Debate Info

Debate Score:30
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Debate Creator

JustIgnoreMe(4334) pic

9/11 Untruths

To discuss any of the conspiracies related to the events of September 11, 2001

Banning Policy:
Chinaman - pre-banned for everyone's convenience
Otherwise, won't ban anyone who posts on-topic, will ban spam accounts
Nom - total immunity; if you care about the topic enough to keep your posts germane - great. If cognitive dissonance gets the better of you and your posts devolve into proper use of apostrophes, or how I inappropriately love my mother, that's up to you - carte blanche exemption from ban with all of your alts: BurritoLunch/RedHot/Hootie, etc.
Add New Argument

Claim: Molten steel

Evidence: Pictures, video, eye-witness accounts


There is no reason to think it was molten steel rather than lead, aluminum, tin, or many of the other materials present.

While there are sporadic/small examples of molten materials, if there were large lakes/rivers of molten metal, they would have cooled into large solid metal lakes - there is no evidence those existed.

1 point


There is no reason to think it was molten steel

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in this discussion because you are a complete and total fucking idiot.

"It is much more difficult to tell if MELTING has occurred in the grain boundary regions in this STEEL as was observed in the A36 steel in the WTC 7."

"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the STEEL, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular MELTING was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure."

You are just so, so, so stupid.

Stupid person: There's no reason to think it was steel.

Guy with half a brain cell: What were the buildings made from?

Stupid person: Steel, I think.

Claim: Thermite/Thermate

Evidence: dust, Sulfidized metal


"Niels Harrit and Steven Jones, along with several coauthors, published the “peer-reviewed” paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (Harrit 2009). This article does not make the case for thermite use on 9/11. The paper examined “distinctive red/gray chips” found in WTC dust (unfortunately, with no chain of custody for the dust), and these were claimed to be thermitic because of their composition (iron oxides and pure aluminum) and other chemical properties. However, the presence of rust and aluminum does not prove the use of thermite, because iron oxide and aluminum are found in many common items that existed in the towers. Furthermore, the authors admit that their “differential scanning calorimeter” measurements of the supposed thermitic material showed results at about 450 degrees C below the temperature at which normal thermite reacts (Fana 2006). Finally, the scan of the red side of the “thermitic material” of Harrit/Jones is a dead-on match to material Jones himself identified as “WTC Steel Primer Paint” in his Hard Evidence Down Under Tour in November of 2009"

1 point

Bless your total lack of intellect. Lol.

Just a heads up. Youtube, Rational Wiki and the Skeptical Inquirer are not qualified sources when it comes to discussing the chemical composition of dust, and they certainly are not qualified to refute a peer-reviewed chemical physics paper. Not even if you combine them all to create a fallacy of quantity. This is just completely ridiculous.

This article does not make the case for thermite use on 9/11

I'm pretty sure that was its main hypothesis, so this statement is contrary to fact.

with no chain of custody for the dust

This is also contrary to fact. Contrary to fact and illustrates you (and they) have not read the paper. Where these samples came from is reported fully in the paper itself, and indeed the authors refused to use one of the samples (even though it produced the exact same results) because the provider refused to permit his personal details to be published. They tested five samples from independent sources and received the exact same results for all five. Hence, either there is a conspiracy involving at least 5 people -- 4 of which provided their names and address for easy detection -- in which these individuals somehow managed to procure trace quantities of military grade thermite, and inject it into WTC dust samples they had previously collected, or the samples are fine. If there was no chain of custody then how did this paper ever get through peer review? The chain of custody is explained on the very first page.

However, the presence of rust and aluminum does not prove the use of thermite

Read the paper. They eliminated the alternative possibilities.

Furthermore, the authors admit that their “differential scanning calorimeter” measurements of the supposed thermitic material showed results at about 450 degrees C below the temperature at which normal thermite reacts

That is because thermite was being mixed with sulfur and/or barium nitrate as early as the 1940s to produce versions which ignite at a lower temperature, produce a greater reaction, and require less material to produce the same result. See:-

I have heard all of these arguments a hundred times before you silly arrogant twit.

And, speaking of sulfur, strain yourself really hard and see if you can connect these dots:-

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

What happened is perfectly obvious to anybody with a working brain. The technical stuff isn't even necessary. My own eyes told me what I saw was a controlled demolition.

Furthermore, the authors admit that their “differential scanning calorimeter” measurements of the supposed thermitic material showed results at about 450 degrees C below the temperature at which normal thermite reacts

I mean, just come on. Your source is clearly anxious that we take its counterarguments against peer-reviewed science seriously. But these guys can't check Wikipedia?

