azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Does not, and can not Explain how the entire steel frame of world trade centres 1 2 and 7 collapsed at free fall speed.The section on free fall speed begins with the false assertion that other parts of the building falling faster than the building itself are proof that the building itself collapsed slower than free fall speed.NIST can't explain either. It is pretending to be able to, but any competent observer can see they fail to explain the free fall and the molten iron/steel.If you have seen the collapse of WTC 7 1 and 2 and don't call them controlled demolitions, you either don't understand Newtonian physics or are lying.Here's a far more rational and scientific demonstration:- 911blogger.com/node/10025
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

come on didn't you see all the stuff that happened. the twin towers couldn't have just fallen because of two planes i mean the structure of the buliding could have handled that damage without the collapse and the way it collapsed was also suspicious i mean a building doesn't just fall like a pancake it just doesn't happen like that and why did building 7 fall there was nothing to make it fall no planes. nothing . it had to be set up. and the government had many warning yet they did nothing. yet when you think of england and how they had the bombs as well and how they survived and didn't many deaths compared to America of course it would have had to be an inside job. there were people trying to cover something up that is why building 7 collapsed!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Even if the structures of the towers may not have failed due to the impact of the aircraft, they were both transcontinental flights. That means that even with the takeoff and travel to New York City, they still would have had a nearly full load of jet fuel. The fire caused by the fuel could have weakened the structure of the building to the point that the structure could not hold up the several floors above the point of impact. As for Tower 7, there was structural damage caused by the collapse of the towers and fires burned on the inside. Inadequate fire suppresion systems caused the fires to burn out of control, weakening the structure of the building. If almost ANY building were allowed to burn uncontrolled, the frame would eventually weaken to the point of giving way, and in this case, it brought down the building.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Why are you ignoring the eyewitness statements testifying to explosions in the basement before the plane impacts and in WTC7 far in advance of the tower collapse? Why are you ignoring the molten steel? Why are you ignoring the free fall speeds, which points to not just weakness but elimination of ALL resistance?"The fire caused by the fuel could have weakened the structure of the building to the point that the structure could not hold up the several floors above the point of impact."The structure was steel, which transmits heat rapidly away from the source and a lattice, which means that any weaknesses in the weaker columns are transferred instantaneously to the cooler and stronger columns away from the plane damage on the south sides----If almost ANY building were allowed to burn uncontrolled, the frame would eventually weaken to the point of giving way, and in this case, it brought down the building.This is a lie. It has happened many times before and the steel strutures do not fail under hydrocarbon fires.but WHY ARE YOU IGNORING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE?---The government story requires there Arabs who can create explosions 300 metres away inside a seperate building when they hit the towers with two planes.http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/?p=105  The government story requires Arabs to be able to melt structural steel with jet fuel.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s  http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=kevin+ryan  The government story requires that Arabs are able to make explosions occur in the basement of a 400 metre tall building when a plane hits it about 300 metres above ground level.http://911blogger.com/node/11949http://911blogger.com/node/11384http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmF-VQNEQMc (In the last link, the guy corroborating Rodriguez is about halfway thru the video)Also plenty supported by qualified architects and engineers at ae911truth.org
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

I agree with this arguer, even though he doesn't provide any evidence. It IS obviously an inside job, but many Americans want to cling to their notion that the US government actually cares for them, so you have to proovide forensic proofs. Even then some still deny it.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

*she =)Check people's profiles before using gender-specific pronouns. :P
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Here is the necessary proof : video presentations by ae911truth.org, which has the support of 380 architects and engineers.911blogger.com/node/10025and 911blogger.com/node/14020
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

We've seen the footage of the WTC Towers collapsing straight down, into their own footprint, at nearly free-fall speed, so many times that it can start to look "normal" somehow.Nevertheless, it is not normal. Buildings don't collapse straight down, into their own footprint, at nearly free-fall speed--at least, not without proper planning.I'm surprised all the Demolition companies didn't go out of business after 9/11. Apparently all you have to do is set a steel-frame building on fire for a couple of hours and they collapse perfectly without any planning or explosives. Right?Take a look at what happens in this failed demolition video. According to the 9/11 pancake theory, the force of the remaining upper floors of the building hitting the ground should have precipitated a massive "vertical failure" resulting in "global collapse."Reposted from the WTC7 debate for relevance
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

