On 9/11, WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition.

I will spend the first few minutes of my rebuttal addressing the violation of the debate by my opponent, seeing how he did not post his argument in the allotted 3 day time limit, (like this is not enough time) and then decided to post his Round 3 in the comments section. This is blatant violation of the rules since he is not limited to 8000 characters but can go on indefinitely. In addition, my opponent claims to have technically forfeit his round. << I am the one who technically forfeited.>> Then he goes on to post his argument anyway. I implore the judges to take this into account when voting as my opponent's debating practices are unethical at best. I conclude that he has not responded to my rebuttal and conclude that each of my points were not properly refuted 1. Nevertheless, since my opponent concedes I will use this round to bring up additional observations of concern that lead us to believe that building 7 was in fact a controlled demolition. "Sherlock Holmes once remarks how odd it is that a guard dog did not bark at a midnight intruder." Similarly curious is the total destruction of building 7 after it was never struck by a plane. Was the furthest distance from towers 1 and 2. And never in history has a steel structured building collapsed due to fire at freefall speed. It is absolutely insane that people can believe that it just collapsed just because. My opponent has yet to provide any other reasoning for the collapse. Not one reason. As I have provided several. Which he has been unable to refute successfully. The following tenants occupied building 7 on 9/11 The mayors Emergency Command Center (how ironic) The SEC The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Department of Defense (DOD) The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) The New York's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) were all tenants. None of the current heads of these departments have been vocal in demanding to know why this building collapsed. In addition, while some details have been released, a full accounting of what data these agencies lost has not been prominently reported. 2. BBC News reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty minutes before it actually fell. The BBC has stated that many news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of WTC 7 on the day of the attacks.[31] http://en.wikipedia.org... How could the BBC have reported the collapse before it fell. Did the powers that be (those responsible) have their wires crossed. All those Drills didn't prepare them enough for the fast moving events of the day? 3. "……….The speed of the collapse, the way it fell down vertically and symmetrically, the rapid onset, the way the center of the roof fell first, lateral ejections of debris observed, and the way the rubble fell mostly within the building's footprint.[34] The initial FEMA investigation team also found sulfur within the structural steel from WTC 7 which they could not explain: "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event…." http://en.wikipedia.org... The presence of sulfur, a residue of thermite burning steel and iron,found at the site, gives ample evidence of something wayward this way comes. My opponent cannot deny this evidence, and admits that thermite is a possibility. It cannot be ruled out and in fact is the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!!! .4 Silverstein sued for a double terrorist attack, as I have stated earlier. There is no doubt that he knew about building 7 being "pulled" "demolished" before hand. "….Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount of that coverage (~$7.1 billion) because, he contended, the two separate airplane strikes constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view. Because some of the policies contained certain limiting language and some did not, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of whether their policies were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation………." http://en.wikipedia.org... I submit that there are many more questions that need to be answered before the public blindly accepts whatever they hear in the media. As has already been made clear by the past 7 years, think for yourself, make your own judgments and don't be afraid to ask why. Even if it means to be disappointed in the government that swore by the constitution to defend and protect the United States from enemies both foreign and domestic.