Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable

Wow Pro's really all over the place there... Good thing he dropped all my tags! Would be a lot easier if he realized he could run his framework arguments under "Framework", and NIST arguments under "NIST"... What are debate? [sic]: The purpose of debate is to figure out who is a better debater, not to decide if the resolution is objectively true. Many of you probably agree with Pro but think he's made worse arguments than me. That means he loses. My Mistake: It turns out if you copypaste his response it cuts off the URLs. So Pro probably really did run out of space. My bad. I direct you to his horrible sentence structures and formatting as reasons why he'd run out of space. No pity. Framework: Pro tries to argue that I'm not being topical. He wants me to stick with the spirit of the 911-truth movement saying that "forces within the US government may have been involved in the planning of these attacks". Plan A would also cover just about everything the 911 truth movement asserts. You can ask Bush any question. If they were involved in 911 planning, we'll find out about it. My Plan B wants to investigate NORAD, a US federal institution. There are many within the 911-truth movement who think the US knew about the attacks but let them happen anyway. So when I say NORAD sat on @$$, they could be intentionally aiding terrorists. Both plans are topical because they would investigate whether the USFG had a hand in the attacks. Pro complains that he doesn't see the point of exposing the NIST reports. This is the ONLY transparent report the government has attempted to put out. The NIST reports are glaringly wrong and potentially fraudulent. So all we have left is the government's word that they weren't involved. It seems like a bad idea to take the government's word at face value when you could just investigate the institutions. Quick note - this is the first time Pro has argued topicality. Saving the real arguments for the last round hmm? Logic: No coherent theory: No one has a coherent theory. The 911 movement has guesses. Some of them are more plausible than others. We need more facts before we can come to a reasonable conclusion. That is the whole purpose of re-opening investigations. I don't need a coherent theory. If I blast holes in all theories it means we need to investigate more. Shotgun Fallacy: Well this is kind of rich. The guy who wants us to read 30 academic papers that are heavily flawed and don't even confirm his case accuses me of asking too many questions. I tried to follow Pro's complaint about me tacking on points, but I see a total of maybe 4 questions in my round 3 point 2) NORAD. Is that too much? First, there's been a very small, consistent, set of questions since the very beginning. -Why was NORAD playing war games with all its available response pilots? -Why couldn't NORAD do anything to help the pentagon even with a 90 minute warning? (The NIST reports actually made up the bulk of my case, but it was dropped so fast...) Pro's response was a minute-by-minute description of the event which prompted even more questions. This is because his explanation is so bad, not because I'm trying to spam. So when he says the US can't monitor its own airspace because its radars were turned off, I have to ask why. He doesn't even try to give me answers. He just cries that I'm asking too many questions, which is exactly what would happen if his explanations were full of holes. I'm doing my best to make lemonade, but Pro's giving me some pretty crappy lemons. Cons Case: Building Collapses: Actually the point of this is to show that there isn't a scientific explanation for what happened. This means we have to investigate the institutions surrounding 911. There COULD be foul play, but I don't have to prove that there's foul play in advance before we investigate. My criticisms of the institutions merely point in that direction. NORAD: Pro says I only criticize NORAD's inefficiency. Well if you are intentionally inefficient and let the terrorists do their thing... that's what a lot of 911 truthers are saying. Pro also brings up the new point that investigating NORAD would be pointless because its 10 years later. Obviously I meant we should investigate what NORAD was doing BACK THEN, which is probably why I named NORAD's 2001 director instead of its current director. The point is to discover if NORAD intentionally aided terrorists, maybe by being grossly ineffective. Bush and Cheney: Pro says he thought they should have been under oath in 2001, but gives no reason why he doesn't want them under oath in 2011. It's better than nothing... I don't know what we'd find. We might find out the government has been lying. We might find out that they've been telling the truth and are just really stupid. Either way, we get TRANSPARENCY. This is the primary advantage I secure as Con. Other Examples If Pro actually read the source I linked, it shows a US hijacking in 1994. My point on foreign hijackings being on the rise demonstrates that the government doesn't have an excuse to forget that planes can be hijacked. We are at least agnostic about the event because all we have is the government's word on it. There have never been transparent investigations. We need transparency before we can come to a reasonable explanation. Pro really just can't get it through his head that Bush and Cheney are mass murders. Sorry. I proved this in round 1 and Pro can't even seem to comprehend what I'm saying. Mass murderers have no moral rights, so you can't be morally outraged if something bad happens to them. Pro gives no arguments against their interrogation. === Final Voting Guide === Conduct Pro is Spamming - I repeatedly accused him of spamming abusively and running his case off an external website. He has never rebutted these charges. Pro is Dropping - He dropped almost every argument in his last response. He has not talked about my plans at all. He just comes up with new points every round and throws out all the tags. No wonder things get disorganized. Sources: Pro sources turned - I rebutted every paper he cited. He no longer contests this. Con use of NIST reports - The NIST reports are superior to all of Pro's sources on the tower collapse because they are more comprehensive. Pro doesn't even touch them. Arguments: Inherency - There is no transparent report. I have been hammering on this and gotten silence from Pro. We need transparency in 911 investigations. We currently have none because it is simply the government's self account. Plan A - Getting more reliable information from key leaders like Bush/Cheney/NORAD's Director potentially uncovers new facts. More importantly, the process is transparent so whatever information we get, we can be more sure of. Plan B - The institutions failed. Horribly. Pro wants you to believe that a $300bn military budget IN PEACETIME can't even monitor its own airspace or keep track of 3 planes at once. I call shenanigans. Foul play is a real possibility, and these institutions need to be investigated. S&G: Grammar - Again, Pro's sentence structure is really bad. He runs out of space even though he drops most of the debate. My organization is superior because I can address all his spam and flow my old arguments. Nuff said.