9/11 was an inside job and the official 9/11 Commission Report does not explain what really happened

A. Warnings The quote by my opponent also solidifies my contention that the claim in the 9/11 Report of "no warnings" is not accurate. "It became such a rich threat environment that it was almost too much for Congress and the administration to absorb," There are only 2 scenarios possible: They were warned or they were not warned. The official report takes the view that they were not warned. I have shown this to be false and therefore the official report does not explain what really happened. Therefore my contention stands. Furthermore, using his quote again: "They couldn't prioritize what was the most significant threat. " So does that justify them for taking NO actions? Something should have been done! (unless it was the PLAN that nothing be done = inside job, Which proves the 2nd part of my contention, that 9/11 was an inside job) B. Hijackers Just because someone writes down a name doesn't prove to anyone that they were on a particular flight. As I stated last round in my source, the FBI couldn't make any connections between the aforementioned names and anything to do with 9/11 (even with examining a treasure trove of information in Afghanistan), which my opponent did not disprove. Therefore my point still stands. My opponent claims there are multiple pictures of the hijackers getting on the planes, but provides no source for that. He does however give a source of a charred looking passport (first link) the passport is not very good evidence though, since the name cannot even be read and even if it could be read it could have been 'planted' evidence. Even if there was a source showing someone getting on a plane, there also needs to be a connection with a name to the person. That is a lot to prove, and my opponent has not done that. I will also add in some findings from my "elementary research" for my opponent here. Passenger lists for all the flights [1]. There are NO Arab names on any of the passenger lists. C. Bin Laden My opponent has not challenged my claim that the Bin Laden confession tape is a fake, and unless he challenges that point I will assume he agrees. Therefore, the fact that a faked confession tape exists, and was used as justification for the responses of the government, clearly shows that this was an inside job. D. Pentagon I am not saying that "A" plane didn't hit the Pentagon. I am saying that it wasn't a "757" that hit the Pentagon. Perhaps it was a commuter plane or a military plane or a missile, but the official story is "757" and here is why the official story doesn't make sense: I have included a link to some images from right after the crash[2]. In the first (and third) images the second ring of the building is visible so it is clear that the aircraft only hit the first ring. The four interior rings remain intact. They were only fire-damaged after the initial explosion. How can a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damage the outside of the Pentagon? (*250 mph when landing, 600 mph in flight) In image 2 we can observe that the aircraft only hit the ground floor. The building is 26 yards high. Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building? Next, in the image showing the lawn in front of the damaged building, Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph? remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. In the next image it shows a truck pouring sand over the lawn of the Pentagon. Behind it a bulldozer is seen spreading gravel over the turf. Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack? [2] Also as a side note (from your source), why did Jamie Mcintyre find silver, green, and red paint when American Airlines colors are red and blue? E. Shanksville I want to point again that there is a clear difference in the pictures of what plane crash sites are supposed to look like, that I pointed out last round, and that the Shanksville 'crash' is not consistent with that at all. My point here still stands. F. WTC I appreciate my opponent withdrawing his collapse time of 17 sec. that he used in round 1 and acknowledging that the collapses were much faster than that. With that, I feel my case is still very strong on this point from last round and I will use my words for other points, even though I do want to make comments. I will say however that calling people "conspiracy nuts" who do not agree with the official report is not reasonable, because even though I have only listed 9 points that don't add up, there are many, many more things I didn't list that don't make sense either. Why refer to someone as a nut, who is trying to understand a very complex event? G. Norad timeline I did look at the timeline, just out of words (like this time). It supports my case in both that there were critical delays in scrambling as well as the destinations they scrambled to. But I rather wanted to firmly establish that there were live hijack drills going on at the same time (codenamed: Crown Vigilance, Apollo Guardian, Vigilant Guardian, Amalgam Warrior, and Global Guardian). Also, I felt the need to comment on your link that round (it worked this round). I have shown that there were live hijack drills going on, which has not been disputed, which confused the real threats with the fake. This is further evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Someone with inside information planned the date for these 5+ hijack drills to coincide with the actual hijackings. H. 9/11 Commission 15 seconds? I again dispute the time. Get out your stopwatches, go to this link and time it yourself! [3] I got about 6 sec. and it fell uniformly on all sides. Does my opponent believe that Building 7 was so shoddily constructed that it was the only steel building in the history of the world to fall from fire? Also there were 400 questions put forth from the families of 9/11 to the Commission [4]. The results of the investigation in answering their questions were (from my count): 1. Adequately answered = 28/400 2. Discussed but not adequately answered = 178/400 3. Not even addressed = 194/400 Because the 9/11 commission did not answer the questions of the victim's families any better than that (7% is clearly an "F") this is evidence that the 9/11 commission report doesn't explain what really happened on 9/11. I want to also add in a link of respected and credible professionals who do not agree with the official 9/11 commission report, in addition to the families of the victims. This list includes engineers, architects, pilots, senior military and intelligence and govt. officials, professors, law enforcement etc. [5] I. Terrorism In the second round my point was not a 'red herring'. I was simply answering your question from rd. 1. My point in bringing up this topic is simply to show that there could be ulterior motivations, by those in power. I would cite history itself, and point out that in the past there have been 'false flag' operations which have been used to shape public opinion by staging events. By these events the majority of the people can be talked into following the goals and agenda of the people in power. I think my opponent will agree that 'false flag' attacks are real. [6] 1. . http://911research.wtc7.net... 2. . http://www.asile.org... 3. . http://911research.wtc7.net... 4. . http://www.911truth.org... (click on victim's families review of report) 5. . http://patriotsquestion911.com... 6. . http://en.wikipedia.org...