The Instigator
TOMlive
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Eris
Con (against)
Winning
133 Points

"no planes on 9/11" thoery

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,239 times Debate No: 9702
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (65)
Votes (22)

 

TOMlive

Pro

Hello people my name is Tom. I am involved with a local portland truth group dedicated to exposing the truth about 9/11. I would prefer my opponent to already know at least some of the truth about what happened on 9/11. If you still believe people in a cave did this then please don't bother and go do some research for yourself. The reason why i am debating this is because it creates much controversy within the truth groups. I am here to explain how the world was duped into thinking that planes actually hit the towers.

my first argument may be my strongest.

The first shot we saw on live tv was a fox news helicopter shot.
What we witnessed was a alleged plane strike the tower WITH THE NOSE EMERGING THROUGH THE OTHER SIDE COMPLETELY INTACT.
look at the pictures
http://www.911myths.com...

I think we may all agree that an ALUMINUM plane will not go through a steel building and come out intact. If you can't agree with that go learn your physics.
And believe that fox deleted this shot from there archives, then 6 minutes later cnn showed the same exact shot, with a convenient "unfortunate pop up banner" that blocked the shot, therefore you see no plane.

If you look at the whole shot, the cameraman gets a lucky fast zoom in right as the plane emerges. If you back up the tape 5.5 seconds the camera is zoomed out quite far, and there is no plane inbound when he zooms back.

Also did you happen to see how the plane went in the building, it went into that steel structure like butter. Sorry guys but aluminum does not cut steel.

ill leave the argument hear although i have many more facts for later in the debate.
Eris

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for posting this debate, as it is the first of its' kind I have seen.

As a preliminary gesture, I'd like to make a disclosure: Not only do I believe that "people in caves" masterminded the attacks on 9/11, I also believe planes hit the Twin Towers. As such, I will be debating your assertion: "I am here to explain how the world was duped into thinking that planes actually hit the towers."

1) As I'm sure you know, pictures that are composites or those that are digitally altered leave "fingerprints" of the changes made to them (1). This is also true for digital videos - which is the technology most television stations currently use. Now as I'm sure you've researched, the original footage and photos of the 9/11 attack have not in any way been altered. Therefore, the pictures we are seeing are genuine in the sense they depict what people saw on 9/11. This leaves only one other possibility: That the planes were not actually "planes".

2) Addressing the previous issue of "false" planes, it should be rather clear due to both the loss of human life on the planes themselves, as well as the debris found and analyzed, that these were in fact operational human cargo-carrying planes (2). Logically it would follow to assert that not only did planes hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, but also that they were carrying passengers and not explosives.

3) "I think we may all agree that an ALUMINUM plane will not go through a steel building and come out intact. If you can't agree with that go learn your physics."

Planes are actually made out of a aluminum and titanium alloys, but that is irrelevant. The real question here is one of force and momentum. Assume the weight of the plane to be 400,000 pounds (We'll do this exercise assuming it's completely empty just to make a point). Moving at ~550 mph, it exerts a linear momentum of 220000000 (kg x m) / s. Now the surface area of the applied force is the radius of the interior width of the fuselage squared (10^2) times pi, which is equivalent to ~300 ft^2. Distributing this force across the area gives us 700282 kg per square foot. Now using our common sense, we can assume that the greatest width steel used to construct the tower would be 4 inch steel support beams. Furthermore I can guarantee you that no building has been engineered ever to withstand lateral stresses of that magnitude. And if the plane is indeed applying 700000 kg per square foot of pressure, it's going to pierce the building and continue through it.

4) "And believe that fox deleted this shot from there archives, then 6 minutes later cnn showed the same exact shot, with a convenient "unfortunate pop up banner" that blocked the shot, therefore you see no plane."

I would need to see evidence from a reliable source to believe that.

5) "Also did you happen to see how the plane went in the building, it went into that steel structure like butter. Sorry guys but aluminum does not cut steel."

I explained this point in #3, but just to clarify aluminum can be used to cut steel. You need some help on your understanding of mechanics.