This is a video of 5 story concrete building. In no way do I see how this is relevant to a 110 glass and steel building.Find the society of structural engineer's, or of civil engineer's or even of architects who support the notion that it was a planned demolition.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

What this video tells me is that you have to blow every floor in order to get a building to collapse onto itself. I don't see an explosion on every floor of the towers. This means that something other than explosives caused the towers to collapse. Could it have been the intense heat of the plane's burning fuel? We have to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Did you really see explosions in this video? Look again. All you can see is large clouds of grey dust being ejected from the bottom. It actually looks remarkably similar to the giant greyish dust cloud that progressively obscured the upper floors of the WTC towers as they collapsed.Controlled demolition uses the building's own weight against it, by severing its support columns.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Haha, what an awful comparison. That is a video of a controlled demolition of a building in an icy / snowy climate, with the steel supports at the strongest / most rigid they could be before cracking. The WTC7 had been on fire for hours, and was hit with thousands of tonnes of debris. Fire radiates heat, which weakens steel. If you get a steel support, and heat it, even if you heat it in a conventional fire you'll get a malleable functionality. 5th-century Chinese [Song dynasty, if I recall correctly] didn't have jet fuel, yet they could still forge swords and armor. How surprising. By heating steel, it loses it's structural integrity and can be bent and manipulated.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Good boy. NIST would be proud.Let's not forget that the fire was only on a few floors. If the WTC buildings had been rotated evenly over 1800 degree barbecues for 2 hours, then maybe I'd buy the "progressive collapse theory". It's simply not possible for unfocused, random fires on a handful of floors to weaken all the steel, from the basement to the crash zone, symmetrically and cause global collapse.p.s. it's called a forge. I have never argued that steel is invulnerable to fire.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Rocknwow.You have criticized me elsewhere for speculating both too much and not enough. In fact, you do such a good job of contradicting yourself, I need only step aside.However, you did raise one or two "points" I wanted to address: "Why bother to cover up the thermal devices within??? If [discovered, it would] confirm how brilliantly conceived the terrorist plot truly was."and"Is it possible the 'molten steel' wasn't mentioned because who cares? What difference does it make?" Molten steel, first. See the link below for a plausible look at the actual energy unleashed by the burning jet-fuel. It was insufficient to compromise the structural integrity of the steel columns on the floors in question.  How then, did it result in the molten steel furnaces that burned for weeks beneath the rubble at Ground Zero? There is a brief video documenting the molten steel elsewhere on this page. In it, one of the rescue workers estimates the temperature of the steel as "about 1500 degrees" (note: this was filmed six weeks after the attack). As the temperature of steel increases, it shifts in color. The color range of steel from dull red to bright orange equates to 1200 degrees F to 1600 degrees F. I would say the rescue worker is pretty close with his estimate. And you ask "who cares?" A jet-fuel fire + office fire could not have produced the necessary energy to heat that steel, and maintain that heat for weeks after the incident. In this light, it certainly appears that secondary devices may have been used. To rebut your former question, why not blame those devices on the terrorists, I would suggest that it is much harder to explain away how the terrorists would have bypassed WTC security to plant those devices. From http://www.iwilltryit.com/marvin.htm" Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Stop talking about 9/11 damn they died get over it and so did a gay building and all the people that are crying about there gay family they should hurry up and get over it damn pussy's
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

The way this debate was constructed creates a false dichotomy. Just because one thinks that 9/11 was not an inside job does not mean one trusts the government.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

I think it's only meant to imply that you "trust the government" not to have a hand in 9/11. Sadly, when I look at history, I don't.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Im a truther. The government did 911, as demonstrated by the extensive evidence cited in my rebuttals found below.That does not stop me from agreeing with this sadly deluded and superficial individual that the debate options present a false dichotomy.So I gave him a point for effort and endorse his argument. But it isn't an argument against an inside job, just an argument against silly debate premises.For the proof the government did 911, I suggestae911truth.orghttp://www.911blogger.com/node/10025http://www.911blogger.com/node/15793as good starting points.Specifically, the best proof lies in the fact that a third building, WTC7, damaged largely on the south side, but hardly at all on its north side, fell verticaly at free fall speed, meaning the entire resistance of its steel structure was eliminated synchronistically by preplanted explosives.The free fall WTC collapses have never happened at any point in history to steel framed buildings without the use of preplanted explosives or steel cutting charges.The links above provide ample evidence of molten steel far too hot to have been melted by anything other than preplanted charges.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

