9/11 was an inside job

==Rebuttal=="Ok, well i am sure you are right to a certain degree"Yes I am. "that the steel is bending and twisting"But your original claim was that it was melting. Don't believe me? "https://www.youtube.com...... (Proof that fire can melt steel, in regards to my WTC5 claim)"This video was "proof" that fire can melt steel (which it can of course, it DOES have a melting point. My claim was that the fire in the building didn't melt the steel. Read my arguments) but the video was just showing that steel beams were "bending and twisting". Your claim has suddenly shifted and keeps changing." if steel can twist and buckle with heat, then it can break, it is as simple as that"Another claim that is shifting around. I never said that steel can't break nor melt. My claim was that they didn't melt when the fire stormed through."stating that just because wtc's 3, 5 and 6 did not collapse completely that this proves that it is impossible for WTC7 to collapse completely"Never....never did I say that. NEVER."Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered the same fates, so therefor what happens to one building cannot be used to prove what will happen to another"Where is that argument even going?"falling debree caused major damage to WTC3, 5, 6 and 7. "Wait...wasn't fire the leading cause of major damage to the buildings, according to your ORIGINAL CLAIM."How many controlled demolitions do you know that take out practically all the other buildings in the area"Wouldn't it be odd if only ONE building was destroyed? Well in this case 3. But regardless, let me try to explain this...A plane strikes the tower. It falls. ONLY ONE falls. It doesn't harm anything else. Wouldn't that be odd? It would seem...very strange. Multiple hijackers take a plane, smash it into the tower and it doesn't harm anything else? Ah...see they're not dumb. "Let's take a plane and smash it into the tower and take out multiple buildings and make it look like a massive terrorist attack!""How many controlled demolitions do you know that have parts of the building still standing after they have fallen?"Either two things.1. A failed demolition. Plan B is authorized.2. To make it seem "probable".They're not stupid. They have to make it seem probable...sadly they didn't completely succeed, as they didn't fool many people.If they staged it where the plane hit the building and it fell instantly, it would be VERY strange. However; if they staged it where the plane hit the building and then it fell an hour later, it wouldn't seem as strange. In a time of crisis like that, time seems to slow down. One hour would be like 3 hours in that situation. You're panicking, you're worried where else the terrorists might attack etc. However after the crisis, people began realizing some things. "The tower fell in an hour straight down when only part of it was damaged? Wait...was it a controlled demolition?"Your claim yet again, only proves my argument to be right. If only part of the building was damaged and it suddenly fell down, it wouldn't look natural. That's because...it wasn't.Now the video, the tower was hit an hour before, if I recall correctly. So saying that I believe that the tower got hit and fell instantly is foolish, because well...I just said it wasn't above."see that the fall of the twin towers begins at the top, and then the weight of the top sections falling onto the lower sections"That's why it's not natural. It just falls down all the way. If it were hit from the top, the top would lean to the spot with less resistance and lean and fall, not collapse straight down." In actual fact, five telephone polls where knocked down. How do you explain this?"It was staged. Do you think it was actually natural for an airliner to knock down telephone poles, not hit another building, at hit it's approximate target, coincidentally the spot with the records holding the GIANT debt they owe?