9/11 was an Inside Job

Thanks Pro. Now the debate can finally begin for real.RebuttalsBuilding Collapse Funnily enough, this argument doesn’t establish that 9/11 was an inside job on any level. Pro needs further arguments to fulfil her BoP with this argument. Pro’s arguments come in two parts, one that the towers could not have in principle collapsed due to their construction, and Tower 7 collapsed completely unwarranted. I will tackle these independently.WTC 7Tower 7 was hit by a falling skyscraper – namely WTC 1. The debris of which ignited fires which burned out of control on floors 7-9 and 11-13, unfortunately the fires weren’t mitigated by the sprinkler system due to the damage to the water supply from WTC1 & 2’s collapse. [http://goo.gl...] To make things worse, on top of the structural fatigue caused by the fires, the building also suffered a 20 story gash from the collapse of WTC1 (further compromising structural integrity) and it was observed that the building was visibly sagging before collapse.[ http://goo.gl..., http://goo.gl...] Note that WTC 7 collapsed nearly seven hours after WTC 1 & 2 collapsed, and was on fire for this entire period. Thus the assertion that WTC 7’s collapse was unwarranted is completely false.Additional Issues 1. No plane hit WTC 7, if it really was an inside job then we would expect a jet plane to have been commissioned to crash into it to “cover up” its collapse like they allegedly did with WTC 1 & 22. Planted explosives surviving in a raging fire for 7 hours? I really don’t think so.DesignOne key structural consideration for WTC 1 & 2 is their “tube in a tube design” – which was realised in an effort to maximise office space. Instead of a traditional interlocking web design such as in the empire state building, the internal core columns of WTC 1 & 2 are only designed to support vertical loads, thus failure of these would induce a collapse of the type we witnessed. They were good at supporting “static loads”, but poor at supporting “dynamic loads”, such as is caused from the motion of one floor collapsing above another. The largest aircraft at the time of the design of these towers was the Boeing 707, a much smaller and slower aircraft and fuel load was not considered.[ http://goo.gl...] The towers were certainly not designed for:1. 140 tonne airliner crashing into it at 500 mph2. Impact blowing off fire insulation3. Prolonged exposure to said fuel fires which compromise steel column structural integrityPro also asserts that the towers came down in free-fall, “defies basic physics” and the demolition explanation is visible in the footage comparisons but provides not a shred of evidence to support this.Inconvenient FactsIn the bases of both WTC 1 & 2, the point of collapse occurred exclusively at the impact & fire zones. Moveover visible buckling was present at these zones, increasing towards the point of collapse.[ http://goo.gl...] This supports the standard explanation and renders demolition untenable, especially given:1. It would have required precise piloting, which testimony to the skill of the hijacking pilots of those on board contradicts.2. Or it would have required liberal planting of explosivesNot to mention that planting said demolition explosives would have been blatantly obvious to anyone in the building at the time.Thermite Explosives and Witness Testimony I couldn’t find any of Pro’s sources for her claims here – she has done a spectacularly bad job of making her information accessible.“Explosions”This argument can be dismissed until Pro provides her source for this. Since we do not know where, when and what manner the “explosions” were heard. For all we know they were the impact sounds from when the towers were hit, or any time between the impact and collapse, rather than immediately before. Moreover it’s not exactly difficult to have explanations for such statements, e.g.:“I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever”Even the falling bodies of people jumping off the building were causing “explosions”, we even have testimony affirming train-like sounds. Are we to believe that trains caused the collapse?[ http://goo.gl...]Nano-Termite1. Thermite mixture is aluminium + iron oxide, yielding the products of molten iron & aluminium oxide. We would thus expect to find molten steel, and iron, and aluminium oxide powder, yet only aluminium oxide is found, which is unsurprising given that aluminium composes a large quantity of the towers and planes themselves and burns in air to form aluminium oxide… The lack of the other products outright falsifies the thermite hypothesis.