9/11 was an inside job

Rebutting my opponent's claims1. My opponent already conceded that NORAD not being able to make it on time was reasonable, now he is claiming that the terrorists evading NORAD is unreasonable. I already provided the timeline regarding what time the towers were hit and how long it look NORAD to respond. The time it took NORAD to get pilots in the air it was too late, being human doesn't indicate an inside job.2. There is no reason why a terrorist attack where only 75% of the targets get hit is unreasonable. Osama Bin Laden was a rich architect, and the people who were behind him were not idiots and had much wealth. It's absurd to think Osama's funding of this project and the years of planning would result in some massive failure due to the Bush Administration and their wit, and that "911 was an inside job". My opponent's logic just doesn't add up. Pro also seems to forget that Bush was obsessed with missile defense before 911, an attack using planes from the inside the country itself was a strategy used by Osama and it worked.3. All three towers fell in a progressive collapse, I'm not sure if the pancake theory is still valid or not.4. I already provided a video showing what happens what a plane hits re-enforced concrete at 500mph. That wasn't an argument, that was solid proof that there is no reason why anyone should expect any large pieces of debris. Therefore, Pros's argument fails.Fact 1:Lets say I granted the claims that the government tried to tie 911 to Saddam strictly for the sake of argument, all you would be demonstrating is that the Bush Administration took advantage of a bad situation. This fits better with what I claimed regarding Bush being upset that Saddam had nothing to do with it, so he went after him anyway. "Polling data had shown that right after 911 when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks only 3% mentioned Iraq.But by January 2003 attitudes had been transformed 44% of Americans reported that either most or some of the 911 hijackers were Iraqi citizens."This has nothing to do with 911 being an inside job though, this only shows that the idea grew somehow that Iraq had something to do with 911. Claiming that indicates 911 wasn't done by Al Quaeda and was orchistrated by the US government does not follow from your premise. Fact 2"Innocent men have no reason to lie so why did he?"It makes politicians look bad to be making money on the side of their regular government work, so he didn't want to acknowledge it. Claiming this somehow leads to the conclusion that 911 was in inside job is false.Fact 3 "*An employee who worked in the Twin Towers stated "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on""I'm skeptical of this particular claim (expecially without a source). It's true that the US government had warnings that Al-Queda was going to attack the US but the exact locations were not known. It's a known fact that Bush's numbers went down after 911, and the economy went down the tubes (less money being sucked from the tax payers). 911 made bush like an idiot because he didn't consciously let it happen, he just didn't take it seriously enough. Pro so far, has presented no good reasons for why 911 was an inside job.Fact 4"Which scenario is more likely from a strictly logistical perspective:(1) An outsider sitting in a cave defeating the air defense system of the sole military superpower or(2) Someone like Cheney who on 911 apparently had full control over all defense war game and counter terrorism powers rigging and gaming the system?"War games are a military exercise carried out to test or improve tactical expertise using simulations and don't equate to "rigging and gaming" actual military combaty systems."**It is much more likely that Cheney and/or other U.S. government and military officials pulled the 911 trigger than that Bin Laden did it. At the very least they took affirmative steps to guarantee that the hijackers attacks succeeded."You are confusing criminal negligence and careless neglet. Bush and his administration was most likely focused on Saddam and it caused Bush to let Osama and his attacks slip through his fingers.Fact 5 "Bush never stated then as he did later that Iraq had "nothing" to do with 911.*Suffice it to say again goverment knew about 911"The government knew that Al-Queda was planning to attack them yes, but they didn't have specific warnings of actual targets. Also if Bush lied to tie Iraq to Osama'd doing, then why not say Saddam did it? Think about it, if all this was to get Saddam,invade Iraq, and the US government planned the whole thing anyway then why not just say Saddam did it instead of Osama? 911 was an attack that was a thorn in Bush's side, I dont doubt he tried to make the best of it, that doesn't mean he carried it out. Fact 6"I am sure while runing for their lives they listened to explosions."Reports of explosions took place, what they described sounded like random lone shark explosions. In some videos of the collapses you can hear the clear audio, there are no explosions heard directly before the towers fell. These do not fall in line with classic controlled demolitions."The 10,000+ page NIST report admits that all of the jet fuel burned off within 15 minutes."Not all the fuel was used in the fire ball. Eye witnesses actually claim that jet fuel was creating curtains of fire as it poured down from the impact zone. The problem for the conspiracy theorist is the jet fuel only started the fires. NIST never said that it was the jet fuel alone that caused the collaspe.[1]"The remaining fires were fuelled by office furniture and wall boards. it also admits that only the worst case estimate in their simulation would result in any collapse."The top video video I included this round shows how fast office fires can spread and how deadly they can really be."Why does the NIST report not explain what caused the rest of the towers to peel apart after the top started to collapse? They just refer to it as 'global colapse' with no explanation how that occurred in the undamaged sections."I already provided a video in my last round showing how a building collapsed similar to the ones on 911 due to fire alone, global collapses are not some phenomenon therefore there is nothing to be "suspicious" about. My opponent is trying to connect dots that are simply not there."The Pentagon:"The Pentagon-Dutch-Simulator simulated the maneuver of the Plane.It wasn't as difficult as some people lead on"How convenient. Just another simple explanation."The law of Parsinomy states that the simplest explanation is usually correct. Once more, the burden is on you to show why all these things you mention lead to the conclusion that 911 was in inside job. You have not done so."Is it all coincidence ?"What to you mean by "all"? You haven't established that your claims indicate an inside job, let alone there being a real pattern you believe you are seeing in this."My opponent wants us to believe 19 goat farmers and a man in a cave pulled off 911. All alone with box cutters am I missing something I think not."Osama Bin Laden was a member of a huge wealthy family and an architect himself. I think your comment about goat farmers wasn't logically warrented because it paints a picture of Osama which was simply not true. There was no reason to think he couldn't have pulled off 911.[2]ConclusionAll of my opponent's claims are resting on shaky grounds and do not provide a very presenting case in favor if 911 being an inside job. Pro didn't tie his argument together very well and I refuted all of his claims with evidence to back it up many of the refutations. I believe I have met my burden while my opponent has not..Sources[1] http://www.debunking911.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.youtube.com...