9/11 was an inside job.

1. In round 2 my opponent says this: < > Seeing how I have a made a mockery of his NIST reports he then clarifies his remarks to this in round 3: <> So which is it, are we debating on the WTC, as I have tried to narrow the debate to (due to space), or is it all three crime scenes as you so abundantly made clear in Round 2? I am going with your round 3 debate requirements as this is what time and space will allow. However, since we were only able to debate about the debate and not debate 9/11 in detail, I feel that you really think 9/11 was an inside job as well. Let me start off by saying that if my geography is right WTC7 is actually part of the same complex as the WTC 1 & 2. You did not specify which buildings, and I to assume that you meant the entire WTC complex (Again you never specified which crime scene until round 3). 2. Now looking at the embarrassing amount of photo graphic evidence I was able to provide (YOU HAVE PROVIDED NONE, ONLY GOVERNMENT REPORTS THAT I HAVE PROVED ARE SUSPECT AT THE LEAST) they asks some serious questions about the events surrounding WTC 7 and its "demolition", because that's what it was, a demolition. I can understand why you want to sidestep this issue and debate it "later". But ultimately for the benefit of the audience, it's obvious that I touched a nerve, bringing up WTC 7. Hence I believe that I have won the debate based on your insistence that we not discuss WTC 7, when in fact it is relevant to the discussion, and by your own words qualifies as a relevant crime scene in the discussion. 3. < > This sounds official to me. A full accounting means all events, full, everything.!! I The 9/11 commission was appointed by the President of the United States. Then you say: < > So now you're undermining the authority of the President, such audacity! Tisk Tisk < > -Doesn't this sound like an official report? When all departments are involved?? Yet none of them could explain how WTC7 was destroyed??? Really, and you believe that report? Wake up my friend, you are being lied to. 4. In regards to thermite being found at the crime scene you said: < > Ok again, I provided photo evidence from this site, (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com...) I invite the audience to click on the link and review actual footage.Let me add that my opponent did not provide any photo evidence to prove his theory but would rather give you government reports. Let's list the government reports in history that actually led to revealing the truth. The Kennedy Assassination – Truth covered up Watergate Scandal – Nixon was pardoned, truth covered up until many years later. Nixon tapes still not available in their entirety. Torture at Abu Graib – Covered up, we still don't know who authorized torture Lead up to Iraq war – Lied to the people, said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. then told there were weapons of mass destruction, truth covered up, still don't know the total truth. This is what the government reports mean: cover ups, lies, distortions, yet my opponent has based his entire argument on the faith of government agencies and reports. It's like asking a murder suspect to take on the role of the prosecuting attorney. Is he really going to uncover the truth, or are there going to be distortions, stretching of the truth, cover ups. You decide, but past history concludes that I'm correct. Back to Thermite: Ground Zero stayed hot for weeks after the event. There are pictures of molten steel, only found in foundries. Jet fuel doesn't get any hotter than 1000 degrees tops, and I encourage the audience to investigate that claim themselves. Most of the fuel burned up on impact. And was not hot enough in and of itself to bring down the towers. Sorry, not buying it, and I don't think the audience is lame enough to believe it either. 5. Your were unable to dispute the 9/11 mysteries video that I cited which was an independent investigation of the events surrounding 9/11.It proves my billiard ball theory which you were unable to scientifically debunk, without confusing the audience with 10th grade flawed and fuzzy science. Everyone knows that uninhibited objects in motion travel faster than objects with resistance. There is no way the towers could have fell at free fall speed without explosives being place at the key support beams inside the towers I submit to you that 9/11 was an inside job, there are many unanswered questions regarding these attacks that even a 5th grader can see that something isn't right. Not only have I proven that there are "gobs" of shreds of evidence that prove it, my opponent chose to debate the debate instead of refute my claims, the closest he got to refuting the thermite evidence was to cast it aside, and he would not even discuss WTC 7. 6. The fact that my opponent would only allow three items of evidence is fine. He still can't explain the thermite and explosions without attacking me personally. I invited him to provide eveidence from a credible source and he was unable to. He cannot dicredit the evidence of thermite, becasue he has no other proof. He also sidestepped the "pull it" statements made by the leaseholder Silverstein, and the fact that the WTC complex was insured for a double terrorist attack months before the attacks. The governments inabililty to investigate the matter points to culpability in the very least. Thats like knowing that someone put a hit on a person, the police finding out about it, but then only arresting the peson who puilled the trigger. It's laughable. But I invite the audience to use thier own common sense, do thier own investigation of my claims, check my sources and vote for the truth, not the government shill on the other end of this argument. However, I thank my opponent for having the courage to debate this topic as it is not an easy task trying to cover up the governments lies. Just look at Scooter libby.