Resolved: The Government Was behind the 9/11 attacks

Thank you for responding in a timely matter.First of all I would like to dispute your notion that you posted arguments from the journal of 9/11 studies to show "evidence of learned men supporting this conclusion".As you yourself said, the man has a PhD in Chemistry, and unless you want to argue that the attacks were carried out using potassium hydroxide I don't see how his speculations have any academic value whatsoever.Furthermore, I did not state any contentions because I agreed to defend the findings of the 9/11 commission, which are publicly available and which you yourself mentioned in your opening statement:"My contentions are as follows,1. The explanation the government offered to explain 9/11 are impossible"I clearly do not lack a case. My case is the official explanation of the attacks as provided by the US Government, which states that the attacks were carried out by members of Al-Qaeda and that the towers collapsed as a result of the structural damages inflicted to the buildings by the collision of the airplanes.My opponent acknowledges that he is not an expert, and therefore lacks the rudimentary skills needed to compose an educated analysis of the attacks. Saying that he lacks the skills is by the way no insult, but just a statement based on my opponent's own acknowledgment of his lack of training in the subject matter.My opponent also states that I have not shown any evidence for my points.This could of course not be further away from the truth. If my opponent had taken his time to look up the sources that I have posted during the last round, he would have noticed that all the points that he has made have already been debunked by professionals and experts in the field. Those people by the way are not hobby-conspiracy-theorist but professionals. It is obvious that my opponent does not want to get the facts on the story and rather decided to ignore the evidence provided by those experts because it does not fit his narrative.I shall post the source again and hope that my opponent will analyze it. [1]I also challenge my opponent to show a credible source that backs up his statement that people were arrested at the 9/11 site for taking pictures.I would also like him to explain how employing an company that is specialized in the field of cleaning up demolition sites is a hint that the World Trade Center was blown up by the US Government.My opponent also writes that I have stated that "the creators of the buildings had not anticipated plane collisions" and that "on this point he is wrong."I never made the above mentioned statement.My opponent goes on a rant about amount of temperature and oxygen depravation and other concepts, which are all explained and debunked in the source that I provided him with in the first round, and writes that "there's no evidence that suggests the core structure was ever damaged by flames."http://www.youtube.com...In this video it is clearly visible how upon impact parts of the plane came out from the opposite side of the building that got hit.If that is not proof enough for my opponent that the core structure of the building had indeed been compromised than I will have to rest my case.My opponent also writes that "here have only been two examples of steel-frame skyscrapers totally collapsing because of fires, or any other cause other than controlled demolition. And both of those occurred on September 11th, at the world trade center."Here again my opponent fails to recognize that not only the fires caused the collapse, but a combination of the fires and the damage caused to the structure by the impact of two planes flying at 500 miles an hour!My opponent then asserts that if it wasn't a controlled demolition, it is impossible that the towers fell down vertically and should have collapsed "like a tree"Again, he provides no credible source or explanation for this hypothesis. My opponent has acknowledged that he is not an engineer nor an architect and I am unable to understand why he believes that he might be able to explain the most scrutinizes event in the history of the world better than thousands of experts in the field on the basis of misleading information and conspiracy theories that he found on the internet.I have posted a video of an actual controlled demolition for my opponent to examine, showing that it has nothing in common with what happened at the World Trade Center. He of course ignored that evidence completely because it does not fit his narrative.My opponent mentions Dick Cheney's ownership of Halliburton stock as "evidence" of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.Well first of all the war in Iraq was started on the base of the alleged presence of WMDs, not because of 9/11.The US went to war in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, who had connections with Al Qaeda. It wasn't Iraq.Furthermore, the vice-president does not have any say on matters of war or other state affairs. His job is to be on stand by in case the president is killed or unable to perform is duty, and can break a tie-vote in the senate, but has no other powers.His duties are described in the Constitution.He might serve as an advisor to the president, but is the President who makes the decisions. Furthermore, contracts to contractors such as Halliburton are awarded by Congress, not by the President or Vice-President, therefore your entire argument about Cheney doesn't make sense at all.My opponent also re-presents the point of low gas prices in the US -even though I have already explained this point to him-, writing "Also, I would like to inform my opponent that prices on Europe's gas are almost double what we pay. Of course, they aren't in possession of a country in the middle east, now are they".We pay less for gasoline - not oil -, because in the US there are lower taxes on gasoline and diesel than in Europe.It has been this way for decades, even before the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Oil is bought on the international market and has the same price everywhere. Gas has different prices because of taxes [2]Please compare the Gas tax in Germany - €0.6545 per liter plus Value Added Tax (19%), with a US tax of $0.18 per GALLON!A gallon is 3.8 liters.I did comment on the "evidence" you provided for the willingness of the US Government to attack its own citizens.The document you provided, which is widely known as Operation Northwoods, was a proposal drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the height of the cold war. It was not drafted by Congress or any other branch of the US Government, but by individuals within the military, it was not approved by any branch of Government and it has never been implemented.There is no doubt that it is a shameful document, but it is not proof that the US Government has ever used or had planned to use force against it's own civilian population through false-flag attacks.One last point that I need to make is of course Osama bin Laden.He was recognized by every intelligence service in the world as the mastermind of the 911 attacks, had been responsible for the attacks on the USS Cole, on US Embassies around the world, on a bombing in the basement of the WTC years before 911 and claimed responsibility for the attacks, both per video and letter. [3]http://www.youtube.com...My opponent has again in this round provided no evidence or points that have not already been in the blogosphere for years and that have been debunked by experts in the fields several times. He argues I have not provided an alternative to the narrative even though I clearly stated that I share the findings of the 9-11 commission.My opponent is engaged in pseudo-speculative-investigation, is not an expert in the field and has not provided legitimate sources for his speculation on the attacks!VOTE CON[1] http://www.popularmechanics.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk...