@ajgibson0418 please take into consideration this video for your judgement!
@gigi ill have my decision up in an hour or so wrapping up something then gonna take notes
@logicalreason @citizenthom thank you both for a great debate and good luck in the future any questions please ask
@ajgibson0418 thanks, I had a debate with Yaz about this question specifically using the term inside job
@citizenthom Congrats for advancing to the next round!@logicalreason Hard luck on this one.. Try again at the next tournament starting next week - registration is open:https://www.qallout.com/tournament
Here's the counter http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
I've got a frozen feed/wonky audio coming from you. We'll see how the recording works. Problem starts right after I passed the mic back around 5:30.
@logicalreason I didn't hear anything from your last two speaking periods. If your audio didn't get recorded then I'd say you're entitled to three minutes to repeat those points. I would however ask, as a courtesy, for three minutes to address anything that DID get recorded that I did not hear.
@citizenthom I would appreciate that; @qallout; is that fair?
@logicalreason @citizenthom, yes, please check if the recording has any audio missing, if it does, you'll both be entitled to make up for it (and also respond to any video comments)
@logicalreason, r u broadcasting from a mobile network? or a fixed-line wifi connection?to avoid these issues in the future, it is highly recommended you use a wifi network..
@qallout will do, where should I post the missing segments?
@logicalreason just here in the comments section
there's a camera icon
@logicalreason Please submit any additional video comments within 24 hours upon the completion of the debate so that the Judge can take into consideration!
@qallout response is coming tonight.
@qallout @citizenthom @gigi Segment posted below
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/ FROM NIST"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. ... the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
Spoliation of Evidence: Denial And Destruction of evidence privy to investigative bodies by government institutions bohttp://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/evidence-spoliation-a-growing-new-tort.htmlJames Glanz &- Eric Lipton, “A Search for Clues in Towers’ Collapse,” New York Times, February 2, 2002 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E0DE153DF931A35751C0A9649C8B63 Union of Concerned Scientists, “Restoring Scientific Integrity in Federal Policymaking” http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/scientists-sign-on-statement.html) .
Pro needs better lighting! (improved after 2 minutes...but still not good..) Pro really isn't trying to put forth any real facts, other than the fact that there are conspiracy theories out there. He makes statements like 'steel frame building collapsed due to fire'...but he fails to put forth any engineering. Con makes a great point that to argue that it was an inside job, you need to successfully refute the official reports on the causes of the WTC towers and WTC 7 collapsing. Pro never presents and refutes the official reports. AND - he grossly mis-states what is in the NIST reports. AND - he makes a great presumption about explosive charges planted...and there is ZERO evidence of any explosive charges. BTW - steel won't melt due to the fires of debris and jet fuel. BUT - if steel supports are heated to about 650° C (easy to achieve in a jet fuel and debris fire) - the steel structure loses 50% of its strength. If a building's steel structure has been damaged (both towers - many columns taken out by the impact of the jet, the rest of the beams/columns are more stressed to carry the load...heat it up - and the structure WILL fail. CON is correct about 'progressive collapse'. There are a whole series of YouTube videos prepared to debunk the conspiracy theories. They blend actual videos with science explanations.... I will provide a link to one - and then more can be seen on the right side. Plenty of stuff seems 'out of whack' - and the conspiracy theorists are using the lack of science training to suck in gullible people into thinking that the WTC towers collapsing could NOT have been due to the airplanes hitting them....ergo it HAD to be an 'inside job'. Well - to look at the ACTUAL data - shows that either the conspiracy theorists are ignorant of scientific principles OR - they just don't care and they would rather disseminate lies to create distrust rather than accept the facts.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXxynEDpwrA