Resolved: The Government Was behind the 9/11 attacks

I accept his changes as to what he needs to accomplish in order to win, as it is logical that merely in order to win, he merely has to prove that the official explanation is true. Also, in reference to my opponent's statement about my quote from the journal of 9/11 studies, i merely posted the excerpt from the article, as the opinion of a mechanical engineer, and a man with a PhD in chemistry evidence of learned men supporting this conclusion. However, as my opponent wishes, I will keep the rest of my quotes short and concise. I had planned to spend this round negating my opponent's contentions. .. . but unfortunately he neglected to state them, preferring instead to attempt to negate my own contentions, and aim in which he fell far short. Therefore, in this round, I will negate his arguments about my own contentions, then go back and support them. I trust that the readers of this debate will keep my opponent's lack of a case in mind when they make their decision regarding the conclusion of this debate. To begin, My opponent says that "There is no doubt whatsoever that the damage inflicted to the towers was enough to cause their collapse" To prove this point, he cites the magazine I mentioned in my previous arguement of supporting the government's story. This is very important to my case, because if I can prove that the official story is impossible, it proves that the government lied to us, causing us to wonder why they would do so, if not to hide their own involvment. And yes, while I don't have a PhD in mechanics, one does not need one to see the obvious truth, when it is supported by my own observations and the observations of learned professionals. My opponent says that the evidence I presented is just plain wrong, but he prevents no evidence of his own for why it is so, merely offering his opinion, that they are just "plain wrong. " Obviously, opinion is not fact, and I hope the readers are able to make the distinction while judging this debate. However, I will treat his arguments as if they were supported by evidence, and negate his claims with evidence of my own. First off, I draw my opponent's attention to the fact that the 9/11 site was sealed off, and people were arrested for merely taking photos of the site. In the clean-up, the officials implemented an operation by Controlled Demolition, Inc. The steel remaining was shipped to places like China and India, for "recycling" despite never having been seen by investigators, for example, FEMA's Building Assessment Performance Team, who weren't even allowed to access the wreckage. "Nor can the public verify details about the buildings' design crucial to FEMA's theory, since the blueprints have not been released. The description of the towers' structure in their official report leaves over 20% of the steel known to have been used in their construction unaccounted for. By the time FEMA's report was published, Ground Zero had been scrubbed" Also, my opponent states that the creators of the buildings had not anticipated plane collisions, on this point he is wrong. They were both designed to survive the impact and fire from a 707-340 carrying 23,000 gallons of fuel. The planes that hit the towers were about the same size, and they only had 10,000 gallons of fuel. The towers were supported by collumns in the outer wall, and 47 huge steel collumns in the core structure. Like all large engineered structures, the engineers overcompensated to ensure that the towers would stand against anything. The crashes destroyed 33 perimeter columns in one tower, and only 24 in the other. In one of the towers(the south) the core structure was barely damaged. Each of these towers could have stood with even the majority of it's columns broken, and were designed to withstand bombs and fires. And yet, both towers collapsed. Also, my opponent fails to note the low temperature of jet fuel, as it boils easily, and ignites easily. The fuel burned off rapidly. FEMA even said the fuel must have been used up in minutes. All that would have remained would have been the fires burned fuel, similar to that of regular office fires. The smoke darkened over time, showing evidence of oxygen deprivation. And beyond that, even at the maximum heat of the fire, when it first struck the towers, it burned nowhere close to the 700 degrees C required to soften steel. Furthermore, there's no evidence that suggests the core structure was ever damaged by flames. In addition, there have only been two examples of steel-frame skyscrapers totally collapsing because of fires, or any other cause other than controlled demolition. And both of those occurred on September 11th, at the world trade center. Also, the towers collapsed almost perfectly vertically, falling down on itself. "It is impossible that the aircraft impacts and fires could result in damage so perfectly synchronized and symmetrical as to cause the simultaneous and balanced failures in the structure required for such vertical collapses" Also, neglected by the official explanation, the dense core of the building would have made the buildings' top fall like a tree, not stright down as it did. If it was truly gravity that drove the collapse, the walls would crash down withing the outer wall, and the walls collumns might buckle. Even if the outer wall fell, the inner core would still remain standing. But on the film that my opponent posted, you can see it looks nothing like that, with thick clouds of debris and smoke billowing from the towers, even when the tops were falling slowly. The remains were scraps of metals, paper, and fine dust; "The concrete, glass, gypsum, and other nonmetallic building constituents were thoroughly pulverized to microscopic particles. " The towers fell at close to the speed of a object falling with no resistance, but unless the towers were demolished before the falling portion encountered it, it would have been greatly slowed, or even halted the fall. This evidence presented clearly shows how the explanation offered by the government is false. Now back to the defense! My opponent offers evidence that Dick Cheney left his company long ago, and therefore would care nothing for it's revenue. I regret to inform my opponent that Cheney does own substantial stock in the company, more money that some of us may ever see. Also, I would like to inform my opponent that prices on Europe's gas are almost double what we pay. Of course, they aren't in possession of a country in the middle east, now are they. My opponent also neglects to say anything about my comment about how the Bush Administration has been fighting to invade Iraq since they took office. This false flag operation allowed them to do so. He also does not negate anything I said about whether or not the United States is willing to commit acts of terrorism against it's own citizens, saying nothing about my evidence about Operation Northwoods. therefore, I assume that he is going to allow my third contention to stand. Judges, I ask you to note this lapse, and wonder if it is because he is not able to refute it. My opponent, on everyone of my contentions, has either offered nothing, offered insufficient evidence, or offered no evidence at all, simply offering his own personal opinion. I hope that my opponent will state his case in the next round. And remember judges, just because my opponent says that I am offering debunked arguements does not make it true. I am not, as he stated, "someone who lacks rudimentary skills" and I had hoped we would be able to keep insults out of this debate. I now invite my opponent to state his case.