Asking for a new 9/11 investigation is highly unreasonable

Framework:Con suggests that we’re tied because as I stated, people feel strong both ways about a new investigation. However, those who feel strong that we should investigate have not made a case as to why. I’ll continue demonstrating my point in this round. Inherency Con contends that the NIST reports are objective support for the official story. Curious statement, being that when it comes to the collapse of the buildings the NIST reports are the official story. NIST reports A) Con contends that he has shown the NIST reports to be either inaccurate or wrong. The voters should re-read his points. He gave reasons to doubt the techniques used by NIST. This does not prove their conclusions to be inaccurate or wrong. B) I’ll get back to this in a minute… i) Con says that I am not arguing my points and running my debate off an external website. Aside from the list of 10 papers I cited, every other point I made was a rebuttal to his points. This is impossible to do from an external website. Con then moves on to rebut certain points in each of the 10 different scientific papers I provided (there are also 20 more in the link I posted, are they all flawed?). He ignored my request to show how many scientific papers have been published refuting NIST’s conclusions. Apparently Con is more educated about building collapses then the entire scientific community. Con will probably complain again that I am using appeal to authority here, and that this is not how we debate. The purpose of a debate is to make your case. If the science of the collapses had anything to do with the attacks of 9/11 (which Con has yet to make any implications of) then I would argue them. But since he hasn’t drawn any connections to the attacks, his case has nothing to do with the resolution. Even if I were to concede this particular argument Con has proven nothing other then the idea that the scientific community is apparently incapable of understanding the collapses. Yet this would have to be the same scientific community who would re-investigate them. This would be an obvious waste of time and energy. (BTW the NIST report cost 16 million(10)) Con states that it would be impossible to try for another simulation because we are missing key data. If we are missing key data then a new investigation would be pointless. He then states: “Without Pro's reports, the government's version of 911 has no scientific support.” Correct. If you take away all the papers that support the official story, you'll no longer have papers that support the official story. Glad we agree. 2) NORAD non responsiveness Cons entire NORAD argument fails to consider 1 very important concept: nothing like this had ever happened before. Our defense system was set up to focus on defending against external threats, not internal. And there was no reason they should have been. By 2001 there hadn’t been a hijacking in the US in 10 years (1). “Pro gives no reason why we can't investigate NORAD and friends.” It is not NORAD’s responsibility to prove that they should not be investigated, It is the accuser’s responsibility to provide a reason that they should be. I stated earlier that questions are not evidence. As Con pointed out, this is only partially correct. It depends on the type of question. Let’s look at the questions and points Con has brought up: “Norad was notified it 8:34 AM. I don't know what a good response time is, but they should probably be able to do SOMETHING about flight 93 which crashed nearly 90 minutes later” NORAD was notified at 8:32 of the hijacking of flight 11. Fighter Jets were scrambled at 8:46 but they didn’t know where to scramble to because the transponders were turned off. It was also at 8:46 that Flight 11 crashed into the WTC. At this point they had no reason to think this was anything more then an isolated incident. American Airlines received its first reports of anything going wrong with flight 93 at 9:34, and at 9:49 we had the famous “Uh, God, I don’t know, everybody left the room” phone call where the FAA couldn’t decide if they should scramble another jet. At 10:03 the plane crashed. By that point fighters were already sent to DC where NORAD suspected the plane was heading.(2)(5) But by then it didn’t matter. The reason it takes 15 minutes to get to the person who makes these decisions is because the people in charge have very serious responsibilities and can not sit around all day waiting for a phone call we had not received in 10 years. There were unfortunately procedures in place that had to be followed. If we had any reason to believe something like this would ever happen, we would have fixed that system before 9/11 instead of after. This is not suspicious, its human nature. “The bureaucratic response structure of NORAD and the FAA should be evaluated.” We do not need a new investigation for that. Just a computer and a phone line. Here are the procedures. If you read it you will see that it helps to explain why it takes so long to respond in pre 9/11 days. I’d explain it myself but I don’t have space. (9) “NORAD had 90 minutes to do something - ANYTHING - about the Pentagon. Apparently the Department of Defense is unable to defend itself with a 90 minute warning.” Same point repeated, same answer. But if I didn’t make it clear enough, this 90 min claim comes from the time of the hijacking of the first plane to the crash of the last plane which had nothing to do with each other. It completely disregards the reality of how hectic and confusing that day was. “Well, they failed to prevent a $4 terrorist attack.” “I already refuted this. I don’t quite understand your need to emphasize that they were $4 box cutters. Would you be satisfied if they were $20? “Why were they playing war games at that exact time? Nice tactic. Ask a question that no one could ever answer, then claim that I did not answer your question therefore you win. Here is more on your war games(7) “Why did the FAA and NORAD fail to communicate?” They didn’t. Their conversations are all documented.(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(8) “These are reasonable questions.” They have all been answered. Plan A Con states there is no reason we can not discretely place our former President and Vice President under oath to testify about the largest mass murder in our nations history with the intent to find out something suspicious. This is not reality. And if it were, how would we know that this has not been done already? Con also states that they are mass murderers and that we can do anything we want to them. His definition of a mass murderer apparently comes from his round 1 statement when he said that they collaborated in the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Being that every president presides over a many operations that result in mass loss of life, by his logic Barrack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George H. Bush, Dan Quale, Jimmy Carter and every other former President and Vice president still alive are all mass murderers and apparently have no rights. (guess I won't be running for office) I do actually have things of my own to say but I’ve reached my limit and will have to save it till the next round which I look forward to. (1) http://www.bts.gov... (2) http://www.npr.org... (3) http://www.npr.org... (4) http://www.npr.org... (5) http://www.npr.org... (6) http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com... (7) http://911myths.com... (8) http://911myths.com... (9) http://www.dtic.mil... (10) http://wtc.nist.gov...