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

Much thanks also to Heart (can I call you Heart) for another excellent debate on the WTC Towers... I'll move quickly through the minor points, and try to spend most of the time rebutting what little we have to go on of Con's Nuclear Demolition fantasy.1. BUILDING STRUCTURECon's major contention on this point is that other buildings had fires more severe than the WTC. He also makes the point that steel buildings do not collapse from fires. By and large, this is correct. But steel buildings with no fireproofing on the burning floors that are missing crucial support members have collapsed in 100% of similar cases, of which exactly two exist.Fireproofing on the truss members of the floors: http://www.debunking911.com...Missing fireproofing on at edges where plane went in: http://forums.randi.org...Some indication (yes, hardly dispositive) that fireproofing wasn't very good to begin with: http://www.debunking911.com...Nobody is contending that somehow the fireproofing was burned away by jet fuel or the like - it was physically removed by the tornado of debris blowing through the building. This exposed the steel directly to the fire. And, had the outer support pylons been in place, the floor would have not sagged nearly to the extent that it did, and the building probably would not have collapsed.2. PLANE IMPACTSActually, Pro has shown nothing of the sort, but reiterates his insistence that aluminum planes cannot pierce steel despite considerable evidence to the contrary. Con presented evidence of impact mechanics, time-temperature superposition, lead piercing steel, and even water being used to cut steel, all of which are ignored.3. PANCAKE THEORYAt the risk of strawmanning Pro for strawmanning me... I said that pancaking was a symptom of the collapse, not a cause. Pancaking certainly did occur, as anyone can see in the building pressure wave that moves down as the buildings collapse. Conspiracy theorists often point to "squibs" as evidence of demolition, but if you look, the squibs eject MORE debris as time passes, which is precisely the reverse of how a controlled demolition charge would operate (http://www.debunking911.com...). "Building sag" is no theory, as Pro puts it. There is clear evidence that the building was actually sagging:http://www.debunking911.com... - note the deviation from vertical, particularly at the 80th floor.http://www.debunking911.com... - note too the massive deformation just below the fire in the picture.4. OTHER STUFF"Magic Passports" & "Magic Luggage" - an unusual happenstance does not a conspiracy make."Ground Zero" - Your own source identifies other definitions indication the center of any large event.>>"Steel oxidation theory"If you would like to examine the science of it for yourself, it is right here (http://www.debunking911.com...). I'm not sure what more evidence I can give you - the chemical reactions are shown, the transfer of the building's kinetic energy (remember, about 0.3 kt) into heat... I'm not going to pretend to understand the science completely, but I will 'pretend' to let experts in the field describe in (excruciating) detail exactly how this occurs.>> "Craters under WTC5, 6 were not addressed..."Mostly because the resolution says "WTC 1 and 2." But even so, I thought your magic nukes only left craters under the single buildings they were meant to destroy?? Furthermore, you don't suppose the underground structures like parking garages and such would look like craters once a building collapsed on top of them?5. "Magic nukes"I'm mostly going to ignore the video evidence - if Pro cannot make the point stand on his own without videos as illustrations, I see no reason to let videos argue for him. It hardly matters though, because nuclear demolition is pseudoscientific fantasy.>> "The energy goes up through the bottom (to a certain point on the building) changing the building into a type of "volcanic glass"...maintaining its outer shape and color-"This is clearly an impossibility. You expect us to believe that a building changes to dust from the bottom up, yet then collapses from the top down? Really?>> "FBI agents wore FULL HAZMAT SUITS..."Cleanup crews certainly should have! But not because of any radiation hazard. It's possible there was some radioactive material from thing like radium, but the primary danger was from industrial chemicals. Here's a great article that explains how, while radiation on the nanocurie level was found, it was nothing like what would be left from a nuclear bomb (http://www.journalof911studies.com... )>> "Chagan = an obvious strawman"Hardly. My point here is that bombs of a similar size destroyed a much larger area. Granted, they were not in bedrock, but they were in fact underground tests at about the same depth as Pro alleges his magic nukes were. My question is twofold... if these tests produced a conical explosion and massive amounts of radiation that traveled in a cloud across several states (Sedan), why should we expect spherical craters and no cloud of radiation?>> " Cons Math/ size of crater --> there are different zones of damage of different sizes ex: cavity, crushed zone, damaged zone "Pro completely misses the point here... His source alleges the use of 150kt nuclear bombs, yet his own source gives a figure for destruction of granite that would mean the bombs would only make a 20-meter hole - that's off by FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT. Furthermore, in order to actually destroy a 100 meter sphere of granite, the math (see round 4) shows that you would need a bomb about two orders of magnitude more powerful. The source is, simply put, lying.>> "Impossible to demolish a modern steel bldg. -->era consideration - not as advanced back then."Yet curiously this statement is made in an article that could only have been written after 911. Is Pro suggesting that demolition of steel buildings on 9/11/01 was impossible, but now, ten years later, we are in such a new area that it's suddenly possible? No... the assertion was modern, and it is completely incorrect.>> "And for their final trick they will make a steel building vaporize into dust! snowball picture:" This is actually pretty funny. What we see in Pro's picture is pulverized concrete dust in the foreground and the smoke from the still standing and still burning tower behind it rising into the sky. Hardly a "final trick". Oh and I almost forgot, we see the building collapsing from the TOP DOWN after the nukes turned the bottom portion into dust. Right.**********************************************************************************Readers, aside from the rebutted propositions where Pro attacks the official story, he must also provide a prima facie case supporting his demolition theory. His theory fails utterly on three obvious counts.First, the article he cites contains several physical impossibilities, not the least of which is egregious miscalculations and misrepresentations in the size and scope of the explosions involved.Second, this theory is utterly at odds with every single piece of photographic or videographic evidence of the tower's collapse. Pro's theory can only collapse a tower from the bottom up. Every single visual of the WTC towers clearly shows them collapsing from the top down.Third, Pro has repeatedly contended that the collapse was controlled. This, too, is directly contrary to every visual of the collapse. The buildings did not fall in their footprint in anything resembling a controlled manner.The resolution is obviously and completelyNEGATED. http://www.journalof911studies.com...