9/11 was an Inside Job

Thanks Pro. It seems Pro’s sources regarding the illuminati have been greatly exaggerated. Defence of Positive Case 1.Identities of the Hijackers I have demonstrated that at the very minimum, all hijackers were jihadi, Arabic, and suicide bombers. Pro has not contested this much (she has only asserted they were not Islamic Fundamentalists, with no evidence). It follows alone that these attacks were hence co-ordinated for religious purposes, which flat out refutes US involvement. These racial and religious demographics note are determinable from just the eyewitness testimony of those on the hijacked flights and from CCTV at the airports and analysis of left-behind luggage. Furthermore, Pro does not contest the physical evidence that we have the identity of the hijackers (visual recognition, credit card histories, flight seat numbers, phone numbers, recovered passports and DNA analysis) with well standardised & public access comparisons for such analysis. Pro’s dispute here are that the associated hijackers are not who the US claims them to be, but merely at best Pro has only demonstrated that there exist Arabic people with the same names as the named hijackers. That’s it. I just googled “Emily Rose” and found 120,000,000 hits – does that mean my opponent isn’t real?[https://goo.gl...] Moreover, attributing the hijackings to these people would make no sense even if it was a conspiracy because none of the “alive hijackers” have any Al Qaeda connections whatsoever. BBC itself as the perpetuator of the initial confusion has stated: “The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.” Onto Pro’s individual examples, Wail al-Shehri, Abdulaziz al-Omari and Saeed al-Ghamdi all originated as listed with no photos, and only limited biographical details on Sept 14th, in which period said people came forward. The photo list was only released Sept 27th. Waleed Ahmed al-Shehri for example actually had a different name to the hijacker – “Waleed Mohammad al-Shehri”, from which confusion occurred due to name shortening. The rest of Pro’s alleged alive terrorists are more of the same, with dubious sources to back them up (e.g. Pro’s evidence for Mohammad Atta’s alive status was an article.. discussing a book... written by a known conspiracy theorist, with consequently no data integrity controls in place.[http://goo.gl...] 2.Connection to Al Qaeda Pro never contests the connection of the hijackers I have established with Al Qaeda, which I have done via. a plethora of evidential means, including positively linking two of the hijacker’s Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar involvement at the Kuala Lumpur al-Qaeda Summit and other Al Qaeda activities. Note that the identities of these two was never disputed by Pro – thus their connection to Al Qaeda and involvement with the hijackings was dropped by Pro. Pro has only contested that the videos of Osama’s confession are falsified. The top left is a photo of Bin Laden from that clip, and the other three are well-accepted photos of Bin Laden, voters for themselves can decide if these photos are falsified. Note that the video was of poor quality and shot in only four frames per second, thus several of the moving images were blurry, leading to a misleading appearance in stills.[http://goo.gl...] 3. Means, motive & opportunity Pro drops my whistleblower arguments, and Pro doesn’t contest my assessment of the MMO for Al Qaeda directed attack, Pro also conflates the “United States Government” with the people running it. It is the people running it that require the motive to co-ordinate such an act – and obviously committing the equivalent of near-genocide on your own people, at enormous obvious risk of self-exposure, for ends that do not directly benefit them (they may well benefit the US Government, but not necessarily the people who are making the decisions) that renders the motive for US Conspiracy virtually untenable. “There is no conceivable way that the U.S could not simply notice or have knowledge an attack as large as 9/11” The US did notice, although the attack involved as already argued just 19 people and four aircraft out of thousands, the attacks from the time of first hijacking (8.19am) to impact with the Pentagon (9.37am) was just 78 minutes total maximum action time, with realistic action time much shorter – for flight 77 was hijacked no earlier than 8.50am, leaving a maximum of 47 minutes to react, and this is not even accounting for the time it took for ground control to realise that the flight had been hijacked, to reported to the air force, and then the air force scramble a jet to their location. The fighters scrambled to intercept flight 11 for example would have been forced to kamikaze, since no armed aircraft were immediately ready in the area, and flight 77 was only tracked less than three minutes before it impacted the pentagon.