Resolved: The Government Was behind the 9/11 attacks

Thank you, con, for finally stating your case! So your one contention is that the official story is true, so if I prove that wrong, then I guess I win this debate! And excuse me for sounding a little bit cocky, but the evidence I've presented thus far negates the official story, and proves it wrong. In this round, I will do a point by point refutation of all of my opponent's claims, as well as show all of my arguements that he has not been able to respond to, because he is unable to respond to. First off, just because I am not an expert on this subject does not mean I cannot compose an argument to prove the official story false. While only 16, I have read reports from some of the brightest minds of our time, claiming that the official story is bogus! Calling me unqualified does not automatically make the official story true. "My opponent also states that I have not shown any evidence for my points." Well, you really have not. All you did was give me the link to the Popular mechanics magazine that I mentioned in my previous argument, a magazine's whose theories have been proved wrong on countless occasions. And I do acknowledge that they are professionals, but there are numerous other professionals who claim that the 9/11 official story is a fake, people who are not "hobby-conspiracy-theorists" as you so eloquently put it. "Here again my opponent fails to recognize that not only the fires caused the collapse, but a combination of the fires and the damage caused to the structure by the impact of two planes flying at 500 miles an hour!" Like I already mentioned, both of these towers had been built to be safeproof against planes, and argument that you yourself validated! The buildings were supposed to be safe against bigger planes, which had more oil. If those planes would have been unable to do it, how could these smaller planes with less fuel knock it down? "My opponent then asserts that if it wasn't a controlled demolition, it is impossible that the towers fell down vertically and should have collapsed "like a tree"Again, he provides no credible source or explanation for this hypothesis. My opponent has acknowledged that he is not an engineer nor an architect and I am unable to understand why he believes that he might be able to explain the most scrutinizes event in the history of the world better than thousands of experts in the field on the basis of misleading information and conspiracy theories that he found on the internet." My opponent fails to note that just because I am not an engineer does not entitle me to an opinion, an opinion that I also share with thousands of experts. The facts just don't add up! In my previous argument, I talked about the scientific explanation for how the official story had to be false, which my opponent dismisses merely because I lack a degree in this topic. I'm willing to bet neither does he. But what he fails to see is that this is not only my view. There are thousands of experts in the United States, and the World, that share the belief that what happened on 9/11 was impossible! "Here again my opponent fails to recognize that not only the fires caused the collapse, but a combination of the fires and the damage caused to the structure by the impact of two planes flying at 500 miles an hour!" Which these towers were supposed to be foolproof as I stated numerous times.... "Well first of all the war in Iraq was started on the base of the alleged presence of WMDs, not because of 9/11. The US went to war in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, who had connections with Al Qaeda. It wasn't Iraq" I can't tell if my opponent is jesting when he claims this. Any child knows that as a result of the 9/11 attacks, we declared a war on terror. The invasion on Iraq was a part of that war on terror! Bush, and other Government officials have stated this numerous times. Without 9/11, there would have been no invasion of Iraq. "I did comment on the "evidence" you provided for the willingness of the US Government to attack its own citizens." You most certainly did not! Nowhere in the previous round was there a mention of the evidence I presented.... "The document you provided, which is widely known as Operation Northwoods, was a proposal drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the height of the cold war. It was not drafted by Congress or any other branch of the US Government, but by individuals within the military, it was not approved by any branch of Government and it has never been implemented. There is no doubt that it is a shameful document, but it is not proof that the US Government has ever used or had planned to use force against it's own civilian population through false-flag attacks." Yes, it was drafted by the Joint chiefs of Staff, a group that " consists of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), and the Military Service Chiefs from the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Marine Corps, all appointed by the President following Senate confirmation.[1] Each of the individual Military Service Chiefs, outside of their Joint Chiefs of Staff obligations, works directly for the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, i.e. Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force" Let me see... leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, who all work side by side with the secretary of the army, navy, and air force. This group answers directly to the president, and contrary to what you said, it was approved by all of these representatives! An operation that would have caused terror onto americans, destroying bases, hijacking planes, all of the above. So yes, it does show the Government has planned to use force against it's own civilian population through false flag attacks. Osama bin laden.... "Vice President Cheney says, 'We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11" "The FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorists" web page does not state that Bin Laden is wanted for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." When asked why it does not say this, a representative said that "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." The only evidence that you have is that he claimed responsibility, years after the event. But you forget that at the beginning, he claimed that he was not responsible. It was only years later, when the entire world was convinced of his guilt, that he claimed responsibility, apparently affirming what everyone else already believed. That he is a terrorist I have no doubt, and in no way believe is is innocent of crimes against the US, and the world. But he is not responsible for this particular attack. He claimed responsibility because no matter what he did, he would not be able to take blame off of him, and he was already being targetted as the orchestrator. He did it simply for the pr, though there are some who say that he never actually did it, that the confession was faked by the US government. Osama bin laden was just the scarecrow that we could aim our accusations at. My opponent also fails to mention how the metal from the towers were "recycled" He presents no scientific proof at how his explanation is more plausible, simply saying "look at this source" In a debate, you can't just say, "look at this source" You have to argue your side, and simply claiming that my arguments are false do not make it so. I think it's clear that everyone of my contentions still stand, and that I have proved that the official story given to us by the government is implausible, which, as my opponent stated, is his entire case. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, VOTE PRO!!!