the any molten steel would have dispersed. Most if not all should of hardened on the way down but even if they did why would they form pools?
5. On the ground, assuming they somehow were in pools, how would they of stayed in a liquid state so long? Once the temperature went below X they should have solidified.
I don"t think you doctored anything but your side has a history of altering quotes hence I want to see the context of the quote. I looked for the first one and could not find it


I'm not necessarily saying "thermite and nothing else was used" I am saying that the official story cannot account for much of what happened. Something more than jet fuel must have been used to create much of the evidence we were able to get our hands. Also remember, no outside tests were allowed to be done with the wreckage. They started shipping it away by the truckload. If there were any solidified pools of steel my guess is they were on those trucks, the contents of which were later melted down for scrap. And as for no residue of bombs, perhaps they were using something civilians don't know how to test for? And if they were government tests, perhaps the findings were altered? Any molten metal seen would be primarily steel, since it made up the majority of the mass of the twin towers.

And I remember you saying the firemen definitely weren't walking on pools of molten metal. I agree
"Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9"

This of course doesn't prove the temperatures were hot enough to melt steel, but it does show the heat remained for months afterward, very unlikely for jet fuel or an office fire.

Most of the hotspots are described as being buried under the rubble, and not very well ventilated. How could a hotspot retain heat for weeks without a reaction that doesn't need oxygen? Thermite (or something similar) creates its own oxygen, and would not need to be well ventilated to continue reacting and creating heat.

{The extremely high temperatures contradict the official story. Office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air (~500" to 1,500" F) cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts (2,700" F). This was even acknowledged by NIST"s Co-Project Leader, John Gross, in the same public talk where he stated regarding the phenomena of molten steel, "I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses that said so, nobody that"s produced it." Yet there is abundant proof of the molten metal, which subsequent testsreveal to be iron, in the debris piles. Furthermore, NIST itself performed extensive fire tests to establish the temperatures reached by the WTC office and jet fuel fires. The temperatures established are far below the temperatures required to produce all of the above phenomena " which occurred both before and during the destruction and at Ground Zero.

The steel problem was "solved" by NIST by excluding most of the steel from being systematically examined for failure modes and heat excursions. The steel collected by the Port Authority, which has been stored in Hangar 17 at JFK Airport, was not included in the investigation except for 12 pieces. Of the 236 pieces that NIST possessed, many were excluded based on the circular argument that only columns from impact and fire floors were of interest in the investigation. Thus, NIST avoided having to discuss 51 of its 55 core columns. Sample 1 from FEMA"s Appendix C was also excluded.}

As for more evidence of molten steel, I urge you to watch the two youtube videos sourced below. They do contain overlapping footage but there should be enough to cure your doubts as to the presence of molten steel. I have included a in the {} a bit of how evidence was suppressed.
Debate Round No. 3


But you claim requires explosives. Do you not agree? If explosives were, and they are required, they would have been found but they were not found hence no explosives were used and your controlled demolition theory is debunked. If molten metal piles were shipped away why weren"t pictures taken? I doubt there was a shortage of cameras and why isn"t there a record of these? Actually there were tests done of dust from the collapses by both conspiracy theorists and independent scientists. Both said, when accurately interpreted, no thermite was found [1].
I disagree. The twin towers housed offices, lobbies, ect. I have no doubt there would have been enough there to burn for months.
Like you said most hot spots were beneath the rubble. For a moment let me assume molten steel was found. This does not need thermite for steel to melt. The pressure would have been immense. Increased pressure will always make fires hotter because you will have more oxygen per unit. This means the stand office fire temperature is a inaccurate measure of how hot it is and that a regular fire would be significantly hotter due to pressure. This provides a alternative explanation for possible molten steel putting even more pressure on your need to prove explosives were used because we can no longer say molten steel proves explosives were used.
You say thermite creates its own oxygen and this is true but if thermite was used it would leave its residue in the dust when it collapsed the tower plus why would thermite wait till after the towers collapsed to combust? Another quick point how much thermite could be hidden? Imagine a flower pot of thermite, medium size. This isn"t enough to burn through a Xbox. Can you imagine the amount necessary to burn through steel?
Your first video (I didn"t watch the second) were relatively unconving (As I previously responded to the same type of arguments) but I think one thing reuires a comment beyond what I have said, Your videos mentioned molten steel at tower 6. Are you arguing that the 6th tower was brought down in a demolition?


