9/11 was not a inside job

Let me start this round by reiterating just because my opponent makes a statement it does not make it true/fact and is not evidence that 9/11 was a inside job. It is nothing more than a theory. NYPD The FDNY Port Authority:Poorly looked into which is my opponent's statement does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. The Pentagon:For the sake of argument if ten trillion went missing it does not prove 9/11 was a inside job. The widowers:Once again not proof of anything foul. Structural engineers:Notice the link my opponent posted which is nothing more than a website to buy a DVD and capitalize on the tragedy that was 9/11 (sickening if you ask me)***EPIC FACEPALM***WW2 and Lincolns murder have nothing at all to do with 9/11 you are using a conspiracy to prove another conspiracy. Which is basically a circular argument if it is not the audience I am sure see my point. ******By definition a conspiracy is: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful****** Call it "the truth" if you want to but it is still a conspiracy. The Twin Towers:The complete collapse of the Twin Towers has more to do with the construction than anything else. There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires. I could go on with the "Firsts" but the audience gets the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account. Professor Steven Jones:I assume my opponent is commenting about Professor Steven Jones much has been made of Jones' new paper. Some have suggested that I correct the statement that not one paper has been published by conspiracy theorists to date proving the collapse was a controlled demolition. To be clear, let me restate the test which makes a real scientific paper. It has to be published in a respected scientific journal. As an example, The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is a well respected scientific journal. The peer review process is tough and precise. The reviewers are well respected in their fields of expertise. The Journal of the American Chemical Society is another which Jones can submit his papers. There are many well respected journals which have an impact in the scientific community. Bentham, where Jones has submitted his latest paper, is the Wiki of Journals. They have been criticized in the past for passing "gibberish". ***read site below***. http://www.debunking911.com... The only likely source of the heat great enough to actually "melt" significant quantities of iron in the piles (or even just raise so much of it to red-hot or to 2000F) would be chemical energy (i. e. , "combustion" of some sort). Professor Jones assumes that all the carbonaceous "combustible" matter in the "piles" would have burned away long before the time that the red-hot and molten iron was discovered (weeks after the collapse of the WTC towers). Perhaps it did, by weeks after the collapse. But Professor Jones obviously does not comprehend that the hot, red-hot and molten IRON IS COMBUSTIBLE matter. Here, Jones clearly missed it, when he wrote: "At these temperatures, steel will melt, and aluminum materials from the buildings should continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions with materials also entrained in the molten metal pools including metal oxides which will then keep the pools molten and even growing for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. . .. The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams then where did the molten metal pools come from? " . http://www.physics.byu.edu...Jones has no clue because he has conception of Steel Burning (iron oxidation) in air. The Truth is that: HOT STEEL WILL CONTINUE TO UNDERGO EXOTHERMIC OXIDATION REACTIONS WHILE EXPOSED TO AIR, CAUSING IRON TO INCREASE ITS TEMPERATURE UNTIL IT MELTS, FORMING POOLS OF MOLTEN IRON. Professor Jones' comments and conjectures about the origin of the alleged molten iron found within the three huge piles of combustible matter burning after the collapse of the WTC towers, distinctly prove that Professor Jones is oblivious of the fact that Iron Burns in air. I found this children's educational webpage that further illustrates that "Professor Jones" (among the "9-11 Scholars") is an incompetent person because he ignores the scientifically provable (or disprovable) fact that Iron metal itself burns, and that when amassed in large piles can ignite fires (and can even melt itself). The article discusses child-safe experiments observing a very slow oxidation of iron (rusting at room temperature), but also mentions:"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. Thats because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat. ". http://www.highlightskids.com...Building 7 and others:Conspiracy theorists say WTC7 is the best proof for because it wasn't hit by airliners and only had a few fires. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner, it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open, it easily tilted over to reach building 7. . http://www.popularmechanics.com...William Rodriguez:William Rodriguez now says he heard explosions in the basement but that's not what he said before he became a media star and sued the government. **See for yourself below**. http://archives.cnn.com...http://sites.google.com... Sounds of explosions:Could transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what people saw and heard? What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another? Would steel bolts snapping under tremendous tension make a pop or explosive sound? How about the fact that two of largest buildings in the world fell. Do you honestly think anyone with an untrained ear could distinguish between a bomb and a skyscraper as they are running for their life? My opponent has shown no proof that 9/11 was an inside because there is none. The problem with conspiracy theorists is they ask you to demolish your mental programming, but demand you replace it with their own. The result is to exchange one unproven worldview for another. And unfortunately, basing your decisions on the conviction of “knowing” is responsible for many of the world’s ills. The only real truth is that it’s impossible to “know” anything. And the only real method of making decisions is through probability. .. .