911 was an inside job

Since you have largely repeated your previous argument, there is precious little point for a rebuttal You still have failed to elaborate as to why the government would do such a thing. For my final argument, I shall refute the most common motive - the Iraq War motive, and that through the jingoism that followed it, the government could initiate a state of war between it and another sovereign state with the support of the population. With this motive, I agree that this was what the US wanted, though I sincerely doubt that it would perpetrate the 9/11 attacks to obtain a casus belli. As an event with a prelude and an aftermath, I consider 9/11 to be in the fashion of Pearl Harbor. The government wanted war, but the population didn't, so in order to create a state of war, the government aggravated an attack on its soil. Newspapers in the lead up to December 1941 were full of anti-Japanese sentiments, the government increased the size of the Pacific Fleet and sent more troops to the Philippines. Naturally, Japan felt threatened, and launched the raid on Pearl Harbor. This led to a population rallying behind the government, which wanted war, and against the foreigners that perpetrated an attack on US soil. There were similar casualty levels in the two events, given the magnitude, though there is no doubt that the raid on Pearl Harbor was perpetrated by the Imperial Japanese Navy acting on direct orders from High Command. Before 9/11, the US stepped up several operations in the Middle East, namely the number of soldiers stationed in bases at Islamic holy sites across the region, especially in Saudi Arabia. The reason given by Al Qaeda for the attack was the positioning of US soldiers at the Islamic Holy Sites and we have no reason to doubt this. I am not saying that elements of the government orchestrated the attacks, I am merely saying that the attack was not unprovoked and therefore the government is partially to blame for the attacks taking place. With regards to the government having prior knowledge of the attacks, it is likely that in the CIA database, there was evidence that an attack of that sort could take place. This is not, however, evidence that the CIA knew it would take place, and made the informed decision to allow it to take place. The CIA is the world's largest intelligence agency, and gets reports of the level of detail contained in the pre-9/11 reports on an almost hourly basis, and the vast majority, vast meaning 99.99%, of the reports do not come to fruition. Every terrorist attack that has happened in the last fifty years has been known about before by the intelligence services; they just did not afford it the attention they afforded some that did not occur, either because they were red herrings or they were averted by the CIA. Al Qaeda, a term I use broadly to refer to all militant Islamist terrorist organisations, has consistently told the truth about the reasons for their operations. The attacks against Soviet civilians between 1979 and 1989 were motivated by a desire to remove all Soviet forces from Afghanistan, and once their forces pulled out of the region, the attacks ceased except for those related to the Chechen Independence Movement, not all of which were perpetrated by Islamist groups. Al Qaeda still despise the Russians as much as the Americans; they just have no reason to launch attacks against them. Contrary to belief and their policies with regards to religion, Al Qaeda are mostly rational. They will not launch an attack arbitrarily, neither would they attack a target that they did not think would accomplish anything. So there is evidence that the US has a history of provoking preemptive strikes from its enemies to use as an excuse for war, and it has been established that Al Qaeda had a motive for the attacks as well. The practicality of staging the attack is another thing that crumbles under scrutiny. In order to plan, prepare and execute attacks of the magnitude that 9/11 was, it would require hundreds, if not thousands, of staff to coordinate. They would need to procure the demolition charges, covertly place them at the scene, find planes that could be taken over easily, align the cruise missile or the UAV to fire at the Pentagon, have people to flawlessly detonate the explosives and reroute the planes into the buildings at the precise moment of impact, not to mention covering up the aftermath and spinning it to the government's agenda. All it would require was one leak from this huge operation and the government would be exposed, the scheme would fail, the War on Terror would have never taken place, the Bush Administration would be impeached, and when it collapsed, would bring the rest of the Republican party down with it, the CIA and the DOD would be purged of people who could be implicated, and the US would be completely discredited permanently on the world stage as the country that murdered three thousand of its own people. Since none of this has happened, it is safe to assume that the government did not orchestrate the attacks. Also, why demolish Building Seven, when the iconic image of the Twin Towers collapsing was more than enough to have the effect? As you said, very few people have heard of Building Seven, which therefore makes its demolition completely unnecessary, as the support already existed from WTC 1 and 2. The result of the attacks also calls into question the inside job theory, or rather statement, given the lack of credible evidence. Let's amuse the thought of pro being correct, just for a moment. The official report stated that the terrorists were a mixture of Saudi Arabians and Egyptians that were trained in Pakistan and sent to perpetrate the attacks because they have a loathing for western democracy. The general consensus surrounding the official report is that they then used this as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, thus beginning the War on Terror that has lasted to this day. Rebuttal 1 - Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan were, at that time at least, the USA's biggest allies in the region. This would discredit US allies in the region, damaging diplomatic relations between the countries and the USA, at a time when allies in the Middle East were in short supply and incredibly valuable. Rebuttal 2 - Al Qaeda could not care less about western democracy. They are an incredibly blinkered, narrow-minded set of individuals who care about nothing outside the Middle East. Every attack they have perpetrated has been against imperial powers having an unwanted presence in the region. The motivation for the attacks was perfectly explainable, as they were tired of US imperialism in the region. Rebuttal 3 - Iraq was a relatively secular country. What business did Saddam Hussein have with Al Qaeda. The answer is nothing. In fact, up until the Gulf War, he was the USA's golden boy in the Middle East, with all of his atrocities being perpetrated under US supervision with American and Israeli weapons. Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until the invasion, when they flocked into the country to rally the population and drive out the occupiers. Not only this, but 9/11 did not even give the USA and the UK a casus belli to invade Iraq; they had to use the WMDs for that to happen, which does somewhat devalidate the idea that they would spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the prelude to a casus belli. As for Afghanistan, the cause for that was that they refused to turn over suspected terrorists without evidence provided. Pakistan was a more viable target for the 9/11 aftermath invasion, as that was where the terrorists were harboured and trained, and it was where Osama Bin Laden himself was found, in the middle of a city.