Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable

Framework: I accept Cons addition that cost should also be considered, however I do not feel that it will play any significant role. Many people have looked into the conclusions and concerns of the accepted version of events. Most have very strong feelings about weather we should or should not reinvestigate these attacks. I do not think cost has ever been considered as a factor in those beliefs. Furthermore I would also like to point out that reinvestigating these attacks would be opening a door this country has closed long ago. Doing so would cause a very emotional response across the country, waste our attention and recourses, and would also in my opinion make us look foolish to ourselves and the rest of the world investigating our own former leaders in a crime that was committed by terrorists who besides taking credit for it, are still plotting ways to kill us to this day. Therefore I strongly reject Con’s premise that “for a 10% chance to uncover something new, lets go for it.” This is a serious matter and should be treated as such. The people we lost can not be brought back. The threat to this country has been demonstrated many times before and after 9/11. A 10% chance is not good enough, and I contend that we are no where near that. Inherency: “A large portion of the support for the official version of 9-11 is…” It doesn’t matter why people support the official story. That doesn’t change the argument. NIST Reports: Con makes what might be good points about potential issues with the NIST reports. However there are 3 main issues with his argument: 1. None of his points prove NIST’s conclusions to be wrong but rather suggest that their methods might not produce accurate results.2. He fails to take into account the fact that the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the conclusions of the NIST reports, not simply because they believe what they are told but because many scientists and engineers have done the work themselves. The following is a list of just some of the many peer reviewed scientific papers that have been published supporting the official story:“Behaviour of lightweight composite trusses in fire: A case study,” STEEL AND COMPOSITE STRUCTURES 7 (2): 105-118 APR 2007 “Mechanics of progressive collapse: Learning from world trade center and building demolitions,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 133 (3): 308-319 MAR 2007 “Finite element code for impact collapse problems of framed structures,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING 69 (12): 2538-2563 MAR 19 2007 “Impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft into theWorldTradeCenter,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 131 (10): 1066-1072 OCT 2005 “Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses,” FIRE AND MATERIALS 29 (4): 181-194 JUL-AUG 2005 “Stability of theWorldTradeCenterTwinTowersstructural frame in multiple floor fires,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 131 (6): 654-657 JUN 2005 “Structural responses of world trade center under aircraft attacks,” JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING-ASCE 131 (1): 6-15 JAN 2005 “Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 130 (10): 1177-1187 OCT 2004 “How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory,” FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL 38 (6): 501-533 OCT 2003 “A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of theWorldTradeTowers,” FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL 37 (7): 707-716 OCT 2002 The following site has links to many more: http://www.debunking911.com... I challenge Con to show how many scientific papers have been published refuting NIST’s conclusions.3. Con fails to explain what his own points imply. I would argue that Con has made a simple case that there is more work needed on learning the science of the collapses. However I would also argue in light of my previous point that his case is negated. But either way this has nothing to do with America being attacked on 9/11. If Con would like to make a case as to why any of his points are relevant to his support for a new investigation I would be happy to look more closely at them. NORAD non responsiveness: "One suspicious fact was that military exercises coincided with the 911 attacks, precluding NORAD and FAA response” Coincidences are not evidence. In a massive event such as 9/11, there will be many, many elements. It is by no means surprising that coincidences were discovered. Furthermore in 2001 (before the wars), our military was allocated over $292 billion(1). It is not suspicious to me that they would perform exercises to protect us. “This implies that a $400bn military budget was undermined by $4 boxcutters. This is a prima facie bad explanation.” Our military was undermined by the determination of the terrorists, the element of surprise, and the use of that surprise coupled with fear to take over the planes. To suggest that they were undermined by $4 box cutters is a demonstration my opponent’s willful inability to see the reality of a situation when that reality contradicts his position. Plan A “George Bush and Dick Cheney were not under oath when questioned about 911… It would be worth a shot to put them under oath and ask them some questions.” I do agree that they should have been under oath but for reasons I mentioned earlier, I do not feel it’s “worth a shot” to put them under oath and ask them some questions. Unless you have a real reason to, which I am still waiting for. “This can be ameliorated if we shoot them up with Sodium Thiopental [12] and employ the various torture techniques used by the Bush Administration to uncover vital intelligence for national security purposes.” At this point I must question if my opponent is taking this subject seriously. He is suggesting that the United States literally torture it’s former President and Vice President because a handful of conspiracy theorists can not accept that we were attacked by Al Queda. “The only possible objection to this plan is that George Bush and Dick Cheney would have their rights violated.” Only possible objection? The voters may draw their own rebuttals. If Con is serious I’ll refute this in later rounds. For now I would advise Con that is he wishes to be taken seriously in this debate he should focus on making a case for an investigation before making a case that that investigation should include torturing our former President and Vice President. Plan B “The bureaucratic response structure of NORAD and the FAA should be evaluated. Is there evidence of foul play? Does it look like the institutions were deliberately designed to fail?” One usually finds reasonable suspicion of foul play before deciding to evaluate it for that purpose. This statement characterizes what is wrong with this debate as 9/11 truthers have made it throughout the years. It is not the government’s responsibility to refute the claims of the conspiracy theorists. That is not the way science and investigation works in our society. Anyone can point the finger at someone else and say “I think they are guilty”. The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. Summary: “To investigate something one must have a logical reason to assume that that investigation will reveal something of significance.”Con accepts this basic premise but fails to provide any logical reasons whatsoever. Instead he makes random points that he feels deserve better answers. The original investigation may not satisfy our expectations when looking at the events in retrospect, but the human desire to have answers to every question imaginable is not a reason for an investigation.Con also makes many references to his belief that an investigation is warranted because we “might” find something. As I mentioned, the process of gathering reasonable suspicion occurs before an investigation, it is not the reason we investigate something. (1) comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2001/fy2001_greenbook.pdf