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

For the sake of saving space, I'll adopt my opponent's numbering system and just continue that way... and ask Pro to kindly remember that it takes me a lot more space to answer a question than it does him to ask it.1. "...nobody had the information to make accurate assumptions..." [Concerning the buildings' survivbility in regards to plane crashes].The point here isn't about whether aircraft of comparable size existed, the issue is the ability to accrately predict the sort of interactions between the building and the plane. There was no capability to model that sort of interaction in the 1960's. The statements of officials in this capacity is no more than conjecture, and should not be taken as gospel in regards to the actual mechanical stability of the buildings. Or to rephrase - the engineers *thought* the buildings might survive the impact, but they didn't have any real reason to be confident.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."PRO suggests here that the"No-Plane-Theory" has merit. There are literally thousands of eyewittnesses to the event. And for very witness that says they saw a missile or no plane, there are hundreds that say they saw a plane. Dozens of videos both professional and private clearly show airplanes.... the NPT has no merit whatsoever.To answer the second question concerning how aluminum could slice through steel... it's the same principle by which unlikely objects get stuck in trees during tornadoes. The principle is called time-tempeature superposition, but essentially states that in high-velocity impacts, materials do not have time to react properly to the collision, and thus materials react as though they were more brittle than they are. A good example of this is a bullet. Lead is much softer than steel, and will flatten if it impacts a steel plate at low speed. But fired from a gun, it will puncture the steel plate.In regards to why the plane that hit the Pentagon didn't slice through the walls, there are two reasons. The first is that the Pentagon plane is thought to have hit the ground with the engines first, partially shredding the airframe. The second, and primary, reason is that the Pentagon is built to withstand attacks. The plane at the WTC hit a (ostensibly) hollow tower. The plane at the Pentagon hit a bunker.3. "what occurred on impact was basically a firestorm..."I'll first note that I don't dispute the "10 minute claim" - it makes little difference. The point is that the firestorm destroyed the heat-treatment on the steel in those floors at the initial explosion.The people waving at the impact site... how long after the impact were they there? Pro makes no mention of the time between the impact and the pictures. Also, at that altitude in southern Manhatten, there's quite a wind... meaning that area of the building wasn't going to be nearly as hot as portions further in. Furthermore, you can be pretty close to very hot surfaces without being burned, and even so, those pictures are not of nearly high enough quality to determine if the people have already been burned.The "unscathed passport" (or Magic Passport) - (http://www.historycommons.org...) - hardly "unscathed." Almost looks like it was propelled out the far side of a building by an explosion.Questions concerning what got destroyed and what didn't aren't terribly dispositive of an explosion in any event... And luggage getting lost at an airport? Is that really so 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..."The Purdue video didn't model the south tower - they modeled the north one.5. What are CONS views on the Pancake Theory of collapse?The short version is that it has some merit as the cause of the beginning of the collapse, as you can clearly see sagging floors in images of the side of the building, but the root cause of collapse is that the outer mesh failed. 6. To address another of CON's statements " then why were the buildings clearly destroyed in a non-controlled manner?"I suggest that Pro look up videos of controlled demolitions. They are extremely loud - loud enough to be overheard by anyone in the area. Furthermore... I'm just flabbergasted that Pro would make these statements about a controlled demolition...This is the building that was a "controlled demolition":http://ww1.prweb.com...http://1.bp.blogspot.com...This is the "symmetrical" collapse:http://www.blogfornoob.com...http://cnparm.home.texas.net... - where the south tower tilts very symmetrically.This is the building falling "in its own footprint":http://odd.0catch.com... - See the pieces falling neatly in the footprint?http://upload.wikimedia.org... - Debris 2 blocks from the footprintBy contrast - here's a video of a building that is a controlled demolition - note that you can hear the explosions from the distance they are at, even over the helicopter rotors. (www.youtube.com / watch?v=hdqWRHe4AKs ) - I split the url so it's not at the top of the screen.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?"I'm not really sure this point bears further discussion.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..."My opponent keeps coming back to nuclear detonations. First of all, the fallout would mean that many more people than just the rescue workers would be getting radiation sickness. Second, any actual nuclear blast would not have been confined just to the towers - it would have vaporized the entire block. The Wiki article on suitcase nuke (http://en.wikipedia.org...) estimates a fraction of a kiloton warhead for a "snuke" - they say 0.190. Here is a video of a detonation of a 0.01 kt nuke (www.youtube.com / watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE&NR=1) - at 50 sec in. Come on. There were no nukes at the 9/11 site. Even a snuke would have simply vaporized the entire WTC complex... not to mention left a huge mushroom cloud, been instantly visible to the entirety of New York, and irradiated a massive section of Manhattan... none of which is evidenced anywhere.**************************************************************Objections aside, Pro has yet to put forth a reasonable explanation for is demolition theory. We've shot down the nuclear idea... what's next?As it stands, the resolution is firmly,NEGATED.