9/11 was an inside job.

I understand that you meant which location we should focus on within the subject of 9/11. I agree with you that we should narrow down the subject, However, you say: < > First, you recommend I clarify the debate as much as possible, yet now you would like me to respond to all of your arguments. I wanted to stick to three topics to clarify the debate. If you just rattled off 20 claims, 1 sentence each, how would I respond to them in the given character limit? Believe me, I can respond to all of your arguments, just not in one debate. If you would like to have another debate about WTC7, or any other single claim about 9/11, I welcome it. 1. < > Yeah, I have heard of it, the Barnes & Noble hardcover edition is sitting in front of me as we debate. Simply because it was commissioned by the president does not make it the "official story". The commission's goal was to provide a full accounting of the events surrounding the attacks on 9/11, and to recommend enhancements for national security and other public safety departments. The commission's investigation involved tens of thousands of investigators and staffers: FBI, CIA, NSA, ATF, FEMA, FAA, NTSB, TSA, INS, DIA, NRO, SEC, NIST, ASCE, DOD, State Department, Congress, and many more. By the way, that's just U.S. organizations. If the report is a lie than some of the people involved in those organizations are complicit in that lie. Please point out what information is false so we can really debate, because you cannot just say, that since it originated from the government than it is false. < > Who needs to do research? I have read the commission report, have you? It does not seem like it. You think the Commission Report is the "official story," and you say this: < > One problem however, is that the Commission Report does not address the question of how the towers collapsed. That job belonged to NIST, for the sole purpose of researching building code and safety improvements for future structures. I predict that you will retort saying, "Why did the commission not cover the collapse, is that not suspicious?" If so, simply read above about the mission of the Commission Report. You will see that they were concerned about national security and rescue operations, not with the intricacies of how the building collapsed. 2. < > No, do you know the difference between melt and weakening? No one except for Conspiracy Theorists argue that the fires got hot enough to MELT steel. Also your link to physics911.net makes the same claim, and just reading the first paragraph on that page I can tell they are a very unreliable source (if you would like further detail let me know and I will include it in the comments). 3. Well I see you did not bother to reply to my third item. Why is that? Instead you try to push this appeal to popularity fallacy. I'll post the entire poll question so as not to mislead the audience. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? 16% Telling the truth 53% Hiding something 28% Mostly lying 3% Not sure I would like the audience to ask themselves why my opponent would exclude the first part of this poll question. Hell, even I might be inclined to think that they are "mostly telling the truth but hiding something. Show me a poll that asks "Do you think the U.S. Government is directly responsible for the attacks on 9/11," and then let us see what the results are. < > Quit distorting what is actually contained in the Commission Report and what NIST's conclusions were. NIST did not say it collapsed due to fire, the impact of the airliner and the structural damage it caused is very significant. < > No, there wasn't. Maybe if you provided a source I could at least see where you found this. If you are talking about Steven Jones' research, please read this - http://www.911myths.com... Otherwise how should I rebut if you don't actually provide a source for this claim. If your source is "whatreallyhappened.com" that will be easy to rebut, but this was not included in the original 3 topics. I will accept a debate in the future on this subject if you wish; it will be a complex one. < > You are trying to tell me that the National Institute of Standards and Technology's report for the World Trade Center disaster that involved: "Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia" is less credible than "www.whatreallyhappened.com"? That is absurd, anyone can submit for peer review a challenge of the NIST report, yet they have not. And you have not properly scrutinized it, if you would like to I am all ears. I should not respond to any of my opponent's further claims but given the space I will. < > Read up a little on the construction of the Towers and it will help you understand that it is a unique design and why it didn't tip over like an end-zone pylon. http://www.debunk911myths.org... They collapsed from the top down, which has nothing to do with the base of the building. < > This shows your ignorance of the construction of the towers. < > A better explanation would be that due to jet fuel that traveled down the north tower's elevator shaft, the lobby and basement levels were vulnerable( http://www.debunk911myths.org... ). Do any of those eyewitnesses that heard explosions think that those were demolition charges? Also the falling debris and bodies could be mistaken for explosions, just watch the Naudet brothers documentary. But again, this was a top down collapse so bombs at the base would not be necessary. I believe that I have shown my opponent has not done extensive research past conspiracy theory websites. I stand by the fact that he cannot provide one shred of evidence to prove that 9/11 was an inside job. If my opponent is so keen to defraud the audience by editing the poll question to fit his agenda, can you really trust his careless arguments?