This is a pointless debate. Conspiracy theorists are going to cite regurgitated information from conspiracy theory websites, non-conspiracy theorists are going to cite sources from government and popular mechanics magazines. Each side will discredit the other side's sources.We've got sources like the Northwoods Documents, which was a plan that was never carried out. There are thousands of documents in our government that play out different scenarios, most of which will never be used. We've got the popular mechanics article, which I think does an excellent job at debunking the myths. But what it really comes down to is your beliefs. There are a lot of impressionable people on both side of the debate that believe what others tell them.Its my opinion was that it was carried out by terrorists. The buildings collapsed because planes crashed into them. That is a lot easier to believe than the government can keep a secret, especially one so big that would have to involve hundreds of people to carry out. I say no, even if they wanted to our government is to incompetent to pull that feat off.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Here's a 3D animation created by Purdue University scientists that show the effects of a plane plowing into the towers.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Doesnt prove anything, for or against. Irrelevant."using a state of the simulation code"Where has this code been published for peer review? Who paid for the simulation? does Purdue University receive funds from the US government?"State of the art simulation system" sounds very credible to the superficial. scientists need details to assess its validity.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

"We've got the popular mechanics article, which I think does an excellent job at debunking the myths."Only to the superficial observer.The popular mechanics article implies that standard office materials created the heat necessary to melt the steel core of the towers, which is utterly impossible because of the amount of steel involved, its conductivity and the low flame temperature of almost every office furnishing mentioned. Even they admit that only "pockets" reached the temperatures they claim, and doesnt address the video and eyewitness evidence of streams and pools of molten metal.The popular mechanics article ALSO fails to address the free fall speeds of the collapses, which means that the entire steel frame had to lose ALL of its resistance, not just part.Thirdly, the popular mechanics article fails to address thje vertical nature of the WTC7 collapse, a building that was overwhelmingly damages on the SOUTH side, and reinforced to withstand earthquakes to provide support for the emergency command bunker.There are several other points from ae911truth.org that popular mechanics doesn't address, or pretends to address, but those who stand behind the popular mechanics article are not serious critical thinkers.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

By molten steal are you referring to those trusses and beams that had diagonal cuts and were allegedly proof of theremite? If so, firemen and other workers have tools that enable them to cut through hard metals including steal, which is why it's cut diagonally (theremite can only burn holes at best) and so low to the ground. As for WTC7 and why it lands in its foot print: WTC7 had extensive fire damage and therefore its entire structural integrity was compromised. The south side, it's true, had the bulk of the damage mainly from falling debris, once it failed (which rescue workers were well aware it was going to do 20 minutes ahead of time: hence the "we pulled" and the 20 minute prescient news report) it, like the towers, fell into its foot print through a domino effect succession. In truth, though the south side was badly damaged, fire raged for a long time through practically the whole building. This is predicated not only on video evidence and professional testimony, but also several computer models done by NIST and independent enterprises, including the discovery channels "Conspiracy Files" show. Ockham's Razor does the rest.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Never before has a steel structure collapsed due to fire, until this point. Fire simply isnt hot enough. So while the diagonal cuts did not attribute to the fall of the building, neither did fire. Im really interested why people always bring up the domino effect succession theory, because it assumes that the internal structure of a building can be treated as a series of independant units, and even if we do assume this, for the building to fall in it's own footprint, it takes the similtaneous failure of all load bearing columns on a single level to happen. One can demonstrate with a large tower out of playing cards, if one removes a critical card from the middle of the tower, the tower does not fall symmetrically, within it's own footprint, but spreads out over a much larger area. Also, Ockham's razor is no proof. If I told you that balloons float because of a magical force, or that it was due to a complex interaction between a resisting medium, gravity, things called atoms and molecules, pressure, temperature, cohesive and adhesive forces, which would you believe?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Ockham's razor is not proof or even evidence for either direction. It is merely a tool for finding the more logical answer. Your objection to it is invalid and misunderstands what Ockham's razor is. Ockham's razor would actually favour atoms molecules and pressure because those things exist, and to posit a magical force (or demolition explosives) is redundant; multiplies entities unnecessarily, and is therefore illogical. About the domino effect, or progressive collapse. 9/11 "truth" websites, needless to say, make many unsupported assertions which people take as credible. One of these is the idea that progressive collapse is unprecedented. This is not the case. It's a very easy assertion to make because it doesn't assume a burden of proof, but the minimal level of research falsifies it.The L'Ambiance Plaza is an example of progressive collapse. At the time they were only half way through construction of the 16 story building, but that half was structurally completed. When the initial collapse occurred, one floor slab fell onto another, which couldn't take the weight and collapsed onto the next, and so on. Many other examples exist: the New World Hotel in Singapore; Bailey's Crossroads collapse of 1973; in 1985 a 21 story building in L.A.; the fire induced collapse of the Ronan Point flats in the UK. These examples aren't perfect, but are proof positive that this type of collapse occurred prior to September 11, 2001, and will occur again.You claim that fire alone was not enough to cause a collapse in a steel building. "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. Jet fuel burns at burns at 800° to 1500°F. Perhaps the unprecedented part was that this was no ordinary fire. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." Inside were also many combustible materials that amplified the inferno. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. A predictable temperature considering the circumstances, and more than enough to elicit structural collapse. (source: Popular Mechanics)Photographic and video evidence affirm this, including images of the dust resulting from the first pancake collapse, and the circumstantial evidence of the order the towers collapsed, due to the height of plane impact, all of which has been replicated in computer models.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

