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

Thanks again & short intro also! 1. Building structure/ fireproofing/ pancake theory: I am going to go back to a quote that CON made in Round 1 to make a point about the building structure. My opponent jumped the gun, thinking I was going to argue for conventional demolitions and he tipped his hand. "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 implication of this statement is that the building is actually VERY solid! and unless a team could sneak TONS of explosives into the building there would be NO WAY to bring it down! (they would need an "incredible amount of high explosive" We get CON's view that even if a team could sneak in "just enough" demolitions to destroy 1 floor only--that it would NOT BE ENOUGH to take down the building!...yet that is ALL THAT THE "PLANE" DID. (actually the plane didn't even start off doing that much) The only significant difference mentioned is that fireproofing was allegedly torn off. What is the proof that the plane removed all the fireproofing anyway? Also EVEN IF the fireproofing was removed and the steel actually weakened all that would do would be for the plane to collapse ONE FLOOR! What the "plane" allegedly did could be duplicated by a terrorist group. (ie plant bombs on one floor and remove fireproofing on one floor). Actually, it would be much EASIER to ensure destruction of one floor with explosives (placed in key places) rather than with a plane (and fireproofing wouldn't need to be removed). So, if explosives can't do it by destroying one floor, then neither can a plane. Since demolishing one floor by conventional explosives (or a plane) doesn't bring buildings down. We know that the building structure was still solid and a LOT MORE was necessary to bring down the towers. No wonder why NIST ditched their OWN previous "pancake theory" of collapse: http://www.democraticunderground.com... 2. NPT/Building Structure "One of the most serious problems with every single video produced by this "NPT cult/sect" is that their productions are not based on high-quality original video footage." -->Con's source starts off with 2 logical fallacies in his very first sentence! (universal dismissal and ad hominem) his sweeping generalities and bias undermine his credibility. 1: In some videos (ex: using Cons own simulation video) a lot of debris (ex: alleged tip of plane or whatever) went through the building and exited the opposite side. 2: In the first case - the debris went through the CENTER of the building (where the 47 steel girders are at) and at a MINIMUM penetrated a SECOND wall of steel outer mesh. 3: In the South Tower the "plane" went through just a corner of the building (we know this because of the tilt of the building) but then somehow that plane (and none of it's parts) could make it through the SECOND outer mesh wall. But In that case there wasn't even a chance of the stronger 47 steel girders (in the center) stopping anything. This outer mesh was not like a matchstick! Actually it was thicker than tank armor! (easily more than thick enough to stop the 2 mm. aluminum fuselage of the plane - which even "a Boeing designer suggested it was like a 'flying beer can'"...) http://www.dailypaul.com... CON has even cited that these outer walls were part of the support of the building. The actual measurements: "These steel columns were incredibly thick - each wall measuring 2.5 inch (6.35 cm), so the entire thickness of either of the columns was 5 inch (12.7 cm). To imagine how thick this is, here is a good example to compare with: front armor of the best tank of the WWII period - T-34 - was only 1.8 inch (4.5 cm) and it was single-walled. Yet there were practically no armor-piercing artillery shell available that time that would be capable of penetrating such front armor. Of course, no explosives whatsoever would ever be able to tear throw such front armor of a tank either (except only a hollow-charge shell which would still not be able to tear a complete piece of such armor, but only to burn some narrow hole through an armor plate). Considering that the Twin Towers' steel frames consisted of double-walled steel columns that were almost trice as thick compare to the T-34 tanks' front amour,..." http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net... Are we supposed to believe this armor couldn't even stop the breakaway wings or the tailfin? 3. "But there were 19 hijackers, which means the probability of any one of their luggage getting lost is, cumulatively, 19/150." Con's statistics are based upon if ALL of the hijackers had THE plans in ALL 19 luggages. Most likely only ONE set of luggage would. 4. Nuclear Demolition "I invite readers to google "nuclear demolition" - the only reference of any legitimate scientific value is the Wikipedia Article" -->The current wikipedia article on "nuclear demolition" contains practically NOTHING of any scientific value! It mainly talks about treaties and things of that nature. But, there actually used to be a technical article on wikipedia at one time though...but it was suspiciously removed: http://www.nuclear-demolition-wikipedia.com... (removal from wikipedia) "...explosion that would have...left a massive crater under the buildings that all manner of things would have slid into." -->Uh Yes...that is actually the point of nuclear demolition--to create a crater under the building so that the building falls into it. -->As far as other underground things being harmed: There actually were other holes and underground phenomenon, for example: holes under WTC5 and WTC6...etc. and also a 60 foot deep hole on Liberty Street that just appeared: http://www.youtube.com... But destroying far away subways or sewers...no, the damage underground would not have been that far: "Just as an example: detonation of a 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear charge buried sufficiently deep in granite rock would result in creation of a cavity measuring roughly 100 meters in diameter..." Also at this point, a short general overview explaining how nuclear demolition works may be in order: "All skyscrapers have their lowest foundations lying 20-30 meters beneath the Earth surface. So, it is possible to calculate a position of a "zero-box" under such a skyscraper in such a way that a nuclear explosion would produce a cavity upper end of which would not reach the Earth surface, but would reach only the lowest underground foundation of a skyscraper it intends to demolish. For example, in particular cases of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, their lowest underground foundations were 27 meters beneath the surface. While the 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear demolition charges were positioned as depths of 77 meters (measuring from the surface), or 50 meters below their underground foundations. Such a thermo-nuclear explosion at a depth of 77 m would create an extremely overheated cavity with its upper sphere touching the lowest underground foundations of the Twin Tower it intends to demolish. But it would still be short of reaching the Earth surface by 27 meters - so surrounding structures would not to be affected by any destructive factors of this underground nuclear explosion (except by, possibly, only its radioactive contamination). The Tower that is to be demolished supposes to lose its foundations completely, and to be sucked-in into this overheated cavity, temperatures inside of which are deemed enough to melt the entire Tower. Nuclear demolition schemes of the WTC building # 7 and that of the Sears Tower in Chicago were calculated in the same way." http://www.nuclear-demolition.com...