Instigator / Pro

THBT 9/11 Was NOT an Inside Job


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 3 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Pro will prove that 9/11 did not occur due to controlled demolitions and that the US government did not plan to destroy the twin towers/ WTC.
Con must prove that 9/11 was more likely than not an Inside Job (some government agency directly planned to destroy twin towers/WTC)

9/11: The September 11 attacks, often referred to as 9/11,[a] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Wahhabi[3] terrorist group Al-Qaeda[4][5][6] against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks resulted in 2,977 fatalities, over 25,000 injuries, and substantial long-term health consequences, in addition to at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage.[7][8] It is the deadliest terrorist attack in human history and the single deadliest incident for firefighters and law enforcement officers in the history of the United States, with 340[9] and 72 killed,[10][11] respectively.


Burden of proof is shared

9/11 "Inside Job": The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were the result of controlled demolitions rather than structural failure due to impact and fire.[5][6] Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government[7][8] or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective stand-down of the American military.

Round 1
Let's cool down from the monstrous research and insane source blasting by presenting a very simple source instead. 

Popular Mechanics, with very little reason to lie, states that the terrorists were not backed by the CIA or the DoD. 

First it notices that there were no detonated explosives in the building, disproving that misguided mindset. Then, it notes that the steel need not be melted, and can easily cause structural collapse at far lower temperatures. Thirdly, it notes that "pancaking" can be caused by the weight of the floors above, rather than needed explosions. Using more detailed Seismic readings, Lamont-Doherty proved that there was no evidence of explosions in the graph. Fourthly, reports found that WTC damage was much worse than originally thought, and that the fire eventually brought down a large section of building due to lack of firefighters. 

As you can see, even though I am merely summarizing the article, the logic works well, the story checks out, and the studies combine together to show there's no reason that 9/11 was an inside job.

Now onto Con.

‘Summarising the article’ simply does not replace ‘proving there is no reason that 9/11 was an inside job’. 

In your argument, you had stated ‘fire eventually brought down a large section of the building’ yet, most high-rise buildings (and the WTC did reportedly did have water sprinklers) have “fire suppression systems (water sprinklers) to further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state”. 

Steel framed high rise buildings have only faced partial collapses due to fire, yet none have been a complete collapse. WTC 5 is an example of steel-framed high rise buildings that have been on fire for 8 hours. 

In addition, the NIST did not investigate the complete sequence of the collapse of the World Trade Center and explicitly ‘failed to address massive evidence for explosive demolitions’. The World Trade Center was one of the biggest high stakes events of all time, yet, unable to provide concrete evidence towards the public. When questioned about this, the NIST replied that it was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” because “the computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution.” Their studies rely on deceptive language and graphs yet inherit a lack of analysis of the severe situation. 


Round 2
Con on the surface seems to have a strong counter, but do not be mislead by the seemingly professional article. As Snopes warns, the article is nowhere close to a peer reviewed scientific journal, and the European Scientific Journal released a statement noting that they had nothing to do with Con's article. [1]

Snopes also re-concludes that Europhysics News relied on already-discredited claim, including the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" (my Popular Mechanics article, which came much after the News article), sprinkler system would prevent temperature rise (the jet crash would destroy such a system), fireproofing material (similarly destroyed by the 767 crash), puff of smokes (air pressure would have forced it through the window), and falling at a rate only possible through controlled demolition (engineers note that the building's falling is consistent). NIST stands behind their study, noting that it's the most detailed examination of structural failure ever. Due to Con's lack of logical reasoning and explanation for why the government would use controlled demolition, the News article just seems like another conspiracy theory. We require explanation for why this would be an inside job. 

Round 3
Extended, vote for pro