9/11 was an Inside Job

Thanks Con, now to the final round. Building CollapseThe fact that three seperate buildings collapsed entirely does in fact show that there are a major flaws within the official 9/11 story. Once again, two planes entering two buildings does not answer how the structure failed as specaularly as it did. Moreover, it certainly doesn't explain how the Twin Towers began to collapse at the bottom instead of the top--which is exactly what would happen if it *was* in fact the planes that caused it.l If the Towers were to come down because of the two planes; it would have happened far sooner and there would have been initial signs. Whereas they all collapsed suddenly and at an extremely fast speed. Con has yet to oultine preciselty what the cause of this was and how it corresponds with the official version of events. The WTC7 source that Con has provided doesb't actually highlight anything significant or show in any depth how alternative theories to the World Trade Center collapse are "wrong". The article has proposed to have the correct answer [and to successfully disprove other non-official stories] but has a notably limited amount of evidence and a number of flaws. For example, if Tower 7 was supposed to have been brought down due to fire/heat, why were not other towers within the exat same area? Additionally, why would it come down literally hours later? If the damage was that severe, it would be an entirely different story. And as previously highlighed, all three towers came dowm in a very unusual fashion. If it was genuine fire damage; they would have continued burning until all flames were eventually put out. They would not all suddentrly collapse [each] under 10 seconds. The only viable answer for this is a controlled demolition. Con hasn't successfully negated to the design argument either, both the Twin Towers were made to withstand the kind of pressure they were *supposed* to have given into. There is no conceiable way that two planes could cause three buildings to essentially reduce to dust--especially on the basis of fire damage and heat. Once more it is *only* explosives that could bring all three World Trade Center buildings down so successfully. Pentagon Crash Regarding the Pentagon crash, my argument was that no visible debris found immediately. Normal plane crashes generally have debris found straight away and the impact of the plane crash is clear to see. But the Pentagon had a remarkably limited amount of evidence and there was no direct evidence at the exact scene; such as bodies [a basic form of evidence with passanger airline crashes], suitcases around the area [no photos disclose anything], other parts of the plane and just generally people's misp;aced belongings. These things are usually clear to see and in normal circumstances you do not have to rely on statements and other pieces of information released by the government to conclude it to be "true". A brief look at any of the photos of the Pentagon Crash, and you'll see that that any supposed evidence or indication of it being a passanger jet is barely there. Moreover, Con has not fully responded to the argument on as to how a passanger jet could leave a small hole; again, something that photos and examples of the plane actually entering the building can clearly show. [1.] http://www.freedomfiles.org...Con has also failed to explain or provide any valid answers as to why there is such a limited amount of camera footage of the "attack". Seeing as such a high number of cameras were around the building [particularly in the area in the plane was said to have crashed], why was only one piece of camera footage shown? Again, if the attack was real--the evidence would be far more available. There is absolutely no footage that shows the plane flying into the building. Which, due to the higjh survelillance, there technically should be. Con has also pretty much dropped the case of the Pentagon airspace being the most protrected in the world. As with all other aspects og 9/11, there is no valid reason why Pentagon airspace security would have suddenly failed on that particular day. Any passanger airliner would have been oberserved, and then dealt with accordingly. If an actual attack had have occurred, it certainly wouldn't have turned out the way it did or been successful. As for the false terrorist link, I've already referred to the fact that people within the Osama "confession" videos are indeed not him. If they were, they'd naturaly all appear to be the same person with the same features. However all people within the videos have had noticably different features with visibly different ages. They are in no way Osama himself. I also included within round one that Osama formally denied the attacks and explicitly stated that he did not commit them. Why exactly would he change his mind and then decid that he did? Obviously this doesn't even remotely add up. The argument of the other 19 terrorists is alo far more expansive than Con claims it to be, over at least 6 of the accused terrorists were found to be alive in the Middle East and credible outlets such as the BBC have reported on this. This is considerably more than the case of some passports or two names of the terrorists accused by the FBI becoming mixed up. To reiterate, over 6 of them are alive. The Zionist Link does in fact correspond properly, especially as the World Trace Center complex was owned by Zionsits who had huge amounts to gain financially from its destruction. As stated in my round one argument, the World Trade Center was no longer financially profitable and its owners [I.E Larry Silverstein] stood to receive billions in damages and insurance. The State of Israel of course had the long-term invested interest of the U.S invading Iraq. To summarize my argument, I have demonstrated the flaws within the official version and shown that the evidence does not correspind with what the U.S goverment has stated. In fact, all information points to 9/11 being an Inside Job. Con has ultimately failed to negate this and prove that the official story is the correct one.