That the US government is responsible for 9/11

I appreciate my opponent’s gesture to allow me to refute all of his claims but I don’t quite feel my points on this were understood. I am sorry if Pro feels that I was “harassing” him about stacking too much evidence against me. The point I was making is that it does not matter how much evidence there is, the question is weather that evidence is valid. What I was pushing for Pro to do was to provide key evidence that he feels is strong and stand by it, as opposed to throwing mountains of evidence at me with the apparent hope that I would not be able to refute it all. Since Pro has apparently given me a “green light” to continue refuting his points in this round I will do so, and then follow with my concluding statements. I will begin from the point I left off with in my last round. The numbers indicate each of Pros paragraphs as he did not have a specific layout to follow. 8. I would like to take advantage of my first rebuttal to show why Pros conduct is unacceptable debate practice as I have been explaining for those who may still be unclear or disagree. Here is how this paragraph begins: “Flight 77, which flew into the pentagon, was highly censored. We still have no videos showing the 757, and there is strong evidence that the FBI tampered with the crime scene (. http://www.911review.com......). ” Here he simply states 2 points for me to refute. The second point which says “the FBI tampered with the crime scene” is a point that means nothing without elaborating. Pro should take the time to show how the FBI tampered with the crime scene to make his case. But since he did not I will now read his 6,026 character link to understand his claim… After reading his claim I found 2 places he may have gotten his statement from. The first is a claim titled “videos seized” where it states that the FBI confiscated videos from 2 private businesses. Confiscating videos is a typical way for the FBI to gather evidence, it is not tampering. The second is a paragraph titled “disturbing the crime scene” where it talks about the rapid response at the pentagon after the crash removing debris from the plane. The people who “tampered” with the crime scene in this case were not FBI agents and in fact were not even supposed to be there. It was a simple natural response to help, by people who just witnessed over a hundred people crash to their deaths. Pro also states that the NTSB refuses to release the black boxes and that investigators were not allowed near the pentagon for a month. The black boxes were found at 3:40am on Sept 14th so investigators were obviously allowed in the Pentagon. The reason they don’t release them is because there is nothing to release. The black boxes were damaged beyond use. This is to be expected when a plane slams into a re-enforced concrete wall at over 500mph. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. Pro suggests that the government not answering as to what caused the “detonation wave” that witnesses reported feeling at the moment that flight 77 hit the pentagon is somehow suspicious. I do not know what Pro suggests that a plane traveling at over 500mph slamming into a re-enforced concrete wall would feel like to a person close by. There is no need for the government to investigate such a common sense notion that a detonation wave would be expected. Pro also states that the fires inside the pentagon were to hot to be caused by jet fuel. Pros source does not give any scientific explanation but instead uses eyewitness statements like: “We're having a lot of trouble in there. It's about 3,000 degrees inside” This hardly gives a credible point to refute. To my knowledge no one has ever tested the heat inside the pentagon or attempted to explain it. There was no reason to. Only a conspiracy theorists would even think of a detail like this. 10. Pro asserts that the alleged pilot of flight 77 could not execute the maneuver he was credited with on 9/11. This is simply a matter of opinion that many do not share. Here is a 27 year Italian air force pilots take: “the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible…It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what hey did” . http://www.911myths.com... (page 13) Pro also states that flight 77 was being tracked but offers no further explanation. I have never seen credible evidence of this and did not find this claim in the 24,264 characters in Pros source. Pro should have elaborated. Pro also asserts that fighter jets should have been scrambled from nearby Andrews Air Force Base instead of Langley. Andrews was not one of the alert sites from which NORAD had at its disposal to scramble fighter jets. Langley was the nearest base. Their structure is described here: govinfo. library. unt. edu/911/staff_statements/staff_statement_17. pdf(pages 2 and 3) 11. Pro makes a statement of a comprehensive scientific conclusion, not supported by any scientific facts. His need to point out that the fuselage is only 2mm thick would be comical if it was not so deceptive. The 2mm fuselage was followed by the rest of the plane weighing in at 255,550lb(1). Yet he still seems to believe that it is impossible for flight 77 to cause the damage that it did. Since his statements do not appear to be supported by any scientific facts I will simply post a scientific study on the matter and hope Pro will read it(2). (1) . http://www.airliners.net...(2) . http://fire.nist.gov... 12. Lastly, Pro states that all the people who claim to have been able to identify the airline or the make of the aircraft are all “top-ranking military personnel”. His own source starts with a list of six people with whom none of them are military personnel and includes Fox News Greta Van Susteren. In reality there were 136 eyewitnesses who saw a plane and 104 of them who saw flight 77 directly hit the Pentagon. But don’t take it from me, let them tell you about it: . http://www.911reality.com... Conclusion: The fallacy here is that the amount of "evidence" is in no way proof of anything. The vast majority, and usually all of this "evidence" is easily explainable and just patently false. There may be a few points which may be more difficult to explain, but they alone wouldn't be so convincing. . http://warp.povusers.org... In Pros final statements he asserts that he has proven all 10 of his main contentions. I remind the voters that he has not in fact proven any of them, as I have refuted nearly all of them with no response back from him. The only claims that were not refuted were from round 2 in which I ran out of space due to poor conduct that I feel I've shown has been demonstrated by Pro very clearly. Pro gave it a good try, but as clearly put, the amount of evidence put forward in no way proves the validity of a case. I can only assume that if Pro had an answer to my rebuttals he would have given them instead of stepping back and “handing me the mike” so that I can finish refuting his claims. I think it is clear that he did not make a valid argument and the voters should see this clearly. Thanks Pro for keeping me in mind and for this challenge.