That the US government is responsible for 9/11

Thanks to Pro for clearly taking the time to put together a strong argument. However there is a major issue, Pro has not gone into depth on any one of his claims but instead makes very vague statements throughout the round and uses links to demonstrate what he is talking about. To refute Pros case entirely I would have to either make very short and inadequate statements supported only by links of my own (basically a my link vs. your link battle) or I can refute Pros claims which would then take much more character space then I am given. I decided that the correct approach would be to provide a brief but adequate refutation each of Pro’s claims as much as my space would allow. I would suggest to Pro that he elaborate on his points R3 so that the reader can get a stronger sense of what he is claiming, as neither they nor I should be expected to read 26 links to understand his case.Foreknowledge Pro begins with the argument that the US planning to invade Afghanistan before 9/11 supports the theory that the US planned for the attacks by having foreknowledge. The issue with this argument is that it ignores the reality that the US in fact had every reason to draft a plan of action given Al Qaeda’s terrorist history and repeated threats against the US as illustrated below: By September 2001 Al Qaeda had already proven to be responsible for the 1993 world trade center bombing, the 1998 US Embassy Bombings, and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. In addition to that Osama Bin Laden himself had also personally engineered a plot to assassinate Bill Clinton in 1996, but that plot was discovered and disrupted by Secret Service Agents(1). Pro States that on Sept 9th 2001 detailed plans of the US invasion into Afghanistan were spotted on the president’s desk as if this should be suspicious. The details of this plan were not described in the link that was posted but there is a much more in depth explanation of those plans which can be found in the 9/11 Commission report(2). Pro should familiarize himself with this document. It states that the plan was actually drafted on Sept 10th (page 214) and discusses the US’s reasons for such a plan in depth in chapters 4,5, and 6. This plan was not an all out assault but a gradual plan beginning with diplomacy and if necessary culminating with lethal forces. The plan however changed dramatically after 9/11 and resulted in a new plan being drafted which was not even brought to the secretary of defense for approval till October 1st. (3)(page 3) In conclusion, the fact that the US had intentions of invading Afghanistan is not suspicious, it is common sense given Al Qaeda’s terrorist history. Also if the US had been planning these attacks specifically in response to a plot they were in fact aware of, then they would have been ready to launch their attack instead of waiting almost a month to finalize their plans. Lastly, none of this is secret by any means as it has been public knowledge and is discussed in detail in the 9/11 commission report. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf(3) http://armed-services.senate.gov... It Gets Worse Here Pro makes a vague statement of the US conducting widespread campaigns of misinformation and terrorism to cover their deceit on 9/11. His article gives various theories of major events in history being faked and does not make have any significant message. Pro should expand on his assertion if he wishes for this to be taken as part of the debate. It Gets Even Worse 1. Pro begins with a sarcastic assertion that the official explanation of the collapses is that the fire caused the steel to melt. The official explanation was not actually given till 4 years after Pros source was written, and explains that fires caused the steel to weaken, not melt. Pro then asserts that thermite (nano-thermite) was found in the dust. The issue with his source is that it is not conclusive at all. The following is taken from page 25: “All these data suggest that the thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nano-thermite” . So in other words, we think its form of nano-thermite. But it gets better…“We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains” . Apparently they didn’t feel it was necessary to identify the actual substance. Pro then post 3 links claiming that the buildings could not have came down as the official story explains. This is extremely vague and Pro gives no explanations so I will wait for him to elaborate on his points before responding. 2. Pro then attempts to show that the BBC and CNN “invented a crystal ball” by reporting WTC7’s collapse before it happened. The reports Pro is referring to actually originated from firefighters who were on the ground and could plainly see that the building appeared as if it was about to collapse. The reports were misconstrued by the time they got to the journalists from “the building was about to collapse”, to “the building already collapsed”. For details to get mixed up in the middle of a breaking news story is not something new. 3. Pro continues with another link showing that NIST “gave up” on trying to explain its findings. This is the natural thing to do when you have spent many years with a team of 200 scientists and structural engineers studying a building collapse, only to be questioned by conspiracy theorists on the internet who don’t bother to read the report they are questioning. 4. Pro then asserts that government involvement would seem to be a more plausible explanation. Pro however does not state an alternative story that would be more plausible and in fact in the nearly 10 years since 9/11 no one has ever been able to come up with a theory that would survive even the modest bit of scrutiny. Pro gives links showing that eyewitnesses heard bombs which would imply government involvement. These explosions have been explained for years by engineers as electrical transformers, gas pipes or other natural sources, which would seem much more plausible then a massive government conspiracy. Furthermore there was never any evidence of bombs found, and if these loud sounds of explosions were from bombs it would completely contradict the thermite theory as thermite does not have a loud explosive sound. Pro also shows a link that claims the US committed “Destruction of WTC Physical Evidence” by removing all of the steel without giving investigators a chance to examine it. The steel was not however completely removed until May 29, 2002 and even as recent as April 2010 there were 500 tons of WTC steel transported to Pennsylvania using 28 flatbed trucks(4). Investigators have obviously had plenty of time to examine the evidence. (4) http://www.nypost.com... 5. Pro states that “they” gave flight 11 a 30 minute head start towards New York and didn't respond at all to flight 175. I am unclear as to where this allegation comes from. Again, Pro should elaborate. The FAA did not learn of flight 11’s hijacking until 8:24 and did not notify the FAA until 8:32. Flight 11 then crashed at 8:46 so this 30 minute “head start” in unsupported. With Flight 175 receiving “no response” I am again unclear as to where this claim comes from. The FAA was notified of its possible hijacking at 8:48 and it crashed 15 minutes later at 9:03. At this point I have ran out of space, and would like to remind the readers as well as my opponent that refuting a vague claim supported only by a link, takes much more space then simply posting that very same claim. Because of this I will have to leave those last 3 paragraphs on the table. If Pro would like me to focus on each of his points then he should do the same by elaborating on them. I look forward to reading his rebuttals.