Conclusion: Just like most 9/11 "truthers", my opponent has based his arguments upon half-formed notions of physics and mechanics. He also believes photo manipulation could not be detected, despite evidence to the contrary. I await his responses to my assertions, especially #3.

(1) http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu...
(2) http://www.popularmechanics.com... (See the part about the Pods)
Debate Round No. 1
TOMlive

Pro

when criminals have access to mass persuasion, solid proof of their crimes are hard to prove

popularmechanics = yellow journalism

Thank-you opponent for responding. I can tell my opponent is an intelligent man, therefore by the end of this argument i hope he will be on my side, the side of liberty and truth. Lets remember that 9/11 was a heinous hoax, i think we can all agree that fire does not explode buildings period. The towers came down in 9 seconds! in a huge explosion, and we are really supposed to think that jet fuel did that? that has got to be the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard use your common sense. Our government has lied to us, and they even admit it. 6 OF THE 9 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY. People wake up. i wanted my opponent to already agree that 9/11 was an inside job. Apparently he doesn't, and although i would like to just switch the topic to why 9/11 was a setup, i'll continue with this, even though it makes me sound like a crazy person when i talk about no planes. 9/11 was not the only false flag attack, there are many others in the past, 9/11 is just the biggest by far.

the fox news helicopter shot with the nose out actually happened, thousand of people have it recorded on their home vhs, even the supervisor saw it an attempted a rapid FADE-TO-Black right after the plane hit. You ask why would they broadcast this, wouldn't they have safeguards? their time was too short they only had 17 seconds from live to broadcast. And yes cnn did botch out the shot ill have the link on the bottom. lol what are the chances for cnn to botch out the most spectacular shot. all the existing plane crash videos are forged, a simple back to back comparison shows how they disqualify each other. In one video and almost perfect horizontal approach, in another a steep breath taking decent with g-force laden strike. And why is a Boeing 767 portrayed as black in full sunlight? and when you do a close up on it, i garentee you thats not a Boeing 767. Besides you think those amateur flyers could maneuver that big plane into that small target, when two experienced pilots tried to hit a target as big as the wtc and failed 6 times.

ok for every action there is an equal reaction, so how is it possible that the plane disappears YES DISAPPEARED LOOK AT IT, into that steel building thats so stupid to think thats possible.

as for the people on the plane, two of the flight records were never even found, the other two came months later, since the existence of the very planes is in compromise, that deserves a another investigation. Although i will say this three of the flights were supposedly headed to lax, were were the family members? not one showed up.

oo i cant wait to talk about the eyewitnesses

next argument

LEARN YOUR PHYSICS POPULAR MECHANICS LIES JUST LIKE THE GOVERNMENT CALL A CONSPIRACY THEORIST BUT DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH
Eris

Con

I will address your post in a line by line format:

"popularmechanics = yellow journalism"

Your personal taste is irrelevant. Popular Mechanics is a legitimate citation regardless of whether or not it supports your opinion.

"i think we can all agree that fire does not explode buildings period"

You are quite wrong in your assertion. When fuel, fire, and air mix in the appropriate proportions with a steady supply of oxygen, an explosion will occur. If you have an airliner filled with high octane (read: octane ratings of 95+) fuel and oxygen, you will get a tremendous explosion. Similar to the ones seen on 9/11.

"The towers came down in 9 seconds"

Your wrong in your facts. The towers took 15 seconds to completely collapse. Furthermore, this is another matter of physics. Not an element of conspiracy or subterfuge. Take for instance the spire. Using the equation Distance=(1/2)(F_gravity)(Time)^2 We find the maximum amount of time it would take for the spire (The maximum height of the building) to fall naturally (read: due to gravity) to be approx 15 seconds - which is what you see in the video. If the towers had collapsed due to an explosion rather than an implosion, the time needed for the spire to fall would be significantly less, along the lines of 12-13 seconds due to the increase in kinetic energy.

"6 OF THE 9 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY"

This does not imply that they agree with your point of view in the slightest.

"all the existing plane crash videos are forged, a simple back to back comparison shows how they disqualify each other"

Give me scientific evidence that proves that the videos have been tampered with, and not pseudo-scientific analysis, and I will believe you.

"And why is a Boeing 767 portrayed as black in full sunlight? and when you do a close up on it, i garentee you thats not a Boeing 767. Besides you think those amateur flyers could maneuver that big plane into that small target, when two experienced pilots tried to hit a target as big as the wtc and failed 6 times."

It's black because of your angle relative to the light source. In most cases, as it was morning on the 9/11, the sun was rising. Thus the plane was placed between the light source (the sun) and your eyes, creating a silhouette. A rather crude example would be holding your hand in front of a lamp - it gets noticeably darker, though not "black" due to the crude nature of the model.

Furthermore these "amateur" fliers all possessed aviation licenses - regardless of that fact, it still does not take that much skill to crash a plane.

"ok for every action there is an equal reaction, so how is it possible that the plane disappears YES DISAPPEARED LOOK AT IT, into that steel building thats so stupid to think thats possible."

As I've previously stated, there was enough momentum in the aircraft to initially pierce the building. And as you've noted for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So as the plane is applying 700000 kg of force per ft^2, the building is also applying relatively the same force back. As you could imagine, this would deform the plane rather drastically - causing it both fracture into component pieces, as well as becoming "stuck" in the WTC infrastructure.

"Although i will say this three of the flights were supposedly headed to lax, were were the family members? not one showed up."

Proof?

Conclusion: My opponent has neglected to address the mathematical flaws of his argument. Furthermore he has challenged legitimate sources on the basis of his personal opinion that their research is flawed - and yet he has not offered any contrary opinions to refute their findings.
Debate Round No. 2
TOMlive

Pro

watch the wtc contruction, do you still think jet feul and office fires pulvarized this building?

What about the nano-thermite (high grade military explosives) found in all three "collapse" sites

THE "AMETUER" VIDEOS ARE SOOOOO FAKE!

Larry Silverstien (who purchased the WTC towers 2 months before thier destruction with a HUGE insurance poilcy) says we made the desision to "pull it" he was talking about wtc 7 NOT the firmen like he later claims, you say pull them if your refering to human beigs not pull it. obvious.

Usama bin laden "admitting to 9/11" is fake again

<<"Planes are actually made out of a aluminum and titanium alloys, but that is irrelevant. The real question here is one of force and momentum. Assume the weight of the plane to be 400,000 pounds (We'll do this exercise assuming it's completely empty just to make a point). Moving at ~550 mph, it exerts a linear momentum of 220000000 (kg x m) / s. Now the surface area of the applied force is the radius of the interior width of the fuselage squared (10^2) times pi, which is equivalent to ~300 ft^2. Distributing this force across the area gives us 700282 kg per square foot. Now using our common sense, we can assume that the greatest width steel used to construct the tower would be 4 inch steel support beams. Furthermore I can guarantee you that no building has been engineered ever to withstand lateral stresses of that magnitude. And if the plane is indeed applying 700000 kg per square foot of pressure, it's going to pierce the building and continue through it.">>

OK so what your saying is this mathimatical equation completley disqualifies the fact that the plane went through the steel building and came out the other side with its nose completley intact (an anylasis of the pixels shows a micro presision match). this is a common technique used by 9/11 white-washers to stump normal people, it doesnt justify a plane going through a biulding.

watch popular mechanics get owned

popular mechanics wont debate aj

936 architectural and engineering professionals
and 5162 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

heres there arguements:

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Rapid onset of "collapse"

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse

3. Symmetrical "collapse" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

10. Fore-knowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution

3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction

4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph

6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front

10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises

12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples

13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed"

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

HE SAId THIS BEFORE 9/11 (AND HAS BEEN MISSING SINCE)

http://www.nowpublic.com...

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, "all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind." As well, "Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."

-Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, page 133.
-How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.

