9/11 was an inside job

My opponent seems to just be listing "facts" instead of actually trying to tie together all these pieces of information into a valid argument for 911 being an inside job. In this round, I'm going to rebut all of my opponent final objections and hopefully put this nail in this coffin regarding this issue. NORAD"Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. "This doesn't mean any planes were actually intercepted. "Routine interception procedures were not followed on 911. "Yes they were, and they were extremely fast considering the confusion that day. Either my opponent hasn't done the proper research on this subject or is simply intellectually dishonest. Regardless, I already presented the facts that should have put this issue to rest a few rounds ago but if it must be done, I will repeat myself. In the entire decade prior to 911, NORAD intercepted only one plane inside the United States. It took a whole 76 minutes. On 911, the longest that any of the hijacked planes was in the air was 43 minutes. One hit it's target just 16 minutes after being hijacked. [1] If you also review the timeline I provided in round one, you will see that there was absolutely nothing suspicious about NORAD's response to 911 and it should have been expected. Osama Bin LadenMy opponent simply quoted Bin Laden saying he didn't do it, that doesn't mean he didn't do it. If that logic is valid, then I can say Bin Laden did do it because he also said this:"We decided to destroy towers in America. .. God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind. " - Osama Bin LadenMy opponent is basically saying that it's suspicious for a criminal to deny he did a crime, therefore, the victim actually committed the crime on themselves. This of course, is absurd. "The reason that this is so important is that lying is an unforgivable sin in Islam that it is greatly punishable. "So the logic here, is that it's more likely that 911 was an inside job rather than Osama Bin Laden being a bad Mulsim? It's a shame you didn't have a chance to explain yourself further on this point. “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle” - Osama Bin LadenMy opponent quotes a criminal denying he did a crime like it's somehow out of the norm. He says he doesn't kill women or children in the quote above, but here he says this:"We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets" - Osama Bin Laden [2]It's clear Osama was a liar. The only thing I found suspicious about 911 was the fact that the government kept saying the US was attacked because of their "freedom" but in reality, Osama made clear it was because of US's ties with the Jews (Israel) and all the the people they have killed in the Middle East prior. If there was a cover up, it was probably to cover up the reason for 911 (it makes the US and Israel look bad), however that doesn't mean it was an inside job by any stretch of the imagination, and there has been no argument in this debate which could be interpreted as a valid implication of such and it's clear Osama had motive. "It is clear Bin Laden was not behind 911. "This should have been demonstrated during one of your rounds I'm afraid. Quoting a murderer denying he committed murders, isn't evidence that the murderer didn't commit murders. Think about how empty prisons would be if that logic was valid. .. Facts:(1) My opponent claims that the WTC's were designed to handle the impact of a 707 hitting it, and the 707 has almost the same fuel capacity. The problem is that the buildings were designed to handle the impact of a 707 low on fuel, coming back and travelling slow in the fog. When it's foggy planes have been known to crash into sky scrapers so this is what the towers were designed to take. They were not designed to take a fully loaded 767 slamming into it at 500mph. Therefore, my opponent's argument fails. (2) . The steal didn't have to melt, just weaken (which is what happened). The towers were not like most other steel framed structures. They were based upon a solid grid of girders, the result was structures of immense strength, but they all had the same drawback. There were too many columns in those types of buildings and it was better for business to have less columns for support to gain more available rent space. Inner columns would be moved to the outside in WTC's structure, with only a core in the middle. Most of the buildings load would be transferred to outer walls, this was never done. Tube in Tube designs are are money saver, but a life risker. The wind resistance was good though, the perimeter columns would actually bend in the wind. . I already provided a video in Round 2 showing how a collapse of a steel framed structure can occur just from fire. My opponent's claims simply just don't stand up to the facts about reality. (3) The video I provided in Round 2 conclusively proves that a building can come down almost symmetrical from office fires alone. Nothing on 911 indicated a controlled demolition took place, there is a paper written by some controlled demolition experts who explain why there was no controlled demolition of the Twin Towers on 911 that I will include in the sources section of my argument [3]. Implications of Controlled Demolition paperThe towers did not look like a controlled demolition to a demolition expert who knows what he's talking about. Controlled demolition of buildings knock them out at the base then the tower comes down, yet videos of the collapses clearly show each building beginning to fail at precisely the point where the respective planes struck. There was no evidence of explosions going off at the times they should have if a controlled demolition takes place. Basically, the theories about controlled demolitions are only pushed by people who don't know what they are talking about and have no expertise on explosives. All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-upI question the validity of these claims, regardless I already conceded that it could be likely they covered up the real reason 911 happened (US ties with Israel, death of Middle Eastern people at the hands of the US and Israel) and lied about many things. However, to claim that the US government actually carried out the attacks themselves is a giant leap not supported by any evidence. Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission: The answer I gave to "All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up" applies to this as well. The Stonewall (1) So because somebody didn't provide the expected White Paper, this is somehow supposed to be evidence of an inside job? (2) There are many reasons why they would want to delay the investigation, there is no reason why this indicates an actual inside job. (3) There are many details the government may have wanted to keep secret about, how does this indicate an inside job? ConclusionPro did not present a very convincing case for 911 being an inside job, and my arguments/ rebuttals were more convincing. Sources[1] . http://www.911myths.com...[2] . http://en.wikiquote.org...[3] . http://www.implosionworld.com... . http://www.youtube.com...