911 was an inside job

Scientifically Impossible?How is it a scientific impossibility? Let me break down the collapse for everyone, so we're clear what the official story says (also, the scientifically accepted theory).Lets begin with how the WTC was built.Unlike most conventinal building, the WTC did not have concrete outer coulmns, core, or truses. They were steel. Now how did it collapse?1. A plane crashed into it, pushing debree into the corner of a building that acted as a fuel for the fire to be persistant.2. The fires were 1800F, not enough to melt steel, but at 1100F steel will lose 50% of it's strength.3. Because the steel was weakening, the trusses began to sag (imagine here putting a fire under a pen, think about how the pen looses it's form)5. These trusses were connected to the outer columns, thus pulling the columns in.6. This pulling continued until the columns reached their breaking point, and snapped. This can all be found, along with accompanying videos and pictures to demonstrate this here: http://www.youtube.com...Stephen Jones and "Serious Scientific Reports"I've already discredited Stephen Jones, and while my adversary my call his collegues calling his paper (paraphrasing) stupid, he just says that it's a character assasination. This is what the truth movement does, whenever someone pokes a hole in their evidence, they just make this an unfalsifiable claim competition and start saying that it's because the University is apart of the cover up (why else would they say the paper is stupid? And if they are apart of the cover up, refer to my final point in round 2) Yes, it must be real luxorious to be a truther. When ever you're wrong, you can just say, "liar" and "they are government ponzis" or maybe "they are afraid they will be killed for speaking the truth!" In the face of evidence, truthers often flee from the scene and start going off on completely unfounded claims.Those "serious scientific reports" are whole heartedly rejected by the scientific community. Sure, a few proffessors and scientists buy into it. But they make up a very, infitecibly small percentage of the community. That's why no one takes the truther movement seriously. All of the claims and accusations are but rumours that have been disproven time and time again.NanothermiteSince you clearly did not read a thing from the website I gave you which absolutely derails the nanothermite theory, I guess I have no choice but to do it myself.For this point, I will be looking directly into the study itself found here: http://www.benthamscience.com...Surprise everyone, this was done by Stephen Jones. The same guy I talked about earlier (the one with absolutely no creadtials in this field. His collegues, both people in civil engineering and not, all dismissed his paper as complete bolony. (see round 2 and beggining of 3 for a refresher)So, we've already established that the person who performed this study has absolutely no background in the matter, but lets pretend he does and continue on anyway. A LOT of this paper is back story on how he collected the samples. Guess what? One of the people gave it to him years ago, another just kind of had it, and the other refused to give his/her name and gave no explination on how he/she managed to get their hands on it (now that's how science is done!). So we've already established that these test subjects are quite, sketchy to say the least. Anyway, lets once again give the benefit of the doubt and say that all of these chips were legitamately found on ground zero right after 9/11. Now, what were these chips? Just some red chips... what's the mean? Well, to Stephen Jones, that means it's clearly unignited nanothermite. To the rest of the scientific world, it's aluminum and ironoxide. The same thing that can be found in computers (which I believe the WTC had plenty of). But nope, it was definately nanothermite. Okay, so we're not off to a great start with this paper. So far we've established the person writing it has no credentials, the test samples aren't all that trustworthy, and the findings mean absolutely nothing. But just incase someone out there isn't convinced, lets keep poking holes in this paper.Acoording to this paper "unreactive nanothermite" (alluminum and ironoxide a.k.a. computer/television parts ) made up 0.1% of the samples. So tell me, how much nanothermite do you think they used?! The mass of the twin towers was 450,000,000 kg (http://hypertextbook.com...) Following Stephen Jones logic, there was at least 4,500,000 kg of nanothermite used to bring down the towers!! WOW. That's quite a lot of thermite. How did the government manage to sneak 4.5million kg into the twin towers without drawing any suspicioun. So we found that the conclusion to this paper says nothing, and even if it did, it would be absolutely perposterous to believe the government snuck 4.5 million kg of thermite into the WTC. But, I'm not done. There are more holes to be poked. Where was this published. The Open Chemical Physics Journal. This is... to say the least, not a respected journal among scientists. These journals are supposedly "peer reviewed". Some skeptikal people sent in joke papers to see what happens (The scientific study of C.R.A.P. for instance) and it was accepted. People would literally put in research papers that were absolute gibberish, and it was accepted. Really goes to show the presteige of this research paper Stephen Jones has created. The only journal that accepted Stephen Jone's research paper, is the same journal that literally accepts gibberish. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)When Stephen Jones' paper became famous, a bunch of people resigned out of embarassment. Not only has Stephen Jones failed to provide his test subjects for other people to replicate his experiments, but people who have managed to get their hand on the dust have found that (guess what) Stephen Jones is full of fecal matter. I could keep going, I really could. There is SO much wrong with this paper, that I could use up all of my character limitation, plus some, just poking holes in it. I really want to talk about the experiments done that prove Stephen Jones wrong, but I want to move on. Here's a link for any body who is interested: http://www.youtube.com...My Point RevisitedWell, I guess another truther has proved, yet again, that they can not answer how a 9/11 conspiracy is still safe gaurded (by George W. Bush?) considering the scope of this conspiracy, and all the people involved. Hell, everyone who I talked about earlier that discredited Stephen Jones is in on the conspiracy. Plus all of the government officials, journalists, scientists, witnesses, WTC security, people who planted the "thermite" ect. So, I will assume my adversary has conceded that point to me. If not, than please explain in the RFD or comments.ConclusionNo, I'm not going to tell my adversary to grab his tinfoil hat. There is reason to believe Washington may have had prior knowledge of 9/11, and without knowing how massive the attack would be, allowed it to happen. But every conspiracy theory on 9/11 has been thoroughly debunked, and this debate proves that the truther tactic of clinging to the discredited few who buy into their baloney, can be easily debunked with just a little bit of research.Yes, we would all like to think 9/11 was a conspiracy, because face it, that would be kind of cool. We the people, standing up against a murderous tyrannical government that hatched a plan to kill thousands of it's own civilians for an excuse to go to war. But that's just not reality. I thank my adversary for the debate, and for forcing me to do some scientific research. It's not something I'm good at, but practice makes perfect.Sorry about any weirdness in the formatting, as my computer is still being a silly goose.