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

I see that my opponent has forfeited his 4th round. I am guessing that it may possibly be due to his spring break. This is unfortunate timing for my opponent with regards to this debate. As there was nothing refuted from my opponent in the 4th round I have nothing to re establish. During this debate, due to lack of words I have not emphasized many things that could have been emphasized. I also have not mentioned many things that could have been mentioned. I have tried to diligently use my limited words to convey to all who read this debate of the convincing facts that 9/11 was an inside job and that the 9/11 Commission Report does not explain what really happened. I set the word length at maximum as well as the number of rounds at maximum in order to achieve as thorough of a debate as possible on the subject. I have done this because I have nothing to be concerned about other than trying to figure out what REALLY happened, and the more discussion and debate about it the better. And although I would like to have brought in new evidences this round (Ex: Who bin Laden is (CIA connections), explain the conflicts of interests of those on the 9/11 Commission, etc...). And I also would have liked to have offered rebuttals to things my opponent may attack from round 4 (I have more evidences), nevertheless, I believe enough has been brought up that my opponent needs to address, and if I was to add more to that it would make it more difficult for my opponent to respond to everything due to lack of words, so instead I will basically summarize the debate and offer my closing arguments. I will now go through the earlier rounds and point out the things which my opponent has not addressed, as well as how the points that have been made for PRO still stand. ========================= THE FOLLOWING POINTS HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN CHALLENGED and must therefore go to PRO unless addressed by my opponent in his final round. ========================= ROUND 1: C. OSAMA BIN LADEN 1. "No evidence has ever linked any of the alive or dead "hijackers" to Osama Bin Laden." During the entire debate this was not denied nor proven false. 2. My opponent did not deny or address the many connections between the Bin Laden family and Bush family, one being the Carlyle Group, which is one of world's largest defense contractors, which continues to reap massive profits off of the post 9/11 war on terrorism. 3.Bush Sr. met with Bin Laden's Brother on 9/11 was not denied. D. PENTAGON 1. The scientific impossibility that 12 tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by jet fuel (official story). This "scientific impossibility" was not denied by my opponent. 2. The videos which would HAVE shown what really happened were immediately confiscated by agents of the FBI and the Dept. Of Justice has refused to release them. This has not been denied by my opponent. H. 9/11 COMMISSION 1. The 9/11 Commission could not trace the source of the funding but concluded by saying "it is of little consequence". Even though the tracing of funding is one of the major tools in fighting terrorism. This was not disputed by my opponent. ========================= ROUND 2: B. HIJACKERS 1. 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. My opponent did not even address this. 2. There is no evidence so 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. This was also not addressed. D. PENTAGON 1. There were light poles still standing which would have been in the path of the 'alleged' 757. Not addressed. ========================= ROUND 3: G. NORAD 1.Someone with inside information planned the date for these 5+ hijack drills to coincide with the actual hijackings. My opponent has not denied this. ========================= ROUND 4: Entire round goes to PRO, NOTHING refuted at all by opponent (due to forfeit). ========================= The other points that my opponent did challenge I have also rebutted. SUMMARY OF POINTS: A. WARNINGS - PRO has shown that there was sufficient warning given so that action should have been taken. B. HIJACKERS - PRO has established that there was no connection linking the alleged hijackers to the 9/11 plot. C. OSAMA BIN LADEN - PRO has shown that bin Laden was not involved and also that Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were simply incapable of orchestrating these attacks. D. PENTAGON- PRO has proven that the official story of a 757 hitting the pentagon is not realistic, and therefore things did not happen according to the official report. E. SHANKSVILLE - PRO has shown that the alleged crash site of Flt. 93 is in fact not the site of any plane crash. F. TRADE TOWERS - PRO has shown how the official "pancake theory" does not make sense in any possible scenario and therefore the official report does not explain what really happened. Further, PRO has highlighted the astounding anomaly of the only 3 steel skyscrapers in the history of the world being brought down allegedly due to fire. G. NORAD - PRO has proven that there were live hijack drills going on at the same time as the hijackings, and that there were contributing factors (inside job) which prevented any of the 4 hijacked planes from being intercepted. H. 9/11 COMMISSION - PRO has shown how the official 9/11 commission has not even begun to scratch the surface of what really happened. I. TERRORISM - PRO has established that 'false flag' operations exist and that there are indeed ulterior motives that need to be explored as to why 9/11 happened that the official report does not address. ========================= All 9 points still stand firmly PRO as of the final round. Although my opponent is allowed to have the last word, I am confident that even after that, the evidence for PRO will still stand strong. I believe that I have given sufficient evidence here to convince the readers that 9/11 was an inside job and also that the official 9/11 Commission Report does not explain what really happened. I encourage you to vote "Pro". Thank you.