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

My opponent seems plagued by misinformation... A. Warnings Interestingly enough, if you actually take the time to read the news sources that reference these warnings, you will see that they say things like: "Former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, who was chairman of the National Intelligence Council for whom the report was written, said that in 1999, "It became such a rich threat environment that it was almost too much for Congress and the administration to absorb," he said. "They couldn't prioritize what was the most significant threat." Gannon said it is "egregiously unfair" to blame the president for failing to act to prevent Sept. 11 since there was no "actionable intelligence."" Little snippets of information that are determined after the fact to have been related to an event are NOT "actionable intelligence" concerning the event itself. The 9/11 commission did not state that domestic agencies *could not* have mobilized in response to the threat - there was no credible threat made. B. Living Hijackers. Come now. Really? Here's the PASSPORT of one of them, found burned in the wreckage of the tower (http://www.historycommons.org...). Take for example Abdulaziz Al Omari - there are many, many articles citing in great detail the case of mistaken identity with another Abdul Aziz Al Omari (http://www.911myths.com...). Furthermore, there are simply cases of misinformation - there are multiple pictures of the hijackers getting onto the planes in airport security. Wail Alshehri's baggage was even doublescreened at security. Please do some elementary research on these issues. C. Bin Laden. We're not talking about Bin Laden's tapes. We're talking about confessions from Khalid Sheik Mohammed that he (Mohammed) not only planned the attacks, but presented them to Bin Laden and Mohammed Atef. Bin Laden then both approved the plan, and supplied the financial means for it to take place. D. Jamie McIntyre This is truly laughable. Read the transcript. It CLEARLY states: JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy. A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane (http://transcripts.cnn.com...). PLEASE do elementary research. E. Flight 93. Actually, your notion doesn't refute any of my "ideas." It's fact - debris from the crash was found 2-3 miles from the crash site. What kind of debris? "Investigators later said the debris was all very light material, such as paper and thin nylon the wind would easily blow. The wind was blowing towards Indian Lake and New Baltimore at 9 knots" (http://archives.cnn.com...). What do paper and nylon do in the wind? They blow away. F. Speed of Tower Fall First of all, the towers fell MUCH slower than free fall. If you look at any set of photos, you can see the debris and such falling off the side of the building and falling away faster than the actual collapse. Using some simple physics, you can calculate the MINIMUM fall speed of the towers to be 9.1 secs (http://www.911myths.com...). The actual fall speeds were closer to between 11 and 13 seconds, estimated to be 11.6 and 12.5. Again - MUCH slower than free fall. The pancake theory clearly does not fully describe the collapse, as you can see the top of the towers begin to tilt off. However, the case is NOT that one floor just impacted into the next floor - the collapse started mid-building. So you have 30 floors falling on the next floor to start the collapse. WTC 7 on fire: http://www.debunking911.com... As you can see, the fire is MUCH worse than conspiracy nuts would have you believe. Furthermore, if you watch videos of the ENTIRE collapse, you will see the left penthouse suite collapse 3-4 seconds before the rest of the building, causing massive internal damage to a building burning out of control. The actual collapse took nearly 15 seconds. The 6.6 seconds you cite is just for the north wall. That's all well and good - I'm talking about the whole building. G. NORAD timeline. I'm not sure what my opponent is reading, but that text never appears here: (http://911research.wtc7.net...) - the page with the NORAD Timeline. It's possible DDO truncated the link... My opponent also says nothing about the response time of NORAD... perhaps he's read the timeline and knows their response time to be actually quite short. H. The 911 Commission My opponent asks if it is prudent to inquire why WTC7 fell... of course it is. It's completely answered by the raging fire and the 15 second fall time!!! The steel building collapsed because of a fire that weakened the internal structure of the building and falling debris that damaged a 47 story building held up by cantilever-style beams at the ground floor, the failure of any ONE of which, under the circumstances, would have brought down the entire structure. I. Money Where is your debate on this topic? You just state that people like getting money. Duh. This is a red herring. ************************************ My opponent has demonstrated significant lack of research and independent thought. I have completely rebutted his points on all issues. I await more.