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

A. Despite this Administration's rhetoric that they had "no warnings". .. it has become abundantly clear, that key Administration officials were made aware of the vast array of Al Qaeda threats and warnings that existed in years prior, and more importantly, in the weeks leading up to 9/11. Those other warnings include, but are not limited to: Warnings from leaders of other nations and foreign intelligence apparatus' of terrorist threats June 30, 2001 Senior Executive Intelligence Briefing (SEIB) entitled "bin Laden Threats Are Real" 52 FAA warnings – five of which mentioned al Qaeda's training for hijacking August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)entitled "Islamist Extremists Learn to Fly" and many more. .. The abundance of post 9/11 reports and commissions found no evidence of any action taken by appropriate officials. The 9/11 Commission itself concluded that in spite of an unprecedented attack threat in the months before 9/11, US "domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. [1] B. There is no credible evidence that any of the alleged hijackers were on any of the jetliners, and considerable evidence to the contrary. None of the passenger lists published by the airlines contained any of the alleged hijackers' names. No airport video shows any of the alleged hijackers boarding the flights. Several of the alleged hijackers turned up alive after the attack. Not a "Single Piece of Paper" Links Alleged Hijackers to Plot FBI director Robert Mueller admitted that his agency failed to find "a single piece of paper" linking the alleged hijackers to the 9/11 plot. "The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U. S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. " With such a lack of evidence it is no wonder that there has not been a single prosecution leading to conviction anywhere in the world of the alleged perps, with the single exception of Zaccarias Moussaoui, who was only convicted because he admitted to involvement in the alleged plot. [2] Also several of the alleged hijackers turned up alive after the attack. From your list of supposed hijackers over half of the men are still alive. How can the 9/11 Commission be taken seriously when they refer to 9/11 'hijackers' who are still alive? [3] C. A leading expert on Osama Bin Laden has officially gone on the record saying that he believes the so called 9/11 Confession tape, released shortly after the attacks, is an outright fake. The "Osama" in this video uses the wrong hand to write with and wears gold rings, a practice totally in opposition to the Muslim faith. [4] D. Just minutes after the attack, standing in front of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Jamie McIntyre, CNN's senior Pentagon correspondent since November 1992, reported: "From my close up inspection there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. . . . . The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage - nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon. "[5] There are also pictures of light poles standing in the path of the "supposed" plane. There are pictures of the lawn not torn up. There is a picture of a small hole in building. And, oops did someone accidentally say "missile hit"? [5] E. In some rare video footage of Flt. 93 from NBC and Fox news television from September 11, 2001 we hear: NBC Reporter: "The debris here is spread over a 3 to 4 mile radius. .. ". That refutes my opponent's idea. Also, the Flight 93 crash site looks remarkably different from other plane crash sites, eg that of Pan Am Flight 103 - a Boeing 747-100, or the Dash 8 Q400 Bombardier that crashed in Buffalo. See video of Flt. 93 footage (Top video) and comparison of pictures (middle of page). The pictures do not look the same at all. [6] F. No scenario enables the near free fall speed that the towers came down at. According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either. [Trumpman][Hoffman] But, for the sake of evaluating the "collapse" time, we'll assume there was. After all, millions of people believe they saw the buildings "collapse. " I will dispute your time of 17 seconds for the towers to fall. "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. "[7] Also how fast did WTC7 fall? 6.6 seconds. Complete free fall would be 7 sec. [8] G. Oops. Not sure if my opponent wants use that as a source. From the page of his link: "Is this story true? Its central assumptions have never been tested by an official government body whose members lack obvious conflicts of interest. There are numerous red flags in the official story, which requires a long series of highly improbable coincidences. "[his source] Here is a timeline of the events to consider: (Under 6:30 AM) NORAD is currently running a real-world operation named Operation Northern Vigilance. "Deskins and other NORAD officials later are initially confused about whether the 9/11 attacks are real or part of the exercise" [9] 8:43 a. m. September 11, 2001: NORAD Reportedly Notified that Flight 175 Has Been Hijacked[9] H. As my opponent has just clearly stated "The 9/11 commission report is only about 1 and 2 WTC" Wouldn't you think it would be prudent for the report to have investigated the causes of why WTC 7 fell? This statement certainly proves my contention that the official report doesn't explain what really happened, just as I have argued. The official explanation was fire. But NEVER before or after 911, has any steel building collapsed from fire. My opponent has failed to rebut that point. I. Allow me to explain: Money does not disappear into thin air, it is getting paid to certain companies or individuals. Those receiving this money may not really care that much about the economy of the USA. I thank my opponent for his response and I also thank those who have read this, and I look forward to the next round. 1. . http://www.rawstory.com... 2. . http://911review.com... 3. . http://whatreallyhappened.com... 4. . http://infowars.net... 5. . http://www.twf.org... 6. . http://www.twf.org... 7. . http://drjudywood.com... 8. . http://www.physics911.net... 9. . http://www.historycommons.org...