Hope I'm not intruding by offering my own rebuttal to the debate but I can't help but notice that Paul presumes much from what the government account states without understanding the general laws of physics that make the scenario impossible as the government claims:

SO-CALLED?" FACTS ARE FACTS.
Not if they are presumptions based on insufficient observation. They could not see inside the damaged areas to determine how much damage was actually done to the support columns. You presume “acres of floor space on fire” yet much evidence that you and NIST ignore supports otherwise, and to date, nothing released by NIST or the government proves conclusively that there was enough heat to support the collapse theory of the building. Its all assumptions based on weight of the planes, the impact speed, and the subsequent fireball. So what you sir refer to are truly “theories”, while we sir, derive our conclusions from the known facts, many that NIST and the government choose to ignore. This is evident in some of the arguments below.

IF YOU AND FOUR BUDDIES ARE CARRYING A LONG, HEAVY LOG, AND YOU SUDDENLY LET GO, THE WEIGHT YOUR FRIENDS ARE CARRYING WILL SUDDENLY INCREASE.