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

Your choice out of some of my favorite topics

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 64719
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




It has been several months since my last debate, and I wish to return, at least for a little bit. It has been too long since I have struck fear into the hearts of my enemies! Mwahaha!
Please choose one of the following topics, in parentheses is my position on the topic, so you will be arguing opposite:
Women in Combat (Con)
US military vs. Russian military (Russian)
9/11 was an inside job (Pro)
Russian T-90 vs. American Abrams (T-90)
AK-47 vs. M16 (AK-47)
Death Penalty (Con)

In Round One, no arguments, just state which of the above you would like to debate. Also please confirm your position on the topic. No new arguments in the last round. So! Let's begin! Any questions can be answered in the comments.


I accept the debate. I will be con for the resolution "9/11 was an inside job." Keep in mind that, as my opponent is making a positive claim whilst I am doing no such thing, the burden of proof is on him.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Marvelous, thank you for accepting. Let's begin!

First, I will begin with simple statistics.
The skyscraper was built to withstand wind loads 30 times greater than the weight of the plane, yet somehow, the building still collapsed. This suggests the use of additional explosives that were detonated at the time of the collision to "help" bring the tower down.

Many people point to burning jet fuel as the source of the problem, however, this too is false. Jet fuel burns at about 600 C, but the melting point of steel (which the "skeleton" of the building was made of) is 1500 C. Jet fuel would have done virtually nothing to contribute to the fall of the buildings.

Considering the above, I think it is safe to say that there is no way that the planes alone could have caused the fall of the skyscrapers.

I will expand on my arguments in the next round. On to Pro.


This is an interesting argument made by pro. However, I'm afraid it's a little off. Let's look at the what the flaws in the case are.

First of all, pro cites the following source:

This source is used to justify the claim: "This suggests the use of additional explosives that were detonated at the time of the collision to "help" bring the tower down." However, the source in question doesn't say anything about this. In fact, the source provides an excellent explanation for why the towers fell, and (spoiler alert) it doesn't involve planted explosives. I will get to this fascinating yet scientific explanation in a moment.

However, let's first examine my opponent's second claim. He preemptively attempts to refute evidence against his position: jet fuel. My opponent is correct in his knowledge of the burning temperature of jet fuel under such circumstances and of the melting point of steel. However, the claim that 600 degree C temperatures "would have done virtually nothing to contribute to the fall of the buildings" is false and, ironically, refuted by his own source. Steel loses about half it's strength under such heat. Then, add one final factor into the equation. The exterior of the columns would have been heated first, creating what is known as "residual stress." Essentially, the uneven weakening of the steel would cause the column to fail. After the top floor fell, the rest of the building did too. [1]

In conclusion, there is a scientific explanation for the collapsing of the towers with no need to invoke a conspiracy theory. Also, my opponent's own source disagrees with his position.


Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for posting such a well-crafted response (much better than I usually receive on this subject).

"In fact, the source provides an excellent explanation for why the towers fell, and (spoiler alert) it doesn't involve planted explosives. "
While that is true, I am merely using the article's facts to support my claim that the plane alone could not have caused the crash.

My opponent then addresses my claim that even jet-fuel temperatures would have caused the steel columns to fail. The very next sentence in the article states that: "But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650"C fire."

Even with the steel columns weakened, the plane alone could not have caused the crash.

I will now continue with further arguments.

Even weeks after the disaster, firefighting teams could find pools of molten steel and iron. There is no way a jet-fuel flame could have caused this. The presence of molten metal pools suggests the use of thermite.

Yet another interesting fact that proves a planned demolition of the towers is the picture below. One can clearly see the clean-cut steel column. This is the way metal pillars look after having been cut by "cutter charges" used by demolition teams.

Next. Consider the fact that the US has an air-defense system known as NORAD. Being a highly advanced defense system, NORAD conducted 67 successful interceptions in 2000, but then suddenly fails twice in one day?

I would also like to note that the "Bin Laden tapes" released by the CIA are fake. Take a look at the man in the video, he is clearly not Osama.

I will bring in more arguments next Round.

I await my opponent's response.


Raistlin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Extend my previous arguments into this Round. I request that the voters do not penalize my opponent for the forfeit.


First, I apologize for forfeiting last round. I had some nasty internet issues that ended up deleting my argument, and by the time I reconstructed it, it was too late. I would like to sincerely thank pro for forgiving my previous forfeiture and ask voters to remember this in the "better conduct" point. However, all of his arguments are faulty, and although I lost a round, I am not about to let those to unchallenged.

