9/11 was not an "INSIDE JOB"

*Personally, I take the side of pro for this debate. Also, to anyone who is reading this debate and has lost relatives or friends in any of the events mentioned, my deepest condolences go out to you.* The majority of conspiracy theories are blatantly misrepresented, factually unsound or simply just scare-mongering. The main reason for this is in the motives behind the actions. In the reports of 911, in which I do not intend to dispute the facts of, there are several occurrences that need explanation. 1. The pilots of an aircraft would have known that the terrorist were going to get them killed anyway. And since the terrorists could not fly the planes themselves, the pilots could have used their position of authority over the terrorists to change the results. Thus, the automatic response would be to save the lives of those in the target buildings, and crash the aircraft elsewhere. When one knows that they are going to die, the natural human instinct is to 'get one back' on the ones who are causing their demise. 2. The best way to divert suspicion is to attack yourself. No one could possibly believe that any party would attack themselves. It sounds ludicrous, however, why is it that the two buildings directly relating to the American government were left in far better condition than the other two? 3. Press releases were controlled by the US government; only what was wanted to be said was said. 4. Four planes attack four buildings and only 3000 people die. Why not more? If the terrorists were truly out for a 'holy war,' then why did they only kill 3000? Why not crash a plane into a large school, or packed stadium, or Time Square? The reasons behind the attack of the terrorists are shady at best. Even shadier than some conspiracy theories? Moreover, since this debate is asking if there is a way to conclusively prove that 9/11 was exactly the way it was reported, if there is the slightest opportunity for the story to be wrong, a good conspiracy theory can be declared just as plausible. Let us continue with the theory in question. The United States' government, in early 2001, learned of the economic problems that the nation would face if the economy were to continue in the same way that it was going. (Interestingly enough, since the war has begun to end, how many times has the stock market crashed?) Therefore, in a desperate attempt to change its future, America made a radical call. America had to go to war. However, as learnt from Vietnam, a war could not be started with the people's consent, if the people couldn't see an obvious threat. The plan was simple: war gives a manufacturing boost, rich people take out bonds, and the entire nation unifies under desperate circumstances. But at least they would still have their money. The difficulty, of course, was that every American had to be hoodwinked into believing that terrorism was a massive threat to homeland security. So, the plot was to destroy the nation's claim to fame: the World's Tallest Buildings. The deaths of some innocent men and women was justified by a better life for all. So, the US sent trained insurgents, dressed as terrorists, allowed them onto four planes, paid off their families, and sent the four planes into different targets. The locations had to be legitimate targets, without destroying the nation. Damaging a government building was a good way to avert suspicion, but the other two targets (The fourth target was never genuinely in question) we're expendable. The Wall Street set up could easily support the full grunt of US trade for an indefinite period of time. Aboard the aircraft, the trained insurgents killed the pilots, and as trained pilots themselves, steered the planes according to their orders.