"The L'Ambiance Plaza is an example of progressive collapse. At the time they were only half way through construction of the 16 story building, but that half was structurally completed. When the initial collapse occurred, one floor slab fell onto another, which couldn't take the weight and collapsed onto the next, and so on.Many other examples exist: the New World Hotel in Singapore; Bailey's Crossroads collapse of 1973; in 1985 a 21 story building in L.A.; the fire induced collapse of the Ronan Point flats in the UK."You are incorrect. the WTC collapses had to be controlled demolitions for the three core reasons- 1) molten metal witnesses and video evidence 2) free fall collapse acceleration (NOT pancaking) 3) vertical collapse of WTC7, overwhelmingly damaged on the south side, and hardly damaged on the north side at all.Studying any of the previous collapses you cite will demonstrate expose differences in the manner of collapse or structure of the building. I know this because basic, independently verifiable and reproducable laboratory physics proves the 911 collapses to be controlled demolitions. The lack of previous examples means that propagandists will merely reach for closest fit examples of collapses that are almost impossible to verify due to lack of documentation.Every collapse at free fall speed is a controlled demolition. Free fall speed means no resistance and no resistance means anticipatory elimination of resistance and that means preplanted charges.And thats before we get to the verticality and the pools of molten metal.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Kevin Ryan and Dr. Steven E. Jones debunk NIST relentlessly at the journal for 9/11 studies.Jones has done extensive testing on the WTC dust, but he refutes your allegation that the molten metal witnessed was aluminium in this video:-http://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2 In short, he points to many eyewitnesses and video evidence of the streams of metal being orange, NOT silver as molten aluminium is. He performs several tests to refute NIST claims that organics can mix with molten aluminium to give a red glow, but I suggest you watch the whole video for yourself, and look at his responses at the journal.In another video I have seen of one of his lectures. He identifies iron rich microspheres in the WTC dust, which are only produced where molten iron is present.He also finds EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE- something called "nano-thermite", I think he says it is, in the dust, and can provide a chain of custody from the woman's apartment.I'm sure you'll be able to find the other Steven Jones videos, but will return to post links when I find them.This proves explosives brought down WTC 1 2 and 7, supported by seperate verticality and free fall speed proofs and much more supporting evidence eg 911blogger.com/node/15793The destruction of evidence Jones and many others referred to, along with NIST withholding secret evidence, is clear evidence of a cover up, before we get to the pentagon videos, all of the other governmentally withheld, hidden(eg. Mineta testimony) and destroyed evidence and outright internal contradictions and story changes documented by David Ray Griffin.