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

I thank Tarzan for his logical rebuttal. On this 10th anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy I would like to send out condolences to those who are suffering from the destruction of that day, and I'm sure my opponent does as well. I like to put my opponent's statement in quotes and my response after an arrow --> ======================================================= 1. "...nobody had the information to make accurate assumptions..." -->I believe PRO still has a stronger case on this point. 707's were making trans-Atlantic flights as early as Oct. 26, 1958. And the fuel capacity difference is 23,000 gal. for the 707-320 vs. 23,980 gal. for the 767-200. So the weight is VERY similar! See CONS own source from Rd. 1 (Boeing) for confirmation of both the date and weights. -->Also, the amount of fuel each plane was carrying was only (approximately) 3,500 gallons - which is far less than capacity. =========================== 2. "Nobody disputes that the impact severed many of the outer columns - we can see the gaping holes in the buildings on hundreds of videos." -->Actually there are people who dispute that there were planes used (NPT)(no plane theory). But instead, first let me ask CON this question: If the aluminum jets could cut through the steel on the WTCs like butter, then why didn't the wings also cut through the Pentagon's outer walls? http://911research.wtc7.net... http://www.911docs.net... (20:00-21:00) =========================== 3. "what occurred on impact was basically a firestorm for about 15 minutes, and then a regular fire afterwards. By a firestorm, I mean a massive explosion of jet fuel, metal, glass, dust, concrete chunks, etc... that not only tore through the building, but sucked a massive windburst of fresh air in to fuel the jet fuel inferno." -->CON's "firestorm" theory seems to have some explaining to do. For example: a. If this supposed "firestorm" of such heat and magnitude existed after the explosion and during the fire then why is there a woman standing there in the picture (and also in 2 videos waving for help) looking perfectly fine and with her hair not even singed? (there is also another survivor shown in a picture below) http://whatreallyhappened.com... b. Does CON dispute the "10 minute" claim of the fire burning as was reported by NIST? (PRO's source in Rd. 1) If so, could CON provide a source for the fire lasting 15 minutes instead, or we can go with the ten minute fire if desired. c. This brings me to another topic to discuss: the "Magic Passports" - How did 2 of the hijacker's passports survive this alleged firestorm and explosion?...and also the destruction, pulverization of steel into dust and the collapse of the building, while remaining intact and in such good condition? Also why were the planes' black boxes destroyed ---they are made out of near indestructible material aren't they? definitely tougher material than passports! http://www.youtube.com... d. While we are examining highly suspicious evidence being found: The "Magic Luggage" "The FBI was able to quickly identify the hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta, when his luggage was discovered at Boston's Logan Airport. Due to a mix-up, the luggage failed to make it aboard American Airlines Flight 11 as planned. The luggage contained the hijackers' names, assignments and al-Qaeda connections. "It had all these Arab-language papers that amounted to the Rosetta stone of the investigation", said one FBI agent." http://en.wikipedia.org... Oh, that's not suspicious at all!...the luggage just "happened" to not get on board ...and just "happened" to have all the names, assignments, and Al-Qaeda connections in it (Really? that is unbelievable! ---uh no really...it IS UNBELIEVABLE!). ========================== 4. "As I recall, the impact on the South Tower occurred at a corner, and the primary cause of collapse for the South Tower was that the top began to tip..." -->But in the video CON posted in Round 1 (simulation)...it appears that the simulated plane goes straight through the building rather than through the corner of the building. This doesn't seem consistent with your statement of the plane going through the corner. =========================== 5. What are CONS views on the Pancake Theory of collapse? (PRO doesn't want to attack a strawman if CON doesn't believe in that theory) =========================== 6. To address another of CON's statements " then why were the buildings clearly destroyed in a non-controlled manner?" -->It appears to be VERY controlled! The Towers exhibited all the classic signs of demolition (ex: Rapid onset of "collapse", Symmetrical, "collapses" into its own footprint, Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds,Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) A better question is: Why didn't NIST search for explosives at all? I mean, if it looks like a controlled demolition and sounds like controlled demolition...and if it has all the characteristics of controlled demolition...then why not check if it was possibly controlled demolition? It seems like NIST started their investigation already knowing what conclusion they wanted to reach and that isn't good science. http://www.youtube.com... (3:00-3:10) ========================== 7. "Also, why go to the trouble of crashing some planes into the buildings - buildings that were supposedly going to resist the crash? Why not just use the explosives and blow them up without a plane crash?" -->One possibility could be that the planes were a distraction - so that demolitions as a cause of destruction would not be looked in to - which would throw investigators off the trail. Another possibility could be that there were other explosives that were planted on the plane which did not detonate for whatever reason. ========================== 8. "I also found it interesting that he did not present any evidence of the presence of the incredible amount of high explosive that would take, or how the teams snuck past the quarter-million residents, tourists, and workers that are in the towers on a daily basis..." -->Again there are certainly other logical explanations for that. For example: 1. A suitcase nuke - Would not require sneaking past residents, tourists or workers. 2. Nuclear Demolitions placed below the building before construction. - Would not require ANY sneaking. Also if nukes were involved it would really explain why there was a coverup, can you imagine the authorities actually announcing to the people that there had been a nuclear demolition? the panic that would ensue would be too great to contain, so to avoid that scenario, even if it was a nuclear demolition it certainly would not have been admitted. The nuclear explanation also explains a lot of other things such as: Why first responders have so many cases of cancer now. And why there were pockets in the rubble with thousand degree temperatures up to 6 months after the destruction. It also actually explains how steel could be pulverized into dust. The nuclear explanation seems more likely than that 3,500 gallons of jet fuel (most of which was burned up in the initial fireball)...and the ensuing fire for 10 whole minutes (which wasn't even hot enough to singe hair)...could completely devastate and reduce steel girders completely into dust. http://www.debunking911.com... http://drjudywood.com... http://irishantiwar.org... There WAS a coverup on 9/11/01 that demolitions were used to bring down the towers and I am hoping that is becoming more and more clear! I thank Tarzan and the readers and look forward to the next round.