Firstly, he accurately quotes the source [1] as saying that the heating of the steel alone is insufficient, a fact which he established in the last round. However, he fails to counter my point about uneven heating and buckling stress. Therefore, he has dropped this argument. I would love for him to address it next round, but please note the dropped argument when voting.

Next, he quotes a source claiming that molten steel and iron were found in the towers. His source, however, is unreliable. It is a secondary source with no citations. When looking at my source [2], note that every point is cited. There is no evidence of any molten metal found a ground zero. This wasn't included in any report, contradicting the account of molten metal found by firemen. Pro's source is simply unreliable.

Next, he cites a single piece of steel as proof that explosives were used. This is simply ridiculous. One would need much more evidence than one coincidence to prove a massive conspiracy.

Finally, there are serious ethical issues involved with shooting down a rogue commercial plane that may not cause any harm. Would you have shot down planes, not knowing the damage they would do, and risk murdering innocent civilians? I would have, but I have foreknowledge, a luxury they didn't have.

Also, the person in the films is bin Laden, he just looks a little different than the 2011 version. [3]


Debate Round No. 4


Heating and buckling would not have a significant impact considering that the strength of the steel was NOT weakened considerably.

About the molten metal, here is a site with many witnesses that saw these "pools".

While it may seem ridiculous, considering the crash, every piece (enormous steel pillar) should have been distorted/bent. Not cleanly cut like the one in the image.

The fact remains that NORAD is obviously successful at conducting interceptions but failed twice in a single day. This is very suspicious. The plane was flying around for 45 mins but NORAD did not take any decisive action.

About the CIA tapes: I do not believe my opponent has successfully refuted my point. The man in the video is obviously a different person.

Also, if no explosives were used, then the steel columns would be BENT, but not SHREDDED like in this image.

Don't forget that the buildings fell at nearly free-fall speed. Nothing can move mass out of the way that fast except explosives.

Let's sum up the points:
1. The CIA's Bin Laden tapes seem fake considering the man who is supposed to be Bin Laden does NOT resemble Bin Laden.
2. The buildings were built to take much larger forces than that of the plane.
3. The fire would NOT have significantly weakened the structure of the building.
4. NORAD is famed for successful interceptions (67 interceptions in the 2000) but suddenly fails twice in one day.
5. Pools of molten metal were found weeks afterward, a phenomenon that jet fuel is not hot enough to cause.
6. The floors and steel rods would be stacked, bent but not shredded if nothing but the plane was used to take down the building.
7. The building fell very fast, too fast to just be a non-demolition collapse.

In conclusion, the theory of 9/11 being an inside job is very plausible.

I'm sorry for the very short response as I am extremely low on time.

Thank you for the good debate.


Well, I must say, it's been a fine debate. I have enjoyed it greatly. I would like to thank pro for such an interesting topic, and I think offering a choice between topics for the acceptor is a great idea for the future.

Let's take a look at the evidence pro presents. Pro claims that heating and buckling would not have a significant impact on the structural integrity, as the source I cited claimed, but cites no source or evidence himself. His claim is therefore baseless.

Pro provides no evidence that every single piece of steel should have been bent. This claim is also baseless.

Pro ignored my ethical argument as to why NORAD wouldn't have shot down the planes. Therefore, it is dropped, and my point is considered true.

The man in the confession tapes is bin Laden. [1]

Pro provides a picture of the North Tower with small objects falling. He provides no evidence, however, that these objects are actually columns. They could be anything from window panes to rebar in the floor.

For the molten metal question, there is simply no official report of any molten metal being found at the site, as I have established last round. Pro has failed to dismiss the reliability of my source.

In conclusion, none of pro's arguments are valid. The best he can come up with to support his conspiracy theory is isolated evidence and rumours.


Conduct- As pro didn't forfeit whilst I did, I concede this point to him.
Sources- Pro's sources generally consist of isolated pieces of evidence without context and pages making demonstrably false claims, such as the molten metal. Therefore, this point should go to me.
Arguments- I have refuted all of pro's weak evidence and arguments. As the burden of proof is on him, I have succeeded in winning the arguments.

Once again, thanks for this great debate.

Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheRussian 3 years ago
That's alright haha, no worries
Posted by Raistlin 3 years ago
Wow, tried to post round but internet died. I'm sorry I forfeited.
No votes have been placed for this debate.