9/11 was an inside job

Building 7 wasn't struck by any planes, however it was struck by significant amounts of falling debris which resulted in key structural failures. That factor along with the co-factor of the fire damage that Building 7 sustained ultimately materialized as a global structural collapse [ you can review that scientific/engineering report here: . http://www.structuremag.org... ]. Fire doesn't melt steel and nobody claims that it does. But fire does WEAKEN steel. The Twin Towers fell as rapidly as they did because they were simple steel frame structures and the majority of inner spaces within such structures are composed of air. Argument against your list of points: 1. What insider traders, whom? What is your evidence/sources? The likelihood of such a conspiracy is BEYOND remote. WTC was the financial HQ of such business and the events led to catastrophic losses for them, not gains. What would motivate them to commit such an act? It is doubt such a motive exists and I insist that you must prove out such a motive as the burden of proof is on you. 2. Whom told air defense to stand down? How do you know this? What is your evidence/sources? There are very extraordinary military/government protocols in place by countries when such events occur and in such circumstances there is tremendous confusion among air traffic controllers who are unprepared/poorly trained and inexperienced in such unprecedented historical events. A wrong move by the government/military could trigger an accidental thermal nuclear war with foreign powers. The exact details of such events usually remain classified but the ones we know of led to the famous Red Phone which connects the President of the United States to the leader of Russia so the one may call the other to ask if either has made a preemptive strike [upon finding out that a preemptive strike has not been made there would then be a 'stand down' order to prevent war]. These protocols prior to 9/11 did not anticipate a strike on our soil by stateless terrorists and so the command/communication structure was inadequate for such an event. The burden of proof is on you to explain what happened exactly in the military/government command structure. It it unlikely you're privy to such sensitive information. 3. Controlled demolitions don't take down buildings from the top and down. Controlled demolitions take place at ground level. We can clearly see the planes hit the buildings and clearly see the buildings topple downward from above. That is contrary to how a controlled demolition happens and to do it in reverse is ridiculous. 4. You have not provided evidence/argument for this. If you mean the Pentagon was hit by missiles then that is truly idiotic. What kind of missiles then? If the US fired missiles upon their own military HQ then the destruction would've been total instead of a small section. You must prove what kinds of missiles and you must prove that the damages created by those missiles were consistent with the destructive capabilities of such missiles. You have not provided due proof of any of this which is substantial/credible and part of a vetted academic/scientific peer reviewed journal. You must also establish motive and the US military has no motive for attacking itself at its own HQ where the Secretary of Defense was located at during the attack. 5. Silly and baseless. What proof? 6. Nutty/mentally ill delusions. Your evidence? 7. How so? 8. Anti-Semitic hysteria that has already been debunked time and time again [the last time we destroyed such myths was when we destroyed Hitler]. What is your evidence of this anyway? Or is it just a claim to omniscience? 9. Proof? 10. Evidence? And even if they were faked . . . how would it be relevant to all of the above? 11. Jet airliners are not simply 'aluminum'. You are attempting at oversimplifying how durable and devastating such constructions are when hurled into simple steel frame buildings (buildings composed of lots of glass and air) --- when hurled into them at such a velocity while they explode. Since you said planes didn't hit the buildings but rather demolition crews blew them up then why are you submitting into your argument all this stuff about planes? This is contradictory/oxymoron. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. It is either one or the other but not both. Which one is it? Did the insider traders do the act or was it the Jews or was it the military or was it the government? Which one? What are the motives? You have to pick one or the other. You have to be consistent. If you do not meet the demands I've asked of you in this argument then you have lost the debate and the votes must be CON. You must provide consistent evidence and you must stick to one theory rather than a confused mud puddle of various self-contradictory theories. You must also establish motive.