Resolved: The Government Was behind the 9/11 attacks

I look forward to a riveting rapport with you. Before we begin, I would like to explain what I believe I must accomplish in order to win this debate, and explain what con must accomplish in order to prove this debate. And yes, I am talking about the US government, and no semantics should be used. Also, I must propose that the government being behind the 9/11 attacks do not include the US government being aware of a potential attack by Osama bin Laden, and allowing it to happen. In order for pro to win, I must establish the following parameters: 1. That the explanation that the US government offered to explain the 9/11 attacks are illogical, or impossible. 2. That the US government, or people in the Government have a motive to fake the 9/11 attacks(that there is potential gain involved) 3. That the United States is willing to harm their own citizens, or to fake a terrorist attack. In order for con to win this debate, they must prove that following 1. That the explanation that the US government offered to explain the 9/11 attacks are the best explanation for what happened on September 11th 2. That the US government does not have a motive to fake the attacks 3. That the US government is not willing to harm their own citizens, or to fake a terrorist attack on our nation. If my opponent agrees to the parameters, he may debate them as such. If there is a point he wishes to discuss, do so in the beginning of your speech. My arguments will proceed as if my opponent had agreed to these parameters. To begin, My contentions are as follows, 1. The explanation the government offered to explain 9/11 are impossible 2. The US government, or individuals in the government, had a motive to fake the attacks. 3. That the US government is willing to harm the people of the United States, and to stage terrorist attacks on America. To go into depth, 1. The explanation the government offered to explain 9/11 are impossible To begin, I will be talking about the attack on the Twin towers area Mnay arguements have been presented that the Twin Towers at the world trade center could not have collapsed the way reported in the NIST report, from plane impact and fire. These arguments are based on the "rapidity and symetry of collapse, the adequacy of the steel supports, and the finding of incendiary residues in the dust. It has also been proposed that the primary cause of the fall; the sudden collapse of one story, is impossible, because of the inadequate heat needed to melt or weaken the steel. This argument is based on data from the NIST report. In the government's explanation for this collapse, first, one story, weakened by plane impact and fire, suddenly collapsed, which allowed the above section of the tower to fall freely down and hit the lower section. The momentum was said to be sufficent to collapse the lower section of the tower, resulting in the collapse. "Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage. There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed lack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere. We will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The length of the columns between attachments is too short for buckling to occur. Failure must therefore be by compression. As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not obvious. It is well established however that the yield strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse. For both of these reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input. A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the significant increase in yield strength and the slight increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress. It is clear therefore that the upper section should only have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower. As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate. In the case of the south tower, initially a 2 lean of the upper section developed but within the first second this turned into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration, just as was observed with the north tower. It appears therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not have happened in the observed manner. In particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon which the official story depends for the second stage of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with the use of explosives in a timed sequence. " Therefore, I conclude that I have proved my first contention. Contention 2: The US government, or individuals in the government, had a motive to fake the attacks. This contention will be quite simple to prove. For one, increased power of government was one effect of the attacks. The Patriot Act, which obviously infringes on our Bill of Rights, was passed becasue of fear of another attack like this happening. How about the opportunity to invade Iraq? As soon as Bush came to office, the Administration has been talking of invading Iraq. The 9/11 attacka allowed them to do so. And What happens to be in Iraq? Try 18 trillion dollars of oil, oil that we get for a cheaper price than the rest of the world. There's a reason why our cars are smaller than those in Europe, because oil costs less in America! Or how about Dick Chaney, who made all his money through Halliburton, the company that supplied our troops for the last 5 years. I think we must all agree that there is indeed a motive. Contention 3: The Government is willing to harm the people of America, and to fake terrorist attacks on our country. To prove this contention, I direct your attention to the following document; . http://www.gwu.edu... This document called for the Central Intelligence Agency to fake acts of terrorism against out country, including " innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D. C. , Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked" The past is the best source. The Heads of State all signed this, and it would have been carried out were it not for JFK spurning the project. This evidence proves my contentions. In my rebuttal, I will rebut my opponents contentions, as well as go back and present the evidence that shows the government's involvement. Your turn :)