Resolved: The Government Was behind the 9/11 attacks

I would like to remind to my opponent that we cannot have a debate by just making an assumption on the structural capabilities of the world trade center, or making ridiculous claims regarding people being arrested for taking pictures at ground zero or of some apparently supernatural characteristic of steel that softens but fore some miraculous reason becomes stronger and should have therefore been able to keep the towers up, without providing credible sources.This debate is turning into a "yes it is, no it's not" conversation because my opponent does not provide anything to back up his ridiculous assumptions.All my opponent has done so far is regurgitating bad arguments that have been disproved thousands of times and for which I have provided a source that goes through all of them.Furthermore, my opponent's inability to provide sources correctly and instead pasting them in the comments is making it time consuming for me to analyze the "evidence" that he brings forward. Learning to quote your opponent correctly is also important when having a debate.If you make a claim such as "But he is not responsible for this particular attack. He claimed responsibility because no matter what he did, he would not be able to take blame off of him, and he was already being targetted as the orchestrator. He did it simply for the pr, though there are some who say that he never actually did it, that the confession was faked by the US government." you need to be able to back it up, because otherwise it is not an argument it's just you making stupid stuff up.You have not provided any peer-reviewed evidence for the structural ability that you say the WTC had.You have not provided proof of people being arrested for taking pictures at Ground Zero.You have not provided any kind of evidence whatsoever for the use of dynamite or any other explosive in the WTC.You have not provided any proof that the WTC had been built to resist the damage caused by the two planes. My opponent wrote "My opponent fails to note that just because I am not an engineer does not entitle me to an opinion, an opinion that I also share with thousands of experts." While you are certainly entitled to your personal opinion, because you are not an engineer and not an expert but somebody who gets his information from very dubious websites, your personal opinion on the structural capability of a building is irrelevant. I have no idea to what happened to the metal of the WTC and how it got recycled. How does this have anything to do with the government of the United States being behind 9/11?This is the official 911 commission report: http://www.9-11commission.gov...Every issue that you have brought up is clearly indicated in the report, and since you are doubting the official story, I recommend you read the official story first.Just because there are thousands of people doubting the official story it does not mean it is not true. Before we go forward with anything else, I ask my opponent to explain why, since he has expressed the view that the towers fell as a result of a controlled demolition, there is no hearable sound to be heard and no visible explosions to be seen on the WTC site as compared to the controlled demolition videos that I have provided him with in the previous rounds.Debates are argued with Facts and Arguments, not with speculative pseudo-evidence.