[ http://goo.gl...]2. Virtually impossible for thermite to burn horizontally, since gravity tends to pull molten iron vertically, inconveniently in the wrong direction of the way the columns run (and good luck having something to support the 4000K molten mixture without itself melting).[ http://goo.gl...]3. I cannot see where Pro’s source is, but assuming that the trace unreacted thermite mixture was found, we would also expect to see much greater quantities of all the products (see point #1), thus actually weakens the case for thermite, rather than strengthens.4. All other elements that would appear on a dust analysis are present in the towers anyway. E.g. sulphur from gypsum-based drywall, iron-based paint, manganese in structural steel, fluorine in Freon and titanium in paint, to name just a few.[ http://goo.gl...]Removal of EvidenceThis is not an argument for a conspiracy, only for a lack of transparency (which given the genuine conspiracy investigation that was involved, is unsurprising). Thus is goes nowhere in fulfilling Pro’s burden of proof.I again couldn’t find Pro’s source, the best I could find was regarding the ATC tape, which appears to be from a finding in the government investigative report (ironic, given it is allegedly fabricated according to pro), which as a tape of the accounts given by 6 ATCs destroyed by a FAA manager to which the report found:“We believe the audiotape in question appears to be consistent with written statements and other materials provided to FBI investigators and would not have added in any significant way to the information contained in what has already been provided to investigators and members of the 9/11 commission”Note that this was destroyed several months after the interviews, and it tape-recording of ATC accident interviews is non-standard procedure, and was only agreed upon if the tape was to be a “temporary document”.[ http://www.911myths.com...]Moreover, the wreckage was investigated, however the survivor search & safety was priority in the time following the attack, the investigation did not formally start until several months after.[ http://goo.gl...]Pentagon CrashThis is not an argument for a government conspiracy, only mitigation of the official report. Moreover I don’t know where Pro is getting her information from, but whatever she asserts she needs to square with several inconvenient facts:1.If “no real debris” was found, then I don’t know how the nose cone, nose landing gear,[ http://goo.gl...] both flight data recorders, ID Cards,[ http://goo.gl...], flight seats [http://goo.gl... to mention pieces of the wing, and flight crew qualify.[http://www.popularmechanics.com...]2. “how exactly a 38 metre and 13,5 metres high passenger plane could only leave a hole that is 5 metres wide”It didn’t.It left 2 holes, one 23 meter hold in the external wall (Ring E), and the 4 meter hole in the internal wall (ring C). Planes do not punch cartoon-like holes into reinforced concrete buildings such as the pentagon, moreover the plane did not hit the pentagon level, it struck its wing into the ground first (which sheered off), thus came “side-on”, as attested to by dozens of eyewitnesses at the time. The smaller hole was a result of the landing gear, which was found at that location. Regarding the camera situation, surely if a camera was conveniently pointed at the exact crash location, it would be evidence in favour of a conspiracy? Moreover the camera was on a time lapse (check the footage for yourself), where the plane was visible as a “white blur” for one frame before impact (not at all surprising given the mechanics of the crash.[ http://goo.gl...]Pro implies that he jets would have received deterrence, but provides no reason to believe this would have occurred, or even could have occurred. Questions do not constitute an argument.False Terrorist LinkI have already addressed Obama’s confession of 9/11 in my opening round. Pro provides no source that denies that Obama was the person in the confession, so we can reject this until she does so. Moreover, Obama and Al Qaeda already had a history of terrorism as already described in my opening. Thus Pro’s argument for specific responsibility for 9/11 is a non-sequitir.Pro’s argument for still-alive terrorists are a simply case of two people sharing the same name and hence mistaken identity. Pro has no argument here.[ http://goo.gl...]Zionist Connection270-400 Jews were killed in 9/11, so I don’t know where Pro is getting her facts from.[ http://goo.gl...] Further I have already implicitly addressed her arguments for motivations in my opening round. Regarding the lease on the WTC… so what? If you stare in the right places, you will find weird stuff. That doesn’t mean they are meaningful.