Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable

Framework:If people feel strongly both ways about new investigations, we're tied. However, the truth would enhance justice, so I gain resumption in favor of investigation.Pro says it might be embarrassing to re-open investigations. But so far I have only named 3 people to be investigated. This can be discrete.Inherency:NIST reports are the objective support for the official story. Since the engineering is flawed/impossible, we just have the government's word on it. We need to re-open investigations to get sound and transparent evidence.My case does not depend on crazy conspiracy theorists.1) NIST ReportsDropped all my tags...A) My points show the reports are either inaccurate or wrong. If they simulate the planes hitting a superficially weak part of the tower, then assume that the fires are burning at maximum strength for 90 minutes, it skews their answer significantly towards collapse.B) Pro relies on authority. He says there is consensus that NIST science is good. This is a bad argument for 3 reasons:i) This is a debate. You use arguments to support your ideas. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. He's just given bunch of paper headers. He is running his case off an external website without even giving us the links. This defeats the point of having a character limit.ii) I pointed to UNKNOWABLE engineering variables like fire distribution or initial stress/strain conditions. The NIST reports admitted they didn't use actual steel from WTC 7. I could find other things wrong with their reports. The engineering data to solve this problem doesn't exist. Pro's reports must have the same (or worse) defects than the NIST reports.iii) Somehow, I have space to address all his sources. He will not get back to me. This is because he is just spamming and does not understand engineering.http://www.fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk... -Circular reasoning. They tinkered with variables until their structure collapsed. They did not estimate actual variables from evidence.-Contradicts the NIST report by pointing out that insulation would minimize the effects of fire.http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...- Self fulfilling prophecy because it assumes one floor has collapsed, and that the collapsing energy is (by their definition) greater than the energy required to collapse subsequent floors.-States that there was an order of magnitude greater energy than required for collapse. Doesn't explain why the tower wouldn't collapse instantly if there were >10x the energy required to fall it.-Pancake model disregards truss/beam mechanics that make structures significantly stronger.“Finite element code for impact collapse problems of framed structures,”Can find no free copyhttp://trid.trb.org...-Does not model the collapse.-Explains that the plane wouldn't be able to penetrate exterior columns of the WTC.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...-"Unlike the actual event in the WTC with multiple floors exposed to fire, this analysis only considers a single floor, hence the results from this analysis do not confirm the actual behaviour of the buildings while they collapsed."http://ascelibrary.org...-This is a 2d model. Real life is 3d-No full free copy online...http://ascelibrary.org...- They assumed that the structure collapsed due to official reasons and then tried to reverse-engineer what the internal floors would have looked like. More circular reasoning.http://ascelibrary.org...-Only tries to explain why collapse won't stop once its begun. It does not prove that the tower would START to collapse if they were hit by a plane.http://www.sciencedirect.com...-"A complete consensus on any detailed explanation of the definitive causes and mechanisms of the collapse of these structures is well nigh impossible given the enormous uncertainties in key data (nature of the fires, damage to fire protection, heat transfer to structural members and nature and extent of structural damage for instance)."-This report exists because the NIST report is bad. This proves we need to re-open investigations because the government did a bad job at explaining the scientific case.http://www.sciencedirect.com...-Another parameter fitting exercise. Another circular claim.-No analysis of plane impact or fire distribution. -The models they used are insanely simple. No finite element analysis or anything.http://tinyurl.com...C) Pro doesn't understand the engineering points I'm making. Engineering mechanics is sound. We just don't have the data to model THIS collapse accurately.It is unproductive to try for another simulation. Accurate simulation is impossible because we are missing key information. Without Pro's reports, the government's version of 911 has no scientific support. All we have is their word. That is not good enough.2) NORAD UnresponsivenessPro says it is not suspicious that NORAD and FAA failed because 911 was a surprise attack. He gives no proof for this claim.The ongoing war games precluded any response from the ENTIRE Northeast Air Defense Sector. It is suspicious that the USA would be entirely defenseless at any point in time, let alone the exact same time the largest terrorist attack on US soil is unfolding. It is also suspicious that NORAD would remain defenseless throughout the entire event. NORAD had 90 minutes to do something - ANYTHING - about the Pentagon. Apparently the Department of Defense is unable to defend itself with a 90 minute warning.Pro gives no direct rebuttal to these facts. He just says coincidence isn't evidence. Coincidence is actually inductive evidence. It is enough for us to suspect foul play and investigate the situation. I don't need a certain proof.To my knowledge, NORAD has never been investigated. No reason has been given. I'm totally getting a clue right now... http://tinyurl.com...Plan APro concedes they should have been under Oath. There is no reason why we can't discretely order them to appear in court and re-testify under oath. But I don't think the Oath will work. Employing "advanced interrogation" techniques is more thorough. The sodium thiopental is *kind of* a joke but not really. If it works, it works. We can also employ an fMRI machine to achieve upwards of 80% accuracy [1].As I said before, Bush and Cheney are both mass murderers. From a moral standpoint, they have no rights. If it's okay to torture innocents in Gitmo to figure out where Osama Bin Ladin's cat was 6 months ago, it's okay to torture guilty people to help uncover the truth of 911. I don't care if there are a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists out there. I have presented uncontested evidence and reasoning that suggests foul play and dishonesty from the authorities.Plan BPro gives no reason why we can't investigate NORAD and friends. He just says it's not their responsibility. Well, they failed to prevent a $4 terrorist attack. You should at least figure out why they failed. Why were they playing war games at that exact time? Why did the FAA and NORAD fail to communicate? Why couldn't NORAD react within 90 minutes? These are reasonable questions.SummaryMy points prove the official story is implausible. Investigations were hidden from public view and the science is flawed. We need new investigations that are transparent and thorough.Will we find something? There's a chance we will simply confirm the official story. Since there is virtually no cost to implementing my plans, you should just flip the coin. Heads, we get a new truth. Tails, we get a better version of the old truth. It's a win-win.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...