9/11 was an inside job OVER 40% of america agrees. Don't turn your back on this research do something about it

no plane missile
Eris

Con

Continuing my previous format, thought I doubt I'll be able to stay within the limit with the amount of nonsense I'll have to refute:

"watch the wtc contruction, do you still think jet feul and office fires pulvarized this building?"

You have no idea the energies contained within the combustion of jet fuel. One kilogram (~2.2 lbs) releases 50 MJ per minute. Knowing that Mega is the SI prefix for 1 million and by using some simple algebra conversions, this works out to a release of 20863500000000 joules per kilogram per minute released by the fuel. I know of very few things that could survive that output of energy without significant deformation. Furthermore, the fire did not "pulverize" the building, the weight of the Twin Towers themselves (read Potential Energy).

"What about the nano-thermite (high grade military explosives) found in all three "collapse" sites"

Despite the fact that you lack any proof whatsoever for this claim, I'll indulge it because it's a rather common one. When you burn hydrocarbons at extremely high temperatures, you will often get molecular derivatives of "high grade explosives chemicals" - or more simply C-H chains with assorted functional groups. For clarification, derivatives are molecules that are structurally different from a parent molecule, though they retain the same composition proportions. Stating that "high grade explosives chemicals" were present at the WTC is rather misleading as the G.C.M.S. cannot distinguish between these chemical derivatives (C-H chains) and the parent chemical ("nano-thermite"?) itself. Therefore, the only thing we can conclude is that hydrocarbon derivatives were present at WTC - which is easily explained by the combustion of organic molecules (read paper, desks, anything really).

"THE "AMETUER" VIDEOS ARE SOOOOO FAKE!"

You must provide proof for your claims. Remember, this is not a shouting match, nor is it a street corner. You do not win by being loud. You win by being correct. And by proving the validity of your claims through verifiable scientific evidence.

"Usama bin laden "admitting to 9/11" is fake again"

You have complained that Popular Mechanics is an illegitimate source, and yet you find Osama Bin Laden to be more credible? That is absurd.

"OK so what your saying is this mathimatical equation completley disqualifies the fact that the plane went through the steel building and came out the other side with its nose completley intact (an anylasis of the pixels shows a micro presision match). this is a common technique used by 9/11 white-washers to stump normal people, it doesnt justify a plane going through a biulding."

I'm curious as to what "micro presision matching" is exactly. I'll go ahead and assume that you meant through this jargon that people looked at Youtube clips and made unfounded assertions from these viewings about the nature of an extremely complex collision. Furthermore, you have no proof - again - that the nose came out of the WTC unharmed.

As for your "characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives", I'll begin to refute those here:

1) "Rapid onset of "collapse"

This means absolutely nothing. "Rapid onset" simply means that at the temporal point instability, the building fell quickly. This isn't exactly scientific evidence.

2) "Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse"

Buildings tend to implode when they collapse, therefore you would expect to hear interior deformations before you can see the exterior results of the said deformation. Furthermore, you cannot isolate the sound as "coming from the ground floor". To assume that you can is illogical and naive.

3) "Symmetrical "collapse" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration"

This doesn't make any sense. A "symmetrical" collapse would be through the path of least resistance whether by explosion or by implosion. The geometric orientation of the building as it falls has little to do with what caused it to fall, and more with the construction of the building itself.

4) "Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds"

This is evidence of a collapse. It does not dictate either implosion or explosion.

5) "Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD"

Proof? And even if you had proof, I've already explained the presence of "thermite"

6) "FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples"

That proves nothing other than the metal was rapidly heated from a cold temperature, aka in a fire. You don't even seem to understand the evidence you are providing me.

As for you said "lack of characteristics" of destruction by fire, I'll again refute those here:

1) "Slow onset with large visible deformations"

If I recall the towers were hit at 8:46 and 9:03 A.M. They then collapsed at 9:59 and 10:28 A.M respectively. They took 52 minutes and 102 minutes, again respectively, to collapse. I believe most would qualify this as a slow onset. As for the large visible deformities, I would classify those as the giant holes in the buildings where the planes entered.

2) "High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed"

Give me one instance in which a fully fueled jetliner was crashed into a building, left to burn for approximately an hour, and is still standing afterwards and I might be willing to concede this point. Might.

3) "Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises"

This actually disproves your theory of explosives, as the amount of time in which an explosive has to transfer its potential energy makes the process adiabatic - making the thermal energies required to reach "molten temperatures" infeasible. This is why explosives "throw" rather than instantly melt their targets when releasing energy. Therefore the presence of large pools of molten steel indicates a long burning fire undisturbed by explosions on the "ground floor".

4) "No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire"

Read this and try to understand the ability of fire to change the physical properties of steel:

http://www.hindawi.com...

5) "Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage."

They were designed to withstand the failure of 1-2 external load bearing columns. Not 50% of them. You cannot double the load on a steel structure, subject it to extreme lateral forces, and then heat it exponentially and expect it to stand. It simply a matter of chemistry and physics.

6) "All the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind."

Notice how he said 100 mile-per-hour wind and not 1 hour of combustion in a jet fuel bath.

7) "Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."

This quote is deceptive. He clearly does not mean that he can cut the external columns in half and then increase live load by 2000%, because then he would have simply done that when building the WTC and saved hundreds of millions of dollars. He said you could cut the column number in half, or your could increase the weight - not both.

"Don't turn your back on this research do something about it"

One could say the same thing about you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: My opponent opted to provide a deluge of information, some of which I was able to refute, but others I was unable to due to character restrictions. Furthermore, he has consistently offered zero verifiable proof for his claims.
Debate Round No. 3
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
hahaha wow
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
What a great and truly profound response!

Tom, lay off the cannabis for a while...maybe the wet noodles in your head might start working again.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
"Dude everyone already knows WOMD was a huge lie stop being ignorant"

On the one hand we have an intricate conspiracy perpetrated in order to justify a war against Iraq; able to fool millions of people in one of the most populated cities in the world in the US. This Herculean effort undergone, only to find that the conspirators couldn't conspire to find WMDs in the Iraqi dessert; one of the most isolated places in the world, in a country that we just took over. And I'm the ignoramus?

Need I say more?
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Lmao at this. Even I agree that 911 was a conspiracy, but no planes? Wtf. There's video footage and eye witnesses.
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
Dude everyone already knows WOMD was a huge lie stop being ignorant
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
"duh WOMD was just an exuse to saty in iraq there were no WOMD to begin with!"

Need I say more?
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
duh WOMD was just an exuse to saty in iraq there were no WOMD to begin with!
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
CN,
The answer is...planes filled with jet fuel slammed into the towers! I thought it was obvious but wtf I'm an idiot. OK now answer my question:

Why were "they" able to manufacturer such an elaborate plan (i.e. 911) in one of the most densely populated cities in the world but "they" couldn't "find" weapons of mass destruction in place like Iraq.

Awaiting another conspiratorial answer.
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
OOPS do this link http://www.ae911truth.org...
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
this link is unbunkable roy!!!!! roy open your mind, the goverment is corrupt and has a history of being corrupt, is it really that hard to believe that 9/11 was a setup? im showing you the evidence right here this link is a slideshow made by architecs probably alot more certified than you. O and you little 5000 tons of tnt statement is kinda ridiculous, so please site your refrence on that.thankyou

http://www.ae911truth.org...
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
TOMliveErisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: That was quite a pathetic performance by Pro. However he did manage to do one thing that was pretty amazing... he actually made normal 9/11 truthers look good.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
TOMliveErisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
TOMliveErisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ricky78 7 years ago
ricky78
TOMliveErisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by headphonegut 7 years ago
headphonegut
TOMliveErisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Apologician 7 years ago
Apologician
TOMliveErisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by iforgotmycoat 7 years ago
iforgotmycoat
TOMliveErisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Vote Placed by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
TOMliveErisTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Eris 7 years ago
Eris
TOMliveErisTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
TOMliveErisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07