Resolved: There was a cover up on 9/11/01 of the demolition of WTC 1 and 2.

Responses:1. Building structure/ fireproofing/ pancake theoryPro raises an interesting point here, but one that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the pancake theory. First, I'd like to correct the idea that only one floor was damaged in the initiall impact. Photos clearly show breaches spanning multiple floors, and if nothing else, the height of the plane is large enough that even if it had gone in perfectly level, it would still damage the floor/ceiling spanning at least 3 floors. This picture illustrates an approximation of the areas of damage from impact and immediate explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org...).There is little to no dispute that the impact caused the floors to sag at the impact site. Here's a good image showing the progression of the sag over time (http://www.debunking911.com...). Computer models also suggest that the floor sag had more of an effect than is commonly realized. Note the far side of impact in this image (http://www.structuremag.org...) showing a considerable amount of sag for only a few missing columns. The missing exterior columns and the damage to the core columns caused more weight than was ever designed for to be transferred to the outer mesh.2. NPT/Building StructureI'm confused by Pro's initial statement here. If you look, you will never find the "quote" Pro attributes to me anywhere in my argument. I am making a claim about the insufficiency of YouTube resolution, not a dismissal or ad hom against the people who support the theory. I also provided very clear refutations of the points Pro re-raises. I'm not sure if he missed them or just ignored them. I have addressed the issues of material that Pro raises. If I was unclear, I suggest readers look at the intro of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org...) describing steel's brittle nature under high impact loads, as well as the increased brittleness of all materials at high speeds.Furthermore, even water can cut steel if given sufficient energy (http://science.howstuffworks.com...).Lastly, I should note that while Con pretends as though WWI tank armor is dispositive of the impact mechanics at play here, the primary reason armor piercing rounds don't pierce armor is the angle of impact. Bullets ricochet from angled materials, yet pierce the same material head-on. A stone will skip off water at a shallow angle, yet drop right through if simply dropped.Also, the thickness of the columns tapered as they went up the tower (http://911research.wtc7.net...). At the top of the tower, the exterior columns tapered to as thin as a quarter inch. But remember that these are hollow tubes that are carrying weight in compression, so their vertical strength is still very high. But, like a straw, they kink if hit with, say, a plane. 3. "But there were 19 hijackers, which means the probability of any one of their luggage getting lost is, cumulatively, 19/150."I simply remind readers here that not only were there no "plans" found in the luggage as I intimated last round, but the idea that lost plane luggage is dispositive of conspiracy AND evidence of controlled demolition is simply absurd.4. Nuclear DemolitionPro's claim concerning the Wikipedia article for Nuclear Demolition ignores the possibility that there is no article for it because it is a complete and utter fantasy based on pseudoscience, and has never been actually used in the real world.>> "a 60 foot deep hole on Liberty Street that just appeared:"The terrible, terrifying "hole" (http://img528.imageshack.us...) is most likely a simple pavement crack down into the N/R subway line that runs... you guessed it, right under Liberty St. between Cortlandt and Rector stations. Not that the energy from the falling buildings couldn't have actually caused a minor localized earthquake... the kinetic energy alone (not the fires, etc...) is calculated (http://www.debunking911.com...) at 0.272 kt of energy - certainly not as power as Pro's magic nukes, but certainly enough to cause some real damage on impact.Just some notes from Pro's source on this theory...First, the source states that Nuclear Demolition was patented by Controlled Demolitions, Inc. While CDI has demolished several buildings, isn't it a little suspicious that the phrase "nuclear demolition" appears nowhere on their site? (http://www.google.com...). Second, there are no internal sources to substantiate any of the claims concerning how CDI began to study Nuclear Demolition (ND). There are some high profile names (Rockefeller) tossed around, but no actual verification. There's also the ludicrous assertion that the government would allow private corporations to use nuclear weapons inside the United States.... right.Third, there is a glaring flaw in the science presented. The article states (http://www.nuclear-demolition.com...) that rock would turn to gas and the pressure of this gas would somehow expand the cavity created by the explosion. But the cavity is supposed to extend to the edge of the building foundation. If there was such an energy conversion with the pressure claimed, it would erupt like a large pimple and send a pillar of superheated granite gas up through the tower, escaping at the first opportunity out the bottom floor. Yet, in videos we clearly see that the collapse propagated downward - it did not start at the base.Fourth, where is the radiation?? Sedan (http://en.wikipedia.org...) was a similar test to the claimed application at WTC. But Sedan left a huge radioactive cloud, caused a localized 4.75 Richter earthquake, and left a crater almost 400 meters across. Where is this crater in Manhattan? Of course, the Russians had to try it too (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and met with similar experiences, though a larger crater because everything is bigger in Soviet Russia. Yet neither of these bombs was as big as the ones claimed to be under the WTC.Fifth, Cited figures for creation of a cavity are a physical impossibility. The article states that for dry granite there is a 69 ton/kt yield of vaporized material. That means that a 150kt bomb would vaporize (69 * 150) 10,350 tons of granite. The density of granite is between 2.65 and 2.75 g/cm^3 (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Volume = Mass/Density. So 10,350 tons / 2.65 g/cm^3 is ~ 3900 cu. m. Volume of a sphere is 4/3 * pi r^3 = 3900/ (4/3pi) = r^3 = ~930. r = 9.75... giving us a sphere with a diameter of around 20 meters. Not 100 meters.Sixth, the article claims that it is impossible to demolish modern steel frame building with conventional explosives, yet that is precisely what the source's champion company, CDI does for a living.I can continue all day listing the various factual and scientific inaccuracies that this article is riddled with, but I'm not sure there is much point, given that the first few completely disprove the theory.I might suggest Pro also spend some more time developing his theory of demolition in the final round, because it's in pretty sorry shape so far.As it stands, the resolution is clearly,NEGATED.