9/11 was an inside job.

Pro starts his argument immediately with an Appeal to Emotion, and is trying to sway people by appearing to be a moral warrior. He also stats that the German's didn't know about the concentration camps. In fact, they did. The camps were ran by huge sums of people, it could never be a secret. While not everyone knew of the full horror, they still knew about the camps. Even then, this is a poor comparison, in every way.Rebuttal I: The Twin Towers Collapsing.Pro is right to assume I'd go with the Twin Towers being hit by a plane. He states that they are made to withstand a plane. The Titanic was made to not sink, and yet, getting hit at the right angle, it did. Just because the building was made to absorb the force of a plane, doesn't mean it would work every time. Pro brings up how the buildings went back into their right position. Of course they did... It was NEVER the impact that destroyed the buildings. What actually happened related more to the specific aspects of this impact. The tower's steel was protected by insulation that was capable of protecting it from heat. However, the crashing planes scrapped away the insulation. This left the tower's steel vulnerable. Another major issue was that the planes damaged the sprinkler system, preventing the building from putting out the fire (1).As my prior source also claims, the planes damaged much of the columns supporting the tower. This is made worse by the plane effectively shifting the building load onto the undamaged columns. Not long after the planes had hit, the building would collapse from over-exposure to heat, and the damaging of columns that could no long hold the weight of the towers.Without the insulation, the towers were vulnerable to a fireball fueled by 10's of thousands of gallons of pure jet fuel, possibly as much as 90,000 lbs of fuel (2). Some argue that this isn't enough to melt the steel. They are right. But they are also wrong. It didn't have to melt steel. The fire weakened the steel structure of the buildings. After enough weakening, the structures let out (3).What Pro and others Truthers fail to see is that one does not need to melt steel, to bend it.The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained. - Scientific American.[1] http://architecture.about.com...[2] http://www.tms.org...[3] http://www.scientificamerican.com...[]Rebuttal II: Put Options:Pro's argument is hugely hypothetical. He basically threw out a massive assumption, and asks the voters to just go with it. In reality, it's likely people had other reason's to buy Put Options in those companies. Remember that this was also around the time of the economy crashing, so it's almost a guarantee that Put Options were becoming insanely popular at the time, especially in companies who invest in travel (the first thing to go in a bad economy).Rebuttal III: The Pentagon:Pro claims that you can't learn how to fly an aircraft with the efficiency the terrorists did in "few lessons in a small 4 seater prop plane down in Florida." This is an assumption. Might Pro show what level of training the terrorist's took before making a vague assumption of what their training was like? They likely had far greater training than Pro acknowledges here.In reality, they don't have to learn the ins and outs of operating a plane. They only have to know how to make the plane turn and hit things. Pro assumes the terrorists would need extensive training for a one-shot, simplistic plan that involves no advanced understanding of planes. And the turning of the plane wasn't specifically impressive.Pro brings up how the Pentagon is so well defended, but fails to connect the dots here... The Pentagon wasn't going to shoot down a civilian aircraft based on an assumption... Even if it looked oddly positioned. Aircraft move unbelievable fast, so by the time they knew 100% that it was actually coming for them, it was too late to respond. The Pentagon would have never shot down the plane without knowing if it was justified, and by the time they knew, it would be too late. Pro makes a largely unrealistic assumption here... That the Pentagon would actually hurt itself for a war. Such a move is counter productive in every way. As for the video of the plane, I'm not sure what Pro is aiming at here? The Pentagon is by a major highway... The sheer number of people watching from there makes claiming that it wasn't a plane completely ridiculous. Pro must rely on the idea that thousands of drivers never saw the plane, and not one mentioned that there was no plane. Another hole in Pro's claim the sheer evidence of a plane being there, take the images below: What we see is empirical evidence that there was a plane there (6). There are too many witnesses and too much evidence to deny this.[5] http://www.therichest.com...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[]Rebuttal IV: Building 7:Building 7 is so often brought up because it wasn't struck by a plane. The issue is that doesn't have to be. When the towers collapsed, they left debris and damage around the immediate area. Pictures of the building might not show damage, but they don't cover all angles. A picture of the side of the building facing the towers shows us a massive fire inside and damage to the building. The building was badly damaged by the collapse of the towers, and after sometime, collapsed in on itself for all the same reasons (7). What ultimately happened was that debris from the towers caused fires in at least 10 floors on Building 7. The sprinkler system failed because of damage to the water supply (also caused by the collapsing of the two towers) and so the fire kept burning. After 7 hours, the thermal expansion had caused the floors to give out and collapse (8).Had the water supply not been damaged, the fire would have been controlled. Pro's assumption is fairly far fetched, as he doesn't attempt to explain why the Government might have bombed such a random building. The Twin Towers made sense, Building 7 doesn't... [7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[8] http://www.popularmechanics.com...[]Conclusion: There is no evidence for any of Pro's claims. A decade of constant research and studying as proven a perfect idea of why and how the buildings collapsed. Pro's assumption is far beyond hypothetical, and doesn't correlate with facts. Countless studies have been done to appease Truthers, and each one comes back only ever reinforcing the original narrative. Pro's case does not meet the evidence.