An explosive of some sort would be required yes. Perhaps one we are unaware of how to trace, as I mentioned earlier. The molten metal piles were shipped away for the express purpose of ensuring no pictures were taken, that was the point. So that people like me wouldn't ask the right questions. There are still a few pictures, including video footage of the giant "meteorite" of molten steel. As I said, the explosive may not have necessarily been thermite. I find it hard to believe in a fire hot enough to warp and melt steel a piece of carpet could burn for months. Increased pressure does of course make fires hotter but 1. This does not gurantee greater oxygen content and 2. There would be almost no way for a structurally unstable building with broken glass walls to maintain pressure for any amount of time. 3. If you're referring to underground fires, they would still need a fuel source, I fail to see how an office chair would cut it. In the event thermite were used, I imagine it would be military grade, better set up and higher quality than the xbox experiment. I don't remember tower 6 being mentioned, however Ill take your word that it was mentioned in the videos. No, I have not seen or even heard of any evidence of tower 6 being brought down by controlled demo, just 1, 2, and 7. So if molten steel were found, its likely to have come from those three. As you know debris and rubble was found miles away so its no stretch to say significant chunks of towers 1,2,7 were found right beside it in 6.
Debate Round No. 4


You outlying a unfalsifiable claim. It is head you win, tails you loose. Heads traces of explosives are found. Tails the compound is not known to the public. You can't loose if a lack of evidence where evidence is required doesn't disprove you. But the molten piles were not transported under a invisible cloth. They would of been moved through a populated site where their was almost certainly a camera. The meteorite is explained by the pressure. I imagine oxygen could of been provided to the source either through cracks or ignited when debris were moved. I'm not claiming the pressure explanation for when the buildings stood. A office chair burns, does it not? So molten steel/a fire hot enough magically made its way into the debris of tower 6? I guess it is theoretically possible but it seems FAR more likely that my explanation of pressure would be responsible.

Thank you for debating


I am not saying Im right either way. I am saying that we can not rule out explosives because evidence of a known explosive wasn't found. The perpetrators would've likely used a material unknown to the public for that very reason. The molten piles of rubble were covered if I remember correctly, and may have been transported at night. People did see them getting transported away, thats how we know about it today. If air can get through a crack the chamber is not pressurized, at least adequately enough to raise the temp of a fire significantly, given the crack would have to allow oxygen in for weeks or months to continue burning. As for building six, we know rubble spread for miles it is not unlikely pieces of any kind and of most sizes would end up right next to the buildings footprint.

In conclusion, my opinion is that there was more needed than jet fuel to bring the towers down. There is almost no way the towers could've fallen and created molten steel without a foreign explosive of some kind. It is likely an explosive unknown to civilians was used, plus evidence would be hard to gather considering a lot of wreckage was carted off. This argument is of course the tip of the iceberg, there are dozens of aspects of 911 up for debate. I'd be happy to debate you on most of them (I dont believe all of the "conspiracy theories")

Thanks, this is always fun.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by oslice89 4 months ago
Ancap's point that "things don't add up" is a perfect summary as to why I'd vote for him. He put forth some evidence for his side, but I would like to note something else. The atmosphere following 9/11 would have been perfect to tamper with or destroy evidence because the people were united against an enemy on the outside. They would not have been looking for evidence of an inside job, which would allow for any evidence to vanish. I'm not saying that Bush did 9/11 or that Islam had nothing to do with it, but I would not be surprised if there was inside help. Good job on both sides of the issue. Refreshing to see a civilized debate.
Posted by TheWorldIsComplicated 4 months ago
Let's not forget all the paper and furniture inside that increased the heat. Only one steel beam needs to buckle in a building for the whole building to collapse.
Posted by KRTxBallistic 4 months ago
Pro plagiarized.
No votes have been placed for this debate.