9/11 was an inside job

I'm not going to lie, my opponent's arguments for why 911 was an inside job are absolutely horrible. I'm going to explain why:"After years of fog, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 911 attacks it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why."Or maybe they US government didn't what to look like idiots because they could have prevented it if they were smarter, so they lied to make the attacks seem unavoidable. The 911 attacks being an inside job is based on the assumption that the US government was clever enough to pull it off.Fact #1 "The Bush Administration came into office wanting to go to war with Iraq.This is so heavily documented that Veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asked Bush about it. He denied it of course and used 911 as the justification for what he and his administration have done."If a president wants to go to war, he can. Bush wouldn't have needed to orchestrate 911 in order to invade Iraq, that's absurd. Bush could have said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction if 911 never happened, and the war still would have happened. The real truth is that when Bush found out Saddam had nothing to do with 911, he was upset because he wanted Saddam, so he chose to go after him anyway. Saying it's logical for Bush to orchestrate 911 to go to war would be like saying it's logical to shoot your own self in the foot for an ice cream. If the ice cream can be obtained without shooting yourself in the foot, this method would be preferable. Fact #2Nothing about fact 2 indicates an inside job. Even if Cheney made money off of oil that doesn't mean 911 was done by the US government. This is a non-sequitur. Fact #3"There are indications that military action in Afghanistan was planned before 911. On 3/7/2001 the New York Times reports that Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley chairs an informal meeting to discuss Al-Qaeda."Yes, Al-Queda planned to attack the US years before 911. The fact is the government didn't know how strong they were or what exactly their plan of attack would be, so there really was no way to defend against the attacks. If I hear that someone wants to beat me up for a couple years before it happens, does that mean him beating me up was an "inside job"? My opponent's logic isn't adding up here...Fact #4"On the morning of 911 there were several military exercises taking place some of which mirrored the events taking place that day.A lot of different people didn't know whether or not the hijackings were real world or exercise"If my opponent is talking about The Pentagon Mass Casualty project (codenamed Pentagon Mascal), then this was a contingency exercise that was held in the Office of the Secretary of Defense conference room between October 24 and October 26, 2000 (not on the morning of 911). The exercise required emergency response teams, members of the defense protective services, and U.S. government officials to conduct emergency simulations in preparation for a possible plane crash into The Pentagon. The plane crash didn't involve a terrorist intentionally using the plan as a missile though. There is nothing about this that indicates an inside job, my opponent is simply trying to connect dots that are not there.Fact #5"On the day of 911 Rumsfeld started planning the Iraq War."Once more, the war in Iraq easily could have been justified without 911 occurring. There is no logical reason to think Bush and his administration:a) Had the witts to pull off an attack of this natureorb) Couldn't have gotten what they wanted accomplished without 911 occurringFact #6"Between 9:30pm and 10:00pm on 911 Bush says, "this is a great opportunity.We have to think of this as an opportunity."He does so again during his State Of The Union speech on 1/29/2002.Karl Rove said "sometimes history sends you things and 911 came our way.""How does this tie into 911 being an inside job exactly? Regarding my opponent's argumentsMy opponent is either mentioning facts that are not true, or facts that have no link to 911 being an inside job and are just mentioned (I don't know for what reason). Pro has presented no good argument for why 911 was an inside job.Explosions"As my opponent stated "Explosions heard during large fires are the norm. The fact that there were in no way shape or form leads credence to the idea that a controlled demolition took place on the towers that day." Really? But that does not rule it out."No it doesn't rule it out, all it does is take away the reason to believe it. If the belief is "explosions heard that day were not normal, there must have been a controlled demolition" then that line of reasoning fails, because explosions heard during large building fires are the norm.What rules out a controlled demolition is people hearing an explosion here or there at different times without the building collapsing right after. When a controlled demolition is carried out, it is a bunch of loud bangs one right after eachother/ at once with the building falling right after. People's reports of explosions are more consistent with fire than controlled demolitions "Now on the night of February 12, 2005 a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain a 32story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete.At its peak the fire which burned for a day completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building.My point is that this building burned for a full day and did not collapse.But the WTC burned for 1hour45minutes and completly collapsed."1. The building in Madrid was a completely different type of building, the WTC's had no concrete cores.2. The building in Madrid was not hit with the kinetic energy of a huge jetliner slamming into it at 500mph, so same damage was not inflicted.Since my opponent's argument is an apples and oranges argument it can be dismissed. Regardless, at 1:37 of the video attached you can see a building collapse in the same fashion as Building 7 due to fires alone. There is absolutely no reason to think that anything on 911 couldn't have happened without it being an inside job. Norad:My opponent concedes my point.The Pentagon:"Maybe so I do not know but do you think that even an advanced military pilot would of been capable of flying a Boeing 757 only a few of feet above the ground weaving and dodging objects while flying at over 500 MPH?"Yes I do think so. The Pentagon-Dutch-Simulator simulated the maneuver of the Plane, it wasn't as difficult as some people lead on.Osama Tape: "What a coincidence that the 911 Bin Laden tape was such poor quality you cant see it but all the others can be seen." Can't see what? You can clearly see it's Osama in that tape."Bin Laden didnt take responsibility for the attacks there is no way he could of done it all by himself just for the record."I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."-Bin Laden"No he didn't do it all by himself, he funded it. The 19 hi-jackers obviously helped him, so I agree he couldn't do it all by himself. This doesn't mean 911 was an inside job though. Also, that statement came out right after 911 happened (of course he would deny it). Once the evidence started to pile up against him though, he had no choice but to admit the truth that he did it."We decided to destroy towers in America...God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind." - Osama Bin Laden[1]Conclusion:The arguments for why 911 was an inside job are certainly not convincing and cannot stand up against more convincing rebuttal. My objections to common Truther claims did not go logically refuted, therefore, I have the upper hand in this debate.Source(s): [1] http://www.pbs.org... http://www.youtube.com...