9/11 was an inside job

"I deny that i have gone off topic in the slightest. I was trying to explain to you how many of the arguments coming from the truth movement,"I'm not in the truth movement, I'm not arguing for the truth movement, and I am personally not the truth movement. OFF TOPIC.The rest of your argument is what I'll say. You want to know what I have to say?==conclusion==i. Steel and fireMany people do not know about the third building that fell during the 9/11 "attacks". Yes, there was a third building that fell. But fell...mysteriously. No plane hit it, and there wasn't an explanation on how it fell. Except for this...it was blown up from the inside. Read this"The total collapse of WTC 7 in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration (NIST admits 2.25 seconds). Larry Silverstein used the term “Pull it”. Steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER totally collapsed from fire or structural damage. Builidng 7 was not hit by a plane. ‘Building 7′, ‘WTC 7′." (1)That's right it wasn't hit by a plane. Then what else could it have been hit by?So what brought down the third building? Many people arguing against theorists say it was fire. However expert architects, engineers, and scientists say it would have been impossible."However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. " (2)"That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire."(2)Take this into account as well"tonnes of steel" (2)So we know two things here. One, it may have fallen due to fire, and two it was made of steel. Let's toss those two together. Steel has a melting point of 2500°F (3) and it supposedly fell due to fire. Fire can only get so hot in one room and to melt steel takes a lot of fire. To simply put it, it would be impossible.Another factor is how it fell. It went straight DOWN."Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves" (2)Building seven was destroyed from the inside, it's the only way it could have happened to fall straight down. Internal demolition is not natural, and internal demolition could cause it to go straight down.The 2 towers now were also made of steel and fire had also took a big, but not the biggest, role in taking them down. They were supposedly hit by planes and jet fuel burned the steel."Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F" (4)It would be IMPOSSIBLE for the fuel to melt the steel.There was no plane that hit the pentagon and a video further explaining how, why etc.http://www.youtube.com...Expert pilots even claim it would be impossible to hit the pentagon with an airliner. Why? You'd have to swerve through telephone poles, other buildings, and towers AND STILL hit the pentagon with a HUGE plane "How many controlled demolitions do you know that take out practically all the other buildings in the area"Wouldn't it be odd if only ONE building was destroyed? Well in this case 3. But regardless, let me try to explain this...A plane strikes the tower. It falls. ONLY ONE falls. It doesn't harm anything else. Wouldn't that be odd? It would seem...very strange. Multiple hijackers take a plane, smash it into the tower and it doesn't harm anything else? Ah...see they're not dumb. "Let's take a plane and smash it into the tower and take out multiple buildings and make it look like a massive terrorist attack!""How many controlled demolitions do you know that have parts of the building still standing after they have fallen?"Either two things.1. A failed demolition. Plan B is authorized.2. To make it seem "probable".They're not stupid. They have to make it seem probable...sadly they didn't completely succeed, as they didn't fool many people.THIS IS A SUMMARY OF MY MAIN ARGUMENTS AND CLAIMS==Sources==1 http://www.hangthebankers.com......2 http://news.bbc.co.uk......3 https://www.google.com......4 http://www.popularmechanics.com......