9/11 was an Inside Job

You're welcome Envisage. In this round I will summarize my own case and briefly expound on important points made.Additionally, I'll highlight again what Con needs to prove as is specified in round one. All four points that have been made by Con in his opening round should be supported with evidence and validated. So far, I've shown that the 19 Arab men that were accused by the U.S government of hijacking planes in fact could not have been responsible, simply for the basic fact that the majority of them are still alive and living in the Middle East. To reiterate these include primary suspects such as Abdul Aziz Al-Omari, Saeed Al-Ghamdi, Waleed Al-Shehri, Adnan Bukhari and Mohammad Atta. [1.] Obviously, if these men really did fly the two planes into the World Tower Complex they would not be still alive. It's also unlikely that the U.S government would immediately be able to conclude the identities of these men in the event of the attacks being genuine and these men actually being responsible. Cons fourth point in the summary of his case is that the North, South, and WTC7 collapsed as a result of the damage of the 9/11 attacks, however, I've clearly explained in round two that such towers were specifically built to withstand such attacks [given their immense height] and that the infrastructure would've been resilient to them. There's also the very important fact that the towers showed absolutely no signs of collapsing until the 60 minute mark. If it was a genuine collapse brought on by the damage and fire, they would not have came down at such a high speed and within 10 seconds. On a scientific basis, this is again implausible and not supported with any real evidence by the U.S government. It took the U.S over three years to release the 9/11 Commission Report to the general public and even now there's still a full 28 pages missing, which once more confirms the lack of transparency shown by the U.S government and the very probable fact that they have something hide. [2.] and [3.] Con claims in his opening argument that the attacks were indeed co-ordinated by Al-Qaeda, however, there is very little credible evidence to support this assertion and [as clarified in round one] it's on Con to convincingly prove that this is the case. Regarding the means, motives and opportunity for committing a crime--in this example it being the 9/11 terror attacks--the U.S had considerably more of all three than Al-Qaeda and the 19 men that were allegedly involved. Firstly, the U.S absolutely has the "means" in that it can easily orchestrate such an attack, and significantly more so than than those accused, who by all accounts, are not even adequately equipped at flying passenger airliners. This is where we once again come to exactly how the World Trade Center Complex was brought down, something that the U.S [and its Zionist owners] absolutely had the means to do in the form of a controlled demolition. The only requirement for this would be placing explosives in the building a few days prior to the attack; which also explains why Nano-thermite was found in dust samples taken from the three buildings. Other indications can be found in the fact[s] that bomb sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the WTC Complex a total of five days before the attacks, as well as the mysterious evacuations had also been taking place in a the few weeks leading up to 9/11 [4.] and [5.] Now alluding to motive, again this was something else highlighted in my opening case. Motive was in fact the strongest component in as to why 9/11 was an inside job--and once more, the U.S had considerably more to benefit from than 19 Arab "terrorists", who do not even fit the stereotype of Islamic religious fanatics; given that Mohammad Atta spent the days prior to 9/11 partying around the states drinking alcohol and snorting cocaine. This was a man that not even a practicing Muslim. [6.] What possible motive could these men have had exactly? If they were not Islamic fundamentalists [which they weren't] there is no motive. Whereas the U.S had the very large motive of invading Iraq and Afghanistan and proceeding with its "War on Terror". As also touched upon on in my initial case, something as alarming and unprecedented as the 9/11 attacks naturally gives the U.S the perfect excuse to go ahead with its and Israel's aim of a Middle East invasion--which would entail the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein, general killing of civilians and gradual development of even more terrorist groups. The most significant motivation was of course oil, however. Before the invasion Iraqi oil was nationalized and closed to Western oil companies, but after the U.S invasion it became privatized and exclusive only to foreign firms [7.] Now onto opportunity, the third thing that the U.S still had more than these 19 accused "terrorists" and Al-Qaeda itself. Con cannot simply base his argument on there being other *alleged* Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S as his burden comes in finding the evidence that they did this one. One reason why Al-Qaeda had such limited opportunity [applying the term in the literal sense] is because the U.S happens to be the most protected country in the world in which if they were planning to fly two planes into the WTC Complex and the Pentagon, they would have very obviously been thwarted. There is no conceivable way that the U.S could not simply notice or have knowledge an attack as large as 9/11; one that once again not only included two passenger planes flying into the WTC Complex, but also two other passenger planes that were aimed for the Pentagon--one of which that successfully made it despite the enormously high surveillance and the fact that any unidentified planes, especially passenger, would be seen and immediately dealt with. I'll also highlight again the basic impossibility of a passenger airliner [a Boeing 757] not only somehow making it into Pentagon airspace but actually entering the building itself and only leaving a 5 meter hole when the wings of the plane are in fact thirty-eight meteres wide. Why exactly were no outside windows smashed? And why exactly was footage from only one camera shown when there's a total of eighty-six cameras? Majority of which would've been facing the plane directly. The lack of wreckage and actaul evidence of the plane also presents some very curious questions. Sources: [1.] http://www.theguardian.com... [2.] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [3.] https://www.bostonglobe.com... [4.] http://www.washingtonsblog.com...[5.] http://www.globalresearch.ca... [6.] http://www.veteranstoday.com... [7.] http://edition.cnn.com...