9/11 was an inside job done by the government of the United States of America.

I urge voters to vote not on the debate content and not their own bias. I realize this probably won't happen but I feel better if I urge it. =) Anyways I'm going to go down my own points that I made last round and defend the ones my opponent attacked. I started my last round with offense on my opponents video claim. 1. This point can be summarized as "forging videos is easy, particularly one where all the main character does is sit for 9 minutes." My opponent responded with this, "Of course special effects are easy, but making a specific person do certain motions and so on is not is not." My response: All he does in the movie is eat and talk..... And as I said he does the motions with the wrong hand. My opponent answer this by saying that he makes hand gestures with his left even though he is right. However I would doubt that my opponent makes every single hand gesture with his left. Doing such almost defeats the idea of being right handed. Next my opponent mentions that it could not be in a different language because Arabic speaking U.S citizens are true. I admit this is true, I was simply illustrating the ignorance of the average American citizen on such a matter and how it could potentially be exploited. 2). I give my opponent multiple sources showing how Osama Bin Laden looks different in this video than in any other. My opponent responds with, "I don't know how Ron Paul entered this conversation, he does not support your crazy theory." I concede to my opponent that this is true. Ron Paul does not support me at all, he is in complete negation. I was simply showing that even he noticed this phenomenon. He simply chooses to disregard it. I would like to point out that aside from this point my opponent did not attack my point, thus it stands in this round. 3. Concerning the family relations with the Bush family and the Ladens. My opponent simply states that this point means nothing to him. I'm simply pointing out that it is interesting our president has relations with a terrorist organization in such a way. 4. Bush ordered investigations of Bin Laden family to be halted. My opponent states, "Points 3 and 4 say nothing to me. " It seems odd to me that the George Bush would stop investigations on one of the biggest terrorists ever. Might be something to do with the fact that their families have close relations..... 5. Osama was treated in an American hospital and talked to a CIA agent. My opponent states, "And there is no proof for your point 5, only some cheap website probably invented by a conspiracy wacko. There's a reason why no official website supports this theory." Here are the sources where this idea originated from, "According to United Press International (Oct. 31, 2001), bin Laden underwent clandestine kidney treatment by Dr. Terry Calloway (Canadian urologist) for 11 days in July at the American Hospital in Dubai. During his hospital stay, bin Laden met with a U.S. CIA agent, according to French daily Le Figaro and Radio France International." 6. Only piece of evidence that link Bin Laden to 9/11 was this confession video. My opponent attempts to prove this using Spain and England. However even if he could prove that Osama Bin Laden did such acts to assume that he therefor did 9/11 would be fallacious. It would actually make sense that our government blame a known terrorist. It makes the story more plausible. Next I offered my offense. Scenario 1: Pentagon 1. Plane vaporization. My opponent, "Well who said the airplane vaporized? They probably got it out of there. The pentagon isn't in such bad shape, it seems like that picture is not of the pentagon right after the plane hit, but a long time after." In response that picture was taken the same day.... Look up pentagon plane on google you'll find many similar pictures. As far as the plane vaporizing goes. Thats the official story given by the white house. It would be rather difficult to explain the idea that the plane did not vaporize when we have pictures like this http://media.graytvinc.com... where there is nearly 0 wreckage. However many many studies have been done proving that a plane cannot vaporize in any of these conditions. 2. No wing holes. My opponents makes no response. There are no wing holes, tapes were confiscated. Conclusion: No plane, otherwise government would show tapes. 3. Tapes seized by government. My opponent makes no response except to say that the plane should be right in the flames. My questions still remains, why is there no picture of the plane anywhere? Nearly 50 cameras from nearby building seized that would all show a plane, and the government has released 0 of the those tapes. Only showing us pictures of explosions. Cross apply my opponents argument from earlier, "Of course special effects are easy." 4. http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk...... , my opponent makes no response. Offense 2: Hijackers 1. No wreckage, vaporized on impact. My opponent makes no comment. 2. Found the passports of four hijackers despite the fact the plane vaporized. My opponent makes no comment. 3. FBI report comes to the conclusion that there were 19 hijackers yet days later 6 of them were still known to be alive. My opponent responds with, "The F.B.I. didn't really know. There were suspects of course, now they are not suspects anymore since they're alive. If the government did all of this, wouldn't they be smart enough to at least blame it on someone who won't just show up alive?" They're still suspects, the FBI has never revised their list. Page 563 of the 9/11 comission report, note 32, clearly states, "Two of the hijackers (Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari) presented passports in a fraudulent manner that has subsequently been associated with Al Qaeda." Why has the FBI not revised their list? Because it frankly doesn't matter who flew the plans; they made America believe at the time that the planes were flown by those men. The fact that they weren't, at this point, is of little consequence as America still firmly believes that they were flown by Al Qaeda. Until a great many people stop believing this the government has no need to deal with the issue. Offense 3: WTC 1, 2, & 7 1. Let me paste the entire argument that my opponent never responded to, "1. Despite popular belief 3 world trade centers actually fell on September 11th. Official report cites fire melted the 3 however all three fell at nearly the speed of free fall. The only feasible scenario for such would be controlled demolition. No building has ever been known to collapse in this way from fire, yet on Sept. 11th three building collapsed.... Care to explain?" To add to my point a small amount. The official cause of these collapses was that fire melted the supports to the main beams of each tower. Thus the tower collapsed in a pancake fashion 1 floor hitting the next. Unfortunately this would leave the main beams still intact, which it didn't, and would not allow the towers to fall at the speed of free fall. In conclusion my opponents final statement is as follows, "Overall, if the government really did this. Wouldn't they use a real plane? " No, that would be a bad idea. If it ever gets out that this was all a farce by our government to get us into a war it will be much better if the government can tell the public that planes loaded with civilians never crashed. You seem to be under the idea that our government is incapable of harming our citizens for gain. This is fallacious, as empirical data from the past proves. Operation North Woods is a fine example. http://en.wikipedia.org... Prescott bush helping WWII is another http://rinf.com...