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

911 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,026 times Debate No: 37561
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




con said he thinks there is no evidence 911 was an inside job, let me correct him


Challenge accepted. I look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all.
Debate Round No. 1


The only explanation for the towers exploding was the use of explosives and incendiarys.

1.Extremely high temperatures were evident before and after the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. These extremely high temperatures contradict the official story because 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).


Implausibility of the Official Theory
Both theories about the buildings collapsing are the least plausible explanation

3.Free fall acceleration of building 7
The fact that Building 7 underwent free-fall means that none of the building’s potential energy was used to crush the structure below it. All of its potential energy was converted directly into energy of motion (kinetic energy), leaving no energy to do anything else. Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been crushed by the falling section. The destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building had to have been accomplished by other means to allow the upper section of the building to fall through it in free-fall.

Hundreds of Eyewitnesses report explosions

4. Forknowledge of collapse

5.No deacceleration of the top of the north tower during collapse proves the columns below were removed

6.The building exploded. Where did the building go ? It turned to dust . How ?
How can Dust crush concrete into dust .
Contents ejected from building could not have been ejected laterally 500 ft if it were due to gravity if the building collapsed naturally.

Now we know the buildings were demolished who did it and why ?

Great investigative work has been done By Kevin Ryan and summarized in this video by another truther. Good work to him and all for providing all the research into who else had motives and access to the towers.


DavidMGold forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


While not hard evidence of explosives, visual confirmation of explosives is seen in the videos of the tower collapsing,
any thoughts on what these flashes could be if they were not explosions? Could they be something else.
I first thought of reflections but i noticed a flash on the shadowed side of the building .;


DavidMGold forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Witnesses of the flashes also confirm they were not camera effects.

"Explosion.... huge explosion... loud blast... secondary explosions... secondary device... flashes... bombs... shockwave... detonators... controlled demolition... the thickest steel, bent like a pretzel...
s://; alt="Twin_Towers_WTC" width="197" height="257" />
The Twin Towers before 9/11.
molten steel ... lava ... [underground] fires of hell... more than 2,800 degrees F [1540°C]..."
- As you will see, typical terms used by witnesses to describe their experiences during the attack and the clean up of the World Trade Center site. (example video clips one and two)

"I spent the rest of the afternoon at the mayor's command center. The reporters were trying to figure out what happened. We were thinking that bombs had brought the buildings down. The mayor [Giuliani] talked to us and said he had no evidence of bombs."
- 2002, Cathy Trost and Alicia C. Shepard, foreword by Tom Brokaw, Running Toward Danger - Stories Behind the Breaking News of 9/11, p. 203.

"We were watching the building as it was on fire - the bottom floors of the building were on fire. And we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. We turned around and we were shocked to see that the building was, what looked like a
shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busting out. It was horrifying. And then, you know, about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.
- New York University medical student with the name Daryl, interviewed on 1010 WINS NYC News Radio immediately after the collapse of WTC 7 (example video clips one, two, three and four).



DavidMGold forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


heres a better video of the witnesses sorry.;


DavidMGold forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Zdawg 5 years ago
Funny, every single claim you made can be shredded. Your whole argument is flawed and inaccurate. If you want to start another debate on whether or not 9/11 was an inside job or the WTC was a controlled demolition, I'd be happy to, but be prepared, you will certainly have your hands full having to deal with me.
Posted by brant.merrell 5 years ago
Suicide bombers don't have the balls to attack America? What, now you're telling me the Stealth Bomber is equipped to enter hell and harass our spirit enemies?
Posted by anonymouse 5 years ago
9/11 looks like it was an inside job. no one has the balls to attack america, not even Putin.
Posted by DavidMGold 5 years ago
I will not accept unless you go 5 rounds with a maximum of 10,000 characters.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 5 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed and still do agree with Con after this debate. Conduct to Pro due to a (rather disappointing) forfeit. Spelling and grammar were fine. Arguments were tied because Pro's arguments were ridiculously easy to refute. (No offense). Having said that, Pro used more sources. So sources to Pro.