CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
7
YES NO
Debate Score:17
Arguments:8
Total Votes:21
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (4)
 
 NO (5)

Debate Creator

banned999(143) pic



WERE THE TWIN TOWERS BROUGHT DOWN USING EXPLOSIVES?

WE ALL KNOW THAT 2 PLANES HIT THE TWIN TOWERS ON THE 11TH SEPTEMBER 2001. HOWEVER, MANY CLAIM THAT THIS ALONE COULD NOT HAVE RESULTED IN THE TOWERS COLLAPSING IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY DID. MANY BELIEVE THAT THE TOWERS COLLAPSED AS A RESULT OF A CONTROLLED EXPLOSION. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION: TEXTBOOK EXPLOSION OR CONSPIRACY NONSENCE?

YES

Side Score: 10
VS.

NO

Side Score: 7
No arguments found. Add one!
1 point

If you look at the footage, there are no extra explosions that bring the towers down.

Also, the jet fuel burning was hot enough to bring down 50% of the steel pillar's strength, resulting in it's down fall.

Plus, the theory is that the steel was melted. Explosions wouldn't melt steel, so this would mean that a giant team of welders hired by Bush would have to sneak into the tower after the planes hit it and start melting that steel. Or, Bush paid Dr. Evil to fire his laser at it.

And, the guy who said the steel was melted ACTUALLY said that the warped steel LOOKED like it was melted. He came back saying "holy shit, i wasn't say IT WAS, i was just explaining it in an elementary point of view. The steel was so warped that it just LOOKED melted. Never meant for people to come up with bullshit conspiracies over this".

Keep in mind, I'm paraphrasing.

So maybe there were explosions. But, there's no proof of it... at all.

As for thermite and firemen theories, here's a reason why that shit is all bullshit:

Debunk thermite bullshit

Also, the site is good for any other theory these conspiracy nuts will come up with.

Alas, these people don't read the whole thing and bring out shit out of thin air. After we debunk it, they'll come up with something new. And so on and so fourth.

Side: No
Djanvk(4) Disputed
1 point

Proof, look up some of the video's posted on youtube the day it happened you can clearly see where there is little explosions on the building. You say the whole jet fuel thing is enough to bring the towers down, so how come there are incidents of skyscrapers burning for days before they fall years ago. This just makes not sense that it will just implode on itself within a short time from being hit with the planes.

Supporting Evidence: Burning Skyscrapers (www.serendipity.li)
Side: yes
1 point

Im pretty sure that flying two giant metal aircraft at high speeds into buildings would do the job.

Side: No
1 point

You have a Boeing 767 with about 3,000 gallons of jet fuel. Jet fuel can't melt steel but you don't need to MELT steel to have a building failure. The hottest temperatures were recorded at 1,800F due to the jet fuel and the flammable office material. You need 2750F to melt steel but at 1100F steel loses 50% of it's strength. The building came down because the trusses on the floor of impact failed, therefore you have a "pancake effect" where those 20 some floors rip through all the other floors below.

That explains your building failure, not an explosive.

Side: No
0 points

I'm not sure if this is a true fact, but I heard that the Towers were structurally designed to fall straight down, in the way that they did, to avoid damaging any surrounding buildings, and of course, people. So anyone who thinks that the Towers were brought down by multiple-floor explosives are...well, wrong.

Side: No
banned999(143) Disputed
4 points

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1559151.stm

JUST TO PROVE THAT SOME OF THE "HIJACKERS" OF 911 PLANES ARE STILL ALIVE. I TRUST THAT BBC IS A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR YOU.

Side: yes
2 points

SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: yes
1 point

Or BBC reporting that building 7 is down before it even happened.

Side: yes