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

I thank Tarzan for his response and for a good debate! SUMMARY: 1. BUILDING STRUCTURE - PRO has demonstrated how the towers were actually overdesigned to withstand this exact type of scenario. The buildings survived the impacts easily and were still standing, just like the other 8 buildings mentioned in Rd. 1. Fire didn't destroy those buildings even though EVERY ONE of those fires burned longer than the WTC fires (one of them even burned for 2 days). CON provided no proof that the fireproofing was actually removed (as CON asked for in Rd. 4), that is just speculation. As far as 3 floors vs. 1: Other buildings had multiple floors damaged or collapsed (see Rd. 1 examples) (c) had floors collapse and didn't fall & (e) Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. The fact remains that fires do NOT take down steel buildings. Even if it is 10 whole minutes of jet fuel burning (h). Never in history! 2. PLANE IMPACTS - 1st, PRO has shown that the thin aluminum planes would not have been able to do what was claimed they did. The breakaway wings and the tailfin would not have penetrated the armorlike steel outer walls. 2nd, Pro showed a lot of plane videos which were obviously faked. -the quote from CON: PRO was quoting and discrediting your SOURCE! not you. (Rd.3, first source, 2nd sentence) 3. PRO had intended on debunking the "pancake theory" of collapse with scientific evidence again (like in an earlier debate): http://www.debate.org... (Point F) But I found that NIST had changed it's official findings and had dropped that theory altogether!(PRO source - Rd.4)(Also proving I was correct in that debate). To those who are trying to stay aligned with the "official story" you are to no longer spout the "pancake theory" of collapse (that is a conspiracy theory!) Your new orders are to align with the "sagging floor" theory! Keep up! It reminds me of George Orwell's book 1984 how the stories always got changed! "Right in the middle of Hate Week, history took an abrupt about-face and Oceania was not at war with Eurasia at all. Oceania was at war with Eastasia; Oceania and Eurasia were fighting side by side." The new building sag theory doesn't explain why the 47 steel columns in the middle of the building would fall or implode (there would have been MASSIVE resistance). The official theory can't even explain why the towers fell at all...so it certainly has no explanation of how the steel was instantly pulverized into DUST! Also FEMA and NIST reports did not even test for explosives. 4. OTHER STUFF Magic PassportS = obvious evidence planting by FBI. Magic Luggage = My 1st source & its wikipedia source #245 clearly spell out the items in the luggage. Is CON confusing what was found in the VAN instead? Mayor Bloomberg of NYC wants to change the name: "Ground Zero' is a term that no longer applies, according to NYC mayor" http://news.yahoo.com... They can't have anyone looking into what "ground zero" referred to! Ground Zero - 1: the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs http://www.merriam-webster.com... 5. "Magic nukes" - Touchï¿½ :) -->PRO will gladly explain the theory! I realize that some people may have a difficult time accepting the nuclear demolition idea, but it is the ONLY theory that supports the evidence. 1. Jet fuel/fire couldn't have knocked the towers down. 2. Steel turned into dust requires a LOT more energy than the official story explains 3. The high temperatures in the rubble months later. Sherlock Holmes was fond of saying, "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." The nuclear demolition idea definitely explains what happened better than the jet fuel theory does. vs. CONS points: 1. No it wouldn't be unusual for that info to not be public due to national security. 2. More verification by a nuclear scientist/Russian officer talking about some things in his book: (PRO will annotate which minutes to watch) Video 1 http://www.youtube.com... -Some dictionaries are being scrubbed: (0-1:00) & (1:27:30-1:31:45) -Plane impact comments (9:45-12:25) -Knowledge of the nuclear demolition of WTC plan was known by him personally in 1984. (26:00-28:00 = main) also (28:00-30:30)(33:10-33:30 -blueprints) -Devices were planted in the building (accd. to fire chief) AND the Sears Tower in CHICAGO evacuated (it had same demolition plan as WTC) but Empire St. Bldg. (in NYC) or Trump tower weren't evacuated as quickly. (49:55-51:30)& (1:26:40) & 2nd video (50:00-51:00) -Purely technical article on nuclear demolition removed by wikipedia (52:30-53:30) -GENERAL differences between above ground vs. underground nuclear explosions: (53:45-1:12:00) -Pulverized/ disintegrated material keeps its form but it is like volcanic glass/ dust (1:09:15-1:10:00) ******KEY INFO******* -Placement of nuclear demolitions for WTC (1:13:00-1:26:00) (1:21:30-1:23:00 = tower shakes from underground demolition/ 3rd explosion) & 2nd video (1:01:00-1:02:00) (The large amounts of dust that Con has been talking about are actually proof of the nuclear demolition!) ******************** -The dust was mostly made of STEEL (1:36:00-1:37:15) -Temperatures still high due to the nuclear explosion. (1:38:00-1:39:30) Video 2 http://www.youtube.com... -Firemen had to use "Pyrocool FEF" which contains 2 powerful ultraviolet absorbers - to absorb high energy emissions (25:45-27:00) --FBI agents wore FULL HAZMAT SUITS because they knew there was radiation at ground zero (1:36:50-1:41:15), (more than 10,000 people filed a lawsuit!)- Video 1: (1:33:30) 3. The nature of the process: The energy goes up through the bottom (to a certain point on the building) changing the building into a type of "volcanic glass"...maintaining its outer shape and color-- but is actually already dust waiting to crumble. (See 1st Video 1:09:15-1:10:00) 4. Chagan = an obvious strawman -->1. They were "shallow subsurface (open) cratering explosions" (Con's source) again, much different than UNDERGROUND. 2. For CON claiming it is such an untested, theoretical science his 1 source alone mentions 124 peaceful nuclear explosions! 5. Cons Math/ size of crater --> there are different zones of damage of different sizes ex: cavity, crushed zone, damaged zone (video: 1:06:00-1:08:30) 6. Impossible to demolish a modern steel bldg. -->era consideration - not as advanced back then. Other: Steel oxidization theory- Are we to believe that adding water to the fires HEATS THEM UP?...AND that the firemen were incompetent and didn't add necessary chemicals to their water to prevent that? Or why would they do it at all? Also, why would they need to be still hosing down the rubble in March 2002? Why was the remaining steel immediately shipped off for recycling and tracked by GPS? (one driver even fired for taking a break) http://911research.wtc7.net... A better heat graph chart (blacksmith website) (very bottom of page) -steel being removed by the crane STILL in the 2000 (F) range: http://thermalimages.nfshost.com... Craters under WTC5,6 were not addressed (Also Fiterman hall was damaged). (also rubble disappeared) http://drjudywood.com... And for their final trick they will make a steel building vaporize into dust! snowball picture: http://drjudywood.com... Towers are dust: http://www.youtube.com... (6:55-end) TA DA! res ipsa loquitur