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

During the debate I will attempt to show that it is much more likely that the towers were destroyed by demolition than by fire as the official story claims. There are other parts of the cover up that I will discuss also. 1. Towers (WTC 1 and 2) ---The towers exhibit more characteristics of being destroyed by "controlled demolition" rather than being destroyed by a plane crash and fire like described in the NIST report. A. The Towers were built to withstand a plane flying into it. John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8. "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, . .. THE BUILDING STRUCTURE WOULD STILL BE THERE. " A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01. "One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure" In other words the designers of the buildings prepared the buildings to withstand this exact type of scenario (actually OVERDESIGNED them to handle much more). .. so why wouldn't they be able to? . http://911research.wtc7.net... B. There were 47 steel beams in the core and the outside of the building had reinforced steel beams also. A normal plane made of aluminum would not be able to go completely through the building. Allegedly an aluminum plane penetrated a reinforced steel frame which is as thick as armor. In order to penetrate armor usually missiles are used and when fired they are going MUCH faster (Mach 2- Mach 3) and are made out of MUCH harder material than aluminum. A Boeing 767-200 has a cruise speed of 530 mph (well below the speed of sound ie. not even Mach 1)(Mach 1 = 768 mph) and then is shown hitting the building and the nose of the plane is also shown coming out the other side of the building! .. .An aluminum nose on a tip of a plane would not even survive the armor-like outer steel beams upon entry! .. .let alone cut through the middle of the 47 steel columns and come out the other side of the building (and through the OTHER steel reinforced frame on the other side) and have its NOSE INTACT. .. so how did that happen? Did a normal aluminum plane hit the towers? I will wait for my opponent's explanation. . http://www.youtube.com... 2. Other skyscrapers that have been hit by planes have all still stood after being struck in spite of the impact of the planes and the fires. A. WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 are the only steel-structure buildings ever to have collapsed (allegedly) as a result of fire. There are several cases of fires in other such buildings, none of which collapsed. a. In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse b. In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse c. In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. d. In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. e. Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. f. The still-uncompleted Beijing Television Cultural Center, containing the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, caught fire on 9 February 2009 (due to uncontrolled use of fireworks at Chinese New Year). 140,000 tons of steel was used in its construction. It burned for five hours, but it did not collapse. g. It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975. It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for three hours. How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on 9/11? h. Empire State building - a heavy plane hitting the skyscraper delivered a tremendous shock but the building did not collapse. In 1945 the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber, when the B-25 hit the Empire State Building its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames. The Empire State Building withstood airplane impact and explosion and fire. . http://www.serendipity.li... B. Impact a. Each of the Twin Towers was still standing 50 minutes after being hit, so it was not the impacts which caused them to collapse. C. Jet Fuel Fires a. According to NIST's chief WTC-investigator the jet fuel burnt itself out in less than ten minutes. Now, several of you have heard about or thought about the fact that the jet fuel would have burned, caused the building to burn, and probably think the jet fuel played the sole role in the fires. The jet fuel acted much like a matchstick. It was something that spread throughout the building in those affected floors and caused ignition of the fires. But the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes. So what burned over the next hour, or hour and a half, was really the contents of the buildings, the everyday contents of the buildings. — Transcript of NIST Public Meeting in New York City — February 12, 2004 The rest of the fire was burning the combustibles inside the building, those materials ignite at a far lower temperature than the jet fuel (not nearly hot enough to weaken steel! ). So in order for the official story of the steel being weakened by the fires causing the collapse. .. it would have had to been accomplished in the first 10 minutes. .. And it has already been shown (above) that even raging fires that last a very long time don't weaken steel enough to make them fall! b. Also if fire was to be attributed as the cause of collapse much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes. . http://www.serendipity.li... c. Also there is no way for jet fuel to burn any hotter than 1110ï¿½ F. -1740ï¿½ F. and only when steel is at a temperature of 2000ï¿½ F-2550ï¿½ F can it be deformed by heavy force. I'm out of space for this round but rather than abridge the ideas I have prepared to squeeze them in - I will wait to post the other arguments: I want to also debate the following related ideas in other rounds: Science more fully supports a controlled demolition explanation rather than destruction by fire (pancake theory of collapse) FEMA and NIST reports did not test for explosives.