It is as likely or more likely that 9/11 was an inside job as compared to any other scenario.

Alright, I will be covering each of my opponents claims in turn. 1. I will go with my opponents statement that the plane was denigrated, that is fine by me. My opponent goes on to state that debris litter the lawn in front of the pentagon. This is true, but all I can see is scrap metal and concrete. More on this later. 2. I agree to the fact that concrete could hold back the weaker structures on a plane. In fact I believe I saw a study from '98 where a plane was flown at a concrete wall and it did little damage. However the fact is, there would still be damage from the wings. It is very logical to assume that they broke off of the plane, that however doesn't mean they just disappeared. We would still have immense amounts of damaged from large metal objects going 500+ mph. 3. My opponent states that the cameras being seized is typical, then goes on to state that private cameras seized cannot be disclosed to the public. I would like my opponent to prove that all of these cameras had any justifiable reason for being seized. Then I would like him to turn around and prove that there is a stature that prevents seized evidence from being disclosed. A few of these security cameras had a direct view of the interstate which would have easily shown the plane flying in. All it would take on the governments part would be a quick release of this footage. 4. Most of what the video says is interesting, nothing is definite. -shrug- 5. Furthermore, a more plausible situation. A missile hit the pentagon. Why would this be more plausible. Because whatever did hit the pentagon managed to blow through 5 different walls. Here is an aerial photograph http://www.freewebs.com... Once again there is no definite wreckage. Hijackers: 1. No definable evidence. 2. Not true, I believe at least 4 of the passports were found. Here is evidence of at least two being found http://www.rense.com... Anyways this still doesn't explain the fact that this fire melted through enough steel to cause the entire building collapsed but somehow left multiple passports unscathed. Furthermore the terrorists names do not appear on the flight manifesto so there is literally no reason for them to bring a passport. My opponent goes on to question why planted passports would help. Scapegoat. 3. My opponent claims that BBC got it wrong, that these men were just men with the same names. This is fallacious as the FBI actually displayed the mens faces 2 days after the attack on 9/11, perhaps this clipping of the following article will shine some light on the situation, "The stunning news prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." After that admission a strange thing happened - nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open." http://www.prisonplanet.com... Scenario 3: WTC 1 2 & 7 1. My opponent begins by stating, "There is no special reason why the buildings should somehow be slower than usual in such a catastrophic collapse like this." This is completely and utterly untrue. The official cause of collapse remains the pancake theory which would not allow for a building to collapse at free fall. Why not? Energy conversion, each floor hits the floor below it thereby lending its energy to that floor until the speed of each floor meets that of the last floor. This scenario does not allow for free fall at all. In fact you can test this by lining up 5 plates in a row and then dropping a heavy rock through them. The rock will not fall at free fall. The only difference with this scenario is the fact that it is not plates being broken but rather concrete and steel. The buildings if allowed to fall at free fall would have done so in 9.2 (http://www.911blimp.net...) seconds, entertainingly enough they fell in just under 10 seconds (http://911research.wtc7.net...) Finally my opponent mentions the interior of the building was allowed to weaken through fire. This in turn lead to the collapse. The official theory consists of the floors breaking free from the 46 or so support beams and collapsing. Which in turn means that the support beams would still be standing afterwards. Not the case. 2. As my opponents theory is that the buildings collapsed via fire this point is rather moot. "FACTS" 1. This is covered in my point below 2. Silverstein ordered the demolition of WTC 7. Here is the article http://www.prisonplanet.com... ............................... 3. I don't understand your point.... please clarify. 4. I'm clearly stating that not only is the federal government lying to us on multiple accounts but also that the WTC building could not have collapsed as they did. Controlled demolition was necessary for such. "End-FACTS" 3. There is a plethora of evidence of molten steel at WTC specifically: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com... In fact the temperature of some of these spots ranged above 3000 F. This situation alone could not have been created by jet fuel fires. Finally there was thermate found under both of the WTC buildings. This being found by a professor at BYU. http://portland.indymedia.org... My opponents last argument is that my last four points were all ad hominem. This is all true, they only serve to remind the readers that the government has done acts like this before. It also serves to remind the readers that the bush family itself is not above such acts. Thank you.