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

Lots of ground to cover, so forgive my short intro...1. "the engineers *thought* the buildings might survive the impact, but they didn't have any real reason to be confident."I think we are in agreement here that the impacts did not cause the collapse - I should note that I mean this only in the sense that the building did not toppel over immediately. The obvious difference concerning the fires that Pro mentions in other towers is that these towers did not have their support members' fireproofing blown off, and also retained their structural components, but these issues are, I think better addressed in sections 4 and 6.2. "PRO suggests here that the"No-Plane-Theory" has merit"We could sit here all day trading videos that purport to show a plane or not. The fact of the matter remains that YouTube video is not presented in (nor is content uploaded in) a high enough resolution to be dispositive one way or the other on this issue. That said, this gentleman (http://www.abovetopsecret.com...) has taken his time and treasure to procure source video and has uploaded comparisons of some of the images as the appear on YouTube, and in 720p. Further, this article (http://www.questionsquestions.net...) gives an extraordinarily thorough refutaion of the NPT. I'm quite frankly surprised that Pro would even bring it up.3. Difference between the Pentagon impact and the WTC1/2 impacts.Pro contends that there is no evidence of something hitting the ground in front of the Pentagon. Perhaps my statement was a little confusing. I mean to say that the plane hit the ground and the Pentagon at about the same time. There is good evidence that the wing or engine of the plane did impact the onsite generator. Any images of the ground itself in front of the wall would of course be obscured by the debris on the lawn. Not to dwell on this issue, but here is a picture of the generator (http://files.abovetopsecret.com...) showing not only has it been hit, but also swung out of position (http://files.abovetopsecret.com...). Again, I'd like to reintimate that the point is that the Pentagon is a reinforced bunker, and the WTC towers are basically tubes by comparison. Matchsticks and two-by-four are both pine, but one is a lot easier to slice through.4. "root cause of collapse is that the outer mesh failed."I think Pro is referring to the Purdue video I posted above. However, if you watch the entire video, you can see that the pieces of the aircraft penetrated the building with almost total destruction of the airframe almost instantly. Starting at 1:32, they offer an inside view, which shows in great detail the extent to which the steel framework shredded the airframe. Furthermore, videos show (http://www.youtube.com... / watch?v=oprbCOup4O4 - at the end where it is replayed in fast speed) that the tower exhibits considerable sway after the impact - which proves that a considerable amount of kinetic energy was transferred to the tower as the steel framework did what it could to stop the plane.Pro then contends that if the plane in the South Tower hit a corner that it somehow should have emerged from the other side. Given the degree of fragmentation evidenced in the Purdue video, I think it's safe to say that by the time the plane (really, debris) got to the other side of the building, it was in no shape to punch through another wall - or at least not through the steel frame members.>> "Video of plane clipping the corner of South WTC - nothing comes out the opposite side"I was at first vey confused by this video considering other clips of the 2nd crash very clearly show a LOT of debris exiting the far side of the building. Then I realized that this clip views both towers straight on. We're looking at the side of the NORTH tower in that clip - see how the only tower visible is already burning much higher up? The rest of the videos in that series (by the same YouTube user) very clearly show a lot of debris coming out both the far, and relative right of the impact side.5. "controlled demolitions. They are extremely loud..."Yes, I noticed the broken links. I think the site disallows hotlinks...6. "Firestorm" --> will mostly set aside this round. >> "Except to say that the black smoke shows that the fire was not burning hot."The color of the smoke depends on the fuel, not the heat of the fire...7. "And luggage getting lost at an airport? Is that really so unbelievable?"Pro contends that because the probability of one of the Hijacker's luggage getting misplaced on 9/11 is relatively low, that it must be a conspiracy. I say, let's go ahead and use probabilities! Let's assume the probability of any 1 person's luggage getting lost is, as Pro states, about 1/150. But there were 19 hijackers, which means the probability of any one of their luggage getting lost is, cumulatively, 19/150.Also, it's not like the people that flew the planes actually planned 9/11 themselves. It's no stretch of the imagination to think that these people would have been arrogant enough to think that it wouldn't matter what they did with the plans... Not that it was really plans (http://911research.wtc7.net...) - it was just "a copy of the Koran, instructions on how to fly a commercial airplane and a fuel consumption calculator."8. Magic PassportsThe sheer amount of paper that survived not only the explosions and fires, but also the collapse of the towers is almost magical, isn't it? And it's hardly more "magical" than the people they pulled alive from the rubble of the fallen towers. 9. "The short version is that it has some merit as the cause of the beginning of the collapse... (set aside) 10. Nuclear demolition>> "An underground nuclear demolition would have SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT effects than an above ground explosion would have!"Why, yes, that's correct! I must have missed the explosion that would have, among other things, backed up all the sewer systems in the area, torn the E line subway to shreds, propagated a massive pressure wave through the entire subway system, caused the equivalent of a minor earthquake, left a massive crater under the buildings that all manner of things would have slid into...>> "Also my opponent seems to not make a distinction between nuclear "demolitions" vs. nuclear "warheads". Nuclear demolitions weren't designed to kill people, but rather to just take down buildings."I invite readers to google "nuclear demolition" - the only reference of any legitimate scientific value is the Wikipedia Article on a never-used low-yield nuke the US developed for (completely) demolishing enemy positions. Nuclear demolition by underground explosion that magically only disturbs the building above it is a fantasy.A. Steel pulverized in midair into dustNevermind the fact that this is concrete you see as a dust cloud, there is no reason to suppose that rubble piles should have been 10 stories high. The WTC debris covered SIXTEEN CITY BLOCKS, not the 2-acre building footprint. Without a better quality image, I would hazard a guess that the beams that appear to vaporize are simply covered in dust from the rest of the collapse that is shaken off as it falls.B. Temperatures in the rubble months later were still hotter than they should be.This is not terribly surprising given that there was ample fuel for debris to be burning, and they sprayed the steel building with water to cool it... which causes oxidation, which releases heat. A lot of heat, as it turns out (http://www.debunking911.com...).C. Firefighters rates of cancerPro's own source doesn't mention radiation anywhere else than the title. Here's a reliable source on the same phenomenon mentioning, among other things, the sheer volume of chemicals in the buildings (http://www.cnn.com...).(Out of characters)NEGATED.