[https://goo.gl...] Regardless of who co-ordinated 9/11, each of the aircraft was hijacked by suicide pilots. The notion of a purely nationalistic motive for these pilots is patently absurd (no matter how much oil it would win the US), thus Pro’s case suffers serious problems of motive. Given the evidence these were clearly Islamic Jihadists, and then followed by the evidence of identification of these hijackers and their backgrounds – it follows that the conclusion of Al Qaeda involvement is infinitely more sound than a US Conspiracy. Pro has not contested this side of motives of the hijackers – which is a glaring hole in her arguments. Just what were the pilot’s motives IF it really was a US Conspiracy? Counter Rebuttals Building Collapse “Once again, two planes entering two buildings does not answer how the structure failed as specaularly as it did.” Of course it doesn’t. The fires, loss of structural integrity, loss of fireproofing, and the specific design of the buildings do. “Moreover, it certainly doesn't explain how the Twin Towers began to collapse at the bottom instead of the top” They didn’t (Pro provides no citation for this assertion either), the collapse initiated at the point of impact/fire floors as already evidenced and confirmed by technical experts. In fact readers can easily see this for themselves by watching the collapse of WTC 1. Watching the following linked video between 0.07-0.11 you can clearly see that at ~0.09 the collapse initiates at the impact floors, but even more dramatically, the collapse begins by the walls of the tower being pulled inwards, not blown outwards, which is a result of the trusses pulling the weakened support columns in as it collapsed.[] Note that it isn’t my burden to show step-by-step how these towers collapsed, since it isn’t my contention that anything happened to the towers outside of the aircraft impacts. I don’t need to invoke additional explanations on top of the plane impacts. Pro does not attempt to refute or dispute my arguments as to why WTC 7 collapsed, which by itself refutes Pro’s assertions that it mandates a demolition – and actually renders such an explanation absurd (demolition explosives in a place on fire – hello?!). “For example, if Tower 7 was supposed to have been brought down due to fire/heat, why were not other towers within the exat [sic] same area?” Other 50 story towers were on fire on multiple floors for 7 hour straight and were hit with a 20 story gash? Pro needs to demonstrate like-for-like here to make a case. “why would it come down literally hours later?” Why not? This isn’t an argument. “The only viable answer for this is a controlled demolition.” This is called an argument from ignorance.[ https://goo.gl...] Pro ignores my argument that the very design of the twin towers made them uniquely vulnerable to such attacks (being a tube in a tube design), whereas an interlocking grid design almost certainly would not have collapsed, since loads are easily redistributed in such a design – the tube in a tube design was far less versatile. Made worse by its safeguards being overcome (such as the loss of fireproofing). Pentagon Crash Pro provides no sources to back up her statements, I had already provided photos and a plethora of eyewitness testimony of both the crash itself, as well as the recovery process. The wreckage (and bodies) was largely disintegrated and intermixed with the wreckage of the pentagon itself. That being said there are plenty of photographs during the recovery process (over the following three days) which affirm the official story.[ http://rense.com...] Pro would need to find similar crashes and compare like-for-like on what happens to a plane. Please note that the plane slammed into a reinforced concrete building (it was a military building after all), the results are completely different to the relatively soft and weak aluminium of WTC 1 and 2. Pro also ignores my “big plane small hole” rebuttals, planes aren’t solid tubes of metal which punch holes, they are hollow aluminium cylinders – they tend to disintegrate when they are slammed into concrete at hundreds of miles an hour (unlike anything her sources compare with). The idea of a cartoon like impression on the building is flat out delusional. Furthermore, Pro has provided no evidence of the state of pentagon air security pre-9/11. Given this, she cannot draw the conclusion that the pentagon could never have been hit by a hijacked plane since she cannot analyse the response capability of such an attack on it was. Even her claim that “the Pentagon airspace being the most protrected in the world” cannot be assumed because she doesn’t have the facts to present on this. Intuition is not a substitute for evidence. Zionist Link Pro drops my refutation that tonnes of Jews died in 9/11. Therefore she is left with pure speculation that there was a Jewish motive. I think her case here has been sufficiently weakened that the rest can be dismissed here.