Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable

Framework: I said we were "tied" on the "people feeling strongly both ways" point. This shows Pro doesn't secure advantage by pointing it out. He then shifts goalposts saying that people who want new investigations are wrong, which is a cop out since he's filibustering by predicating the argument on the debate's conclusion. Inherency: Pro takes me out of context. The NIST reports are the (attempted) objective support for the story. Nothing else the government has said is transparent or objective. NIST Reports: A) Pro wants you to re-read my points and come up with arguments for him. Even if you can come up with counterarguments, it doesn't mean he beats me. Pro concedes that the report is inaccurate, so the reports probably don't have the right answer. Not being right is called "being wrong". The reports are also biased towards showing tower collapse. See the removal of floors at the impact point, artificially weakening the tower. B) i) Pro is running his case from an external website because he wants us to look at tons and tons of sources he won't even give us URLs for. All he gives us are titles as if they were arguments. Even though I went through and responded to every source he gave, he still wants me to look at 20 more. He's not debating, he's spamming. ii) Dropped. There are unknowable variables that frustrate engineering analysis. iii) See guys! I told you he wouldn't respond! Pro's papers do not demonstrate what he thinks they demonstrate. Many of them are micro-studies of phenomena peripherally involved in the collapse. Some of them even contradict the NIST report, claiming that fire would not appreciably alter the metallurgy of structural beams etc. Moreover, Pro has no response to my critiques of these documents. So from the judge's standpoint, he's failing to defend his sources. He can only cry "authority". I deny that they are sources of authority since I can poke holes in them after skimming for 5 minutes. There are a few papers he cited in mainstream journals, but the majority of them appear in fire safety publications. They don't give a Nobel Prize for fire safety. It is plausible that a bunch of professors saw a chance to gain recognition in the aftermath of 911, so published a bunch of hasty unserious papers on the event to gain recognition. The pancake model is laughable. I want to meet these professors and laugh at them. Pro wants me to provide counter-spam to his spam, but I don't have to. First, it is sufficient for us to be agnostic about the event to re-investigate it. Second, a "correct" paper doesn't exist because key variables are missing. Pro's OWN REPORTS say this. The reason this matters is it's the only attempt at an objective account of 911. But the engineering is bad, so we just have the government's word on it. That's not transparent. Pro has never told you why we shouldn't try to get more transparency. A new investigation needs to focus on illuminating the institutions surrounding 911, not the physical collapse of the buildings. 2) Norad unresponsiveness Pro says it was a supersurprise because there hadn't been any plane hijackings in the past 10 years. This is actually false [1]. If you look at Pro's own source you'll see that foreign hijackings had also been on the rise, so it never should have escaped the imaginations of all the DOD thinktanks. Pro continues to give no reason why we can't investigate NORAD and friends. He just says it isn't NORAD's responsibility to prove they should not be investigated. I don't really care who's responsibility it is. All that matters is that NORAD and the other failing institutions have never been publicly investigated and Pro can't justify why. Pro goes through a TLDR attempt to try and explain NORAD's failure. He says they thought the first crash was an isolated incident. Why would you automatically assume its isolated? They even received subsequent reports of deviating aircraft... Part of the delayed response was omission by the FAA. Even though they knew at 8:56 that Flight 77 turned off its transponder and refused contact, they did not report it to NORAD for nearly 30 minutes [2]. Why? Pro wants you to believe that these planes literally disappeared off the map, and that the US cannot monitor its own airspace. The wiki page also mentions that primary radar information of flight controllers had been disrupted. Why? Lastly, Pro concedes that the reason that it took a long time to respond was because of bureaucracy. These institutions would have failed to stop ANY surprise attack. Why were they structured so poorly in the first place? Pro says that the response structure of these institutions is available online, but if you follow his link it only lists what they are responsible for, not their response procedures. Good job. Pro says that the Department of Defense couldn't defend itself because it was a confusing day. This is a bad explanation because the DOD currently handles hundreds of military situations daily in the Middle East. They can probably keep track of 3 planes... The reason I emphasize that terrorists used $4 boxcutters to bring down the world's largest military power is because it is prima facie implausible. For a hundred billion dollars you should be able to monitor your own airspace. You shouldn't be playing war games with all your response pilots. You shouldn't have to wait 15 minutes for bureaucrat A to tell bureaucrat B to press a button. Pro gives a link on the war games. If he's right, then it means that there were jets ready to respond to the event but they sat on @$$. If he's wrong, it means we need to figure out why they just happened to be playing war games with all their northern air defense forces during the most significant terrorist attack of the decade. Pro gives more spam saying that FAA and NORAD did communicate. But I'm saying they communicated slowly, which Pro concedes. If it is too slow, then you have a "failure of communication". See the 30-minute delay on reporting flight 77. Plan A Pro only says that putting the ex P/VP under oath is "not reality". This is not an argument. Pro CONCEDED that they should have been put under oath. So I guess they should re-testify. Pro says that if Bush/Cheney are mass murderers, then every other president is a mass murderer. That is probably right. Pro has no response to my "advanced interrogation" plan. It costs nothing except the discomfort of mass murderers. Plan B No Answer from Pro. ==Vote Guide== Conduct Pro is spamming - Wants us to read upwards of 30 sources he won't even link. Pro is dropping - Drops tons of arguments in favor of new points and sources. It's lame when your opponent spreads his case across 3 rounds (more to come!). It's an abusive tactic because he can just throw frivolous arguments at me and pick up ones I drop. Pro is a Liar - Claimed to have run out of space in his response. He actually had 500 characters left. If you read his post you can find many paragraphs that could be rewritten much more economically. The truth is that he just churned this out and didn't want to proof read it. Sources: Pro sources turned - I rebutted every paper he cited in round. He doesn't even try to defend them. Con use of NIST reports - The NIST reports are the most comprehensive studies on the tower collapses. I analyzed them, but got silence from Pro. Arguments: Inherency - There is no transparent report explaining the failure of government institutions. Plan A - Conceded by Pro because he agrees Bush/Cheney should have been under oath. Advanced interrogation never rebutted. Plan B - Never rebutted. S&G: Spelling - I can spell pneumoencephalography [3]. Grammar - I have space to mess around, so I must have superior sentence structure. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...