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

I thank Tarzan for his quick reply. As far as cutting back I did make an effort. As far as my numbering this round - it just divides a new point from other points and doesn't correspond with previous rounds necessarily. but is generally in order. 1. "the engineers *thought* the buildings might survive the impact, but they didn't have any real reason to be confident." -->PRO wanted to simply point out that the building was designed to withstand the type of impact which actually happened. The building's design was engineered to withstand more than that which actually hit the buildings. Also, since the towers did not fall due to impact (both buildings were still standing after 50 minutes) the designs did actually hold up. The resultant fires in the buildings can then be compared to fires that have happened in other skyscrapers (see list of buildings -PRO rd. 1) 2. "PRO suggests here that the"No-Plane-Theory" has merit" -->PRO had just wanted to point out that there were some people who contested even that point...just a tangent, but oh well, while we are on this point - this will provide additional evidence of the coverup and support PRO: "The Magic Plane" http://www.youtube.com... (0:00-0:30) Was that Wonder Woman's jet that hit the tower? Here's the other angle: Why does the wing of the plane disappear before impact? http://www.youtube.com... 3. "why the plane that hit the Pentagon didn't slice through the walls, there are two reasons. The first is that the Pentagon plane is thought to have hit the ground with the engines first, partially shredding the airframe. The second, and primary, reason is that the Pentagon is built to withstand attacks. The plane at the WTC hit a (ostensibly) hollow tower..." --> As far as CONs first point - Nothing appears to have hit the ground in front of the Pentagon, no marks are seen leading up to the building. So the "plane" would have been going full speed. And since the impact was allegedly at full speed, then why didn't the titanium engines under each wing even mark the building? It appears that we are supposed to believe that the aluminum fuselage (made of only 2 mm. of aluminum) penetrated the outer wall, and also penetrated 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete. http://www.youtube.com... (0:25-0:28 = picture of lawn)(0:00-1:45 = other information) 4. "root cause of collapse is that the outer mesh failed." --> Why wouldn't the outer walls have even slowed the planes down at all? According to the videos, are we supposed to believe that the breakaway wings also penetrated the steel frame? (and also the tail fin)...with everything going into the building and the steel framework stopping NOTHING?? This is clearly a fake video = more evidence of coverup. http://www.youtube.com... (Steel outer wall of WTC) But, if the outer walls were so easy to go through - and since the plane hitting the south tower simply went through a corner of the building without hitting the stronger girders in the center of the building...why didn't the plane just continue to easily bust through the OTHER outside corner wall (if it is "just" outer mesh) and fly right out of the building? The videos show it going in easily, yet it stayed fully inside the building. Perhaps there was a "Magic desk" in the corner office made of adamantium that stopped the "plane" dead in its tracks? http://www.youtube.com... (Video of plane clipping the corner of South WTC - nothing comes out the opposite side) 5. "controlled demolitions. They are extremely loud..." --> CON you had 2 links that were broken (#4 and #6). But PRO will argue more about the type of demolition that explains what more likely happened! (see #10) 6. "Firestorm" --> will mostly set aside this round. Except to say that the black smoke shows that the fire was not burning hot. 7. "And luggage getting lost at an airport? Is that really so unbelievable?" --> Magic Luggage -- Yeah it could happen - But statistically there is less than a 1% chance of that happening though. (about 1/2 of 1% chance). "Your abundance of faith is NOT disturbing though!"...That is good that you can believe in things that are improbable but still may be true!...But, personally, I find that point difficult to believe. In the United States, an average of 1 of 150 people have their checked baggage misdirected or left behind each year. http://en.wikipedia.org... --> Still that would not explain why the materials (plans, and connections all written down, etc.) would have been in the luggage in the first place?? If these were masterminds able to pull off 4 hijackings and bring down Towers, why wouldn't they be smart enough to destroy the evidence before they left? It's not like they were going to look at it again if it was going to be in the luggage compartment and blown up. 8. Magic Passports --> Yes it is possible they (2 passports) flew out and were found by FBI...just highly unlikely. Good faith though again. 9. "The short version is that it has some merit as the cause of the beginning of the collapse,..." -->PRO also accepts CONs explanation posted in the comments section. But PRO will set aside this point mostly for this round. 10. Nuclear demolition "...mushroom cloud, been instantly visible to the entirety of New York, and irradiated a massive section of Manhattan... none of which is evidenced anywhere." -->My opponent seems to not understand the basic differences between an "above ground" nuclear demolition vs. a "below ground" nuclear demolition. An underground nuclear demolition would have SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT effects than an above ground explosion would have! There are GOOD REASONS why nukes are tested underground! It filters out radiation! (and filters the blast wave etc...) 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. CON didn't respond to 3 things that nuclear demolition explains, that the other theories don't explain. A. Steel pulverized in midair into dust The piles of rubble were only 3 stories tall when they should have been 10 stories tall: http://www.youtube.com... Steel was still standing from WTC tower, then it just vaporized into dust in the air and blew away: http://www.youtube.com... (1:00-1:25 especially around 1:22) B. Temperatures in the rubble months later were still hotter than they should be. PRO showed some pictures in the previous round. Also: "Some beams pulled from the wreckage were still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile were well in excess of 1,000ï¿½F" "The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ï¿½F to more than 2,800ï¿½F..." "As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." The top picture of the molten steel is from Oct. 21, 2001 (about a month and a half later!) http://thermalimages.nfshost.com... C. Firefighters rates of cancer "9/11 NUKE DEMOLITION PROOF: Firefighters Radiation Cancers "Off the Scale" 9/11 FIREFIGHTERS ARE GETTING CANCER AT A FASTER RATE THAN OTHERS, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER REVEALS" http://www.veteranstoday.com... The nuclear demolition theory is more likely than the official jet fuel theory. Also the evidence points to a coverup. Thank you to Tarzan and the readers. AFFIRMED!