The Instigator
jamesmcgrath
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
progressivedem22
Con (against)
Winning
55 Points

the falling of the world trade centers

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 8 votes the winner is...
progressivedem22
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 839 times Debate No: 43543
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

jamesmcgrath

Pro

i say that the towers where rigged with exsploses before the planes crashed into the towers on 911
progressivedem22

Con

I will accept your challenge, arguing the position that the towers were not rigged with explosives -- or, more specifically, that we cannot prove that they were, and therefore cannot conclude as such.

The burden of proof is on Pro. He must prove without a shadow of doubt that he is correct. After all, it is not possible to prove a negative. I cannot prove that the towers were not rigged, just as I cannot argue that the world was not created 30 seconds ago, and we all were born with our memories. My point is that there is no conclusive evidence that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Are there valid questions to ask? I think there are, yes, and I support the idea that people, such as Jesse Ventura, are asking the hard questions. I think he has gone too far, though: he actually suggested that former Vice President Dick Cheney ran the program, and asserted that "[t]he Bush Administration either knew about the plan and allowed it to proceed, or they had a hand in it themselves." That type of rhetoric, I truly believe, is over-the-top and reckless. We should be able to have a reasonable discussion of the facts. In doing that, we would need to consider the ramifications and pragmatism of our claims. Even if the conclusion of our debate is that the 9/11 story simply does not add up, and that there are more viable questions to ask, I do not believe that it is plausible to accept Pro's case unless he can prove -- again, without a shadow of doubt -- that the towers were (not "could have been," but were) rigged with explosives. Frankly, I do not believe the evidence is there to substantiate his point, or the point that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

With that said, I await an interesting discussion, and would like to wish my opponent the best of luck.

http://www.today.com... -- where the Jesse Ventura quote came from.
Debate Round No. 1
jamesmcgrath

Pro

the towers where rigged with bombs because the towers could not just fall over with just a plane hitting the towers
progressivedem22

Con

Can you prove that unequivocally? The essence of my argument is that you cannot prove that, and therefore it can not be stated definitively. Your claim takes the form of "A, therefore B." Your A is that the towers could not have fallen after having only been hit by a plane, and your B is that they were rigged with bombs. Even if I were to accept that A is true -- and I don't, because I know of no evidence that bears out that claim -- there is no way to conclusively prove B; if there is, you haven't done it. I must conclude, therefore, that your core premise is a non sequitur -- a logical fallacy that "does not follow." You have yet to prove your case, but are rather repeating your claim as if it were fact. I'm not going to accuse you of starting a troll debate, but I would ask that you provide more conclusive evidence with sources to prove your case to me and to our spectators. It is in no way a foregone conclusion that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

Since I don't want this debate to simply be about structure and technicalities, I would like to take this time to comment on 9/11, and some of the core arguments in favor of the notion that it was a "conspiracy." I suppose, to an extent, I'm preemptively countering what my opponent may bring up. I acknowledge that this style is not ideal, but as of now it's all I have to work with, so I'll try to be brief and leave room for debate and rebuttals.

A core argument is that Building 7 collapsed without having been hit by a plane. But, as the Guardian points out, Tower 7 fell by virtue of fires in the towers adjacent to it, which caused its steel beams to weaken and to buckle.

Another argument is that the planes were controlled by a remote location and filled to the brim with explosives. People justified this claim by saying that the calls passengers made to their loved ones could not have been made at such an altitude. However, phone records demonstrate that the calls were made from satellite phones attached to the seats of the plane.

Finally, people argue, as you have, that the Twin Towers were demolished by controlled explosion. However, demolition experts say that buildings are collapsed from the bottom, not the top. From what we know of 9/11, we can conclude that the windows were destroyed and each floor collapsed on the one below it, thus disproving this claim.

I would like to ask, again, that you prove your case.

Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 2
jamesmcgrath

Pro

he twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001, as a result of the September 11 attacks,[1] in which terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners, crashing two of them into the World Trade Center, one into the North Tower (1 World Trade Center) and the other into the South Tower (2 World Trade Center).[2] The collapse of the twin towers destroyed the rest of the complex, and debris from the collapsing towers severely damaged or destroyed more than a dozen other adjacent and nearby structures. The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am, less than an hour after being hit by the hijacked airliner, and at 10:28 am the North Tower collapsed. Later that day, 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:21 pm from fires that had started when the North Tower collapsed.[3] As a result of the attacks to the towers, 2,752 people died, including all 157 passengers (including the hijackers) and crew aboard the two airplanes.[4]
Immediately following the attacks, a building performance study (BPS) team of engineering specialists was formed by the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The BPS team issued its report in May 2002, finding that the aircraft impacts caused "extensive structural damage, including localized collapse" and that the resulting fires "further weakened the steel-framed structures, eventually leading to total collapse." They also presented recommendations for more detailed engineering studies of the disaster.[5]
The BPS team investigation was later followed by a more detailed investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which also consulted outside engineering entities. This investigation was completed in September 2005. The NIST investigators did not find anything substandard in the design of the WTC towers, noting that the severity of the attacks and the magnitude of the destruction was beyond anything experienced in U.S. cities in the past. They also emphasized the role of the fires and found that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns: "This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."[6]
The cleanup of the site involved round-the-clock operations, many contractors and subcontractors, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The demolition of the surrounding damaged buildings continued even as new construction proceeded on the World Trade Center's replacement, One World Trade Center, which was structurally completed on May 10, 2013, when the final component of the spire was installed atop the skyscraper. as of 2013 4 World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center have been replaced.
Contents [hide]
1 Structural design
1.1 Safety concerns regarding aircraft impacts
1.2 Fireproofing
2 September 11, 2001
2.1 Aircraft impact
2.2 Fires
2.3 Collapse of the South Tower
2.4 Collapse of the North Tower
2.5 Collapse of 7 World Trade Center
3 Mechanics of Twin Towers' collapse
3.1 Collapse initiation
3.2 Total progressive collapse
4 Initial opinions and analysis
5 Investigations
5.1 FEMA building performance study
5.2 NIST report
5.3 7 World Trade Center
5.4 Other investigations
6 Aftermath
6.1 Other buildings
6.2 Cleanup
6.3 Health effects
7 See also
8 Notes
8.1 Footnotes
8.2 Citations
9 References
10 External links
Structural design[edit]

Main article: Construction of the World Trade Center
The towers were designed as "tube in tube" structures, which provided tenants with open floor plans uninterrupted by columns or walls. Numerous, closely spaced perimeter columns provided much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the steel box columns of the core. Above the tenth floor, there were 59 perimeter columns along each face of the building, and there were 47 heavier columns in the core. All of the elevators and stairwells were located in the core, leaving a large column-free space between the perimeter that was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses.[7]
The floors consisted of 4-inch-thick (10 cm) lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors with shear connections to the concrete slab for composite action.[7] The trusses had a span of 60 feet (18 m) in the long-span areas and 35 feet (11 m) in the short-span area.[7] The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns, and were therefore on 6.8-foot (2.1 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to interior box columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers, which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants.
The towers also incorporated a "hat truss" or "outrigger truss" located between the 107th and 110th floors, which consisted of six trusses along the long axis of core and four along the short axis. This truss system allowed optimized load redistribution of floor diaphragms between the perimeter and core, with improved performance between the different materials of flexible steel and rigid concrete allowing the moment frames to transfer sway into compression on the core, which also mostly supported the transmission tower.
Safety concerns regarding aircraft impacts[edit]
The structural engineers working on the World Trade Center considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another near-miss at the Empire State Building.[8] Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers working on the design of the World Trade Center, has since claimed to have personally considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner"a Boeing 707"which might be lost in the fog and flying at relatively low speeds, seeking to land at JFK Airport or Newark Airport. However in an interview with the BBC, Robertson states, "with the 707, the fuel load was not considered in the design, I don't know how it could have been considered." Robertson has provided no documentation for his opinion.[8][9]
NIST found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft-impact analysis, involving impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study, which was part of the building's 1,200-page structural analysis, was lost when the Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the 1 WTC; the copy was lost in 7 WTC.[10] In 1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."[11] In its report, NIST stated that the technical ability to perform a rigorous simulation of aircraft impact and ensuing fires is a recent development, and that the technical capability for such analysis would have been quite limited in the 1960s.[12][note 1]
Fireproofing[edit]
In April 1970, the New York City Department of Air Resources ordered contractors building the World Trade Center to stop the spraying of asbestos as an insulating material.[13] Fireproofing was incorporated in the original construction and more was added after a fire in 1975 that spread to six floors before being extinguished. After the 1993 bombing, inspections found fireproofing to be deficient. The Port Authority was in the process of replacing it, but replacement had been completed on only 18
progressivedem22

Con

I would like to point out that the entirety of my opponent's recent argument was copy and pasted verbatim from Wikipedia, which you can view here: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Not only is Wikipedia widely regarded as a source that should be not be trusted, but my opponent has plagiarized his argument. Moreover, he has failed to address any of my points, or to prove conclusively that his argument is sound. He even copy/pasted the Contents page (with the "hide" option), and did not reference any of his claims (I suppose he ran out of characters). At least Wikipedia has a reference page. Of course, his post says "references" because, well, whoever wrote it wanted readers to follow those links and see for themselves. References provide credibility, after all. His footnotes are even identical to the ones on Wikipedia, except those provide links to the source, while his do not.

I want to be as respectful as I can to him, and therefore I would like to point out that I am by no means attacking his character or his intelligence. But plagiarism should not go unnoticed, and I hope voters take this into account when they decide who ought to win this debate. At this time, I do not feel comfortable responding to his latest post, knowing that it is not his, that it does not even address this question, and that he did not take the time to even consider my points. I'll allow what I have written thus far to speak for itself.
Debate Round No. 3
jamesmcgrath

Pro

Sorry for the Wikipedia entry forgot to mention that
I say the towers wher rigged I still do and dose my class mates
progressivedem22

Con

It's not a matter of simply mentioning Wikipedia. If you were to preface your argument by saying, "This comes from Wikipedia," I think it would still be wrong. Where's the debate? Where's the analysis? Frankly, you haven't defended your position that the towers were rigged, but are only repeating yourself -- asserting that they were.

When we began, I noted that the burden of proof was on you: that you had to prove, without a shadow of doubt, that the towers were rigged. You have not done that, nor have you cited any sources or arguments in favor of your case. The only items that could even be construed as arguments were plagiarized, and therefore not your own.

It is fine to hold a view even as controversial as yours. But my question for you is this: where's your evidence? "My friends and I believe this" is not evidence. I do not believe that you took this debate seriously. I was interested in having a discussion about this subject, but it appears that we were unable to do that.

Nevertheless, thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by spiderman12345 3 years ago
spiderman12345
Look he copied the proof is in the argument because it said
content(hide)
Posted by legodude123 3 years ago
legodude123
Pro dont plagerize you will lose debates
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
Are you referring to Pro, Gohan12345? Because he didn't: his last "argument" was plagiarized directly from Wikipedia, as I pointed out.
Posted by Gohan12345 3 years ago
Gohan12345
He finally putd effort
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
Easy win
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
jamesmcgrathprogressivedem22Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. Pro failed to provide any evidence for his claims thus losing the arguments. Pro also plagiarized so he loses conduct points. Con had better sources.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
jamesmcgrathprogressivedem22Tied
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: Voting is a formality in this debate.
Vote Placed by 2Sense 3 years ago
2Sense
jamesmcgrathprogressivedem22Tied
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: Well, that was disappointing. Pro clearly put zero effort into this debate. Possible troll?
Vote Placed by Kreakin 3 years ago
Kreakin
jamesmcgrathprogressivedem22Tied
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 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: A bad case of plagiarism, I wonder if Pro even read his own copy pasted article.
Vote Placed by Matt_L 3 years ago
Matt_L
jamesmcgrathprogressivedem22Tied
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: Plagiarism by Pro gives all of the points to Con.
Vote Placed by wateva232 3 years ago
wateva232
jamesmcgrathprogressivedem22Tied
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 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: Blatant plagiarism on Pro's behalf. He even copied the contents as it is and did not even go through the trouble of providing the references in the page. Win goes for Con all the way. 7 points for Con.
Vote Placed by PotBelliedGeek 3 years ago
PotBelliedGeek
jamesmcgrathprogressivedem22Tied
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: This was not even a debate. Shamelessly plagiarized, and never put forth a single point. All points to con.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
jamesmcgrathprogressivedem22Tied
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: Plagiarism (blatant) and the same line repeated over and over again with bad grammar does not count as a debate. All points to Con.