In addition to thermite, thermate sometimes contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.[1]

0 points

"not qualified sources"

A) ad hominem as always.

B) Youtube, Rational Wiki and the Skeptical Inquirer are platforms, not sources.

"Dave Thomas, a physicist and mathematician, is president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is currently a scientist/programmer at IRIS/PASSCAL in Socorro, New Mexico, and also teaches classes in physics, psychology, and critical thinking at New Mexico Tech."

"Where these samples came from is reported fully in the paper itself"

The paper readily admits there was no chain of custody - the "samples were originally collected by private citizens" and the first sample wasn't received until "11/15/2007"

Somehow the thermate was small enough to be inconspicuously brought in and installed in the towers yet ubiquitous enough to be in every dust sample when the primer paint for the buildings isn't?

"the paper"

Misstates things they did find:

"When you actually look at the chemical analysis they're referencing here, you find that they're simply misstating its results."

and ignores things they didn't find that they should:

"do not have corresponding traces of two major byproducts from thermate, aluminum oxide and barium nitrate."

"The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite." articles/Millette9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

"I have heard all of these arguments a hundred times"

You've probably heard the arguments and their answers, the problem is that you don't understand either.

Claim: Accounts of other explosions

Evidence: Dozens of eye-witness accounts


Most of the claims comport with the NIST report, others changed over the years or are completely controverted by all the evidence (physical, videographic, seismic, etc.)

Exactly what you would expect from eye-witnesses.

Random claims:

But it looked like it.

Fell into its own footprint.

Fire can't cause steel building to collapse, etc.

The weight of the top floors can't cause the bottom floors to collapse - link:

Explanation: collapse

1 point

If you think that anyone gives a tinker's damn whether you ban them or not you're an even bigger lunatic than nom.

Anyone who follows the narrative of the discredited conspiracy theory about 9/11 really needs to be locked up in the maximum security unit of a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane.

JustIgnoreMe(4334) Clarified
1 point

I wouldn't go as far as committing them, but this debate is to show nom that it is a 'discredited conspiracy theory' as you say.

Claim: Bad government investigation/coverup

Evidence: Flights of Bin Laden family, Jets not scrambled, random theories not investigated


Flights of Bin Laden family:

The adviser, Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks but has since left the Bush administration, said he agreed to the extraordinary plan because the Federal Bureau of Investigation assured him that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism. The White House feared that the Saudis could face ''retribution'' for the hijackings if they remained in the United States, Mr. Clarke said.

While F.B.I. officials would not discuss details of the case, they said that in the days immediately after Sept. 11 bureau agents interviewed the adult relatives of Mr. bin Laden, members of one of Saudi Arabia's richest families, before the White House cleared them to leave the country. Mr. bin Laden is said to be estranged from his family, and many of his relatives have renounced his campaign against the United States.

''We did everything that needed to be done,'' said John Iannarelli, a bureau spokesman. ''There's nothing to indicate that any of these people had any information that could have assisted us, and no one was accorded any additional courtesies that wouldn't have been accorded anyone else.''

Have any of them been charged with any involvement since then?

Jets not scrambled:

Yes they were. ref ref ref

8:37:52 hijack

8:44:59 jets from Otis AFB given go ahead

Random theories not investigated:

"The NIST study was conducted to answer specific questions about building performance

[10], not to address any alternate theory, and certainly not to address an entire universe of

incomplete speculations. Despite this, NIST did speak to this ill-posed question directly

in an interim document known as the NIST FAQ [11], as follows:

'NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive

evidence that:

- the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere

else, and;

- the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for

WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2)

the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the

point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward

movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact


Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the

bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department,

the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or

explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including

and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward

movement upon collapse initiation." (14, 15) (22)

1 point

random theories not investigated

The use of explosive/incendiaries to bring down the WTC buildings is not a "random theory". It is what all of the evidence points towards. It is what the eye-witnesses who were in the buildings reported. It is what the eye-witnesses who watched the buildings collapse reported. It is what the news stations at the time reported. It is the explanation for Professor Barnett's "very unusual" steel samples. It is the explanation for the symmetrical collapses and the ejected dust. It is the explanation for the freefall speed WTC 7 was able to reach. It is what a professional chemical dust analysis has proven occurred.

To call that a "random theory" is an abuse of language. Abusing language is not debate. Neither is spamming blogs written by spotty, intellectually challenged teenagers when you are presented with scientific proof of what occurred.