911 was an inside job

I will begin my argument by stating that I have absolutely no qualification to discuss or interpert scientific data collected. In fact, I am absolutely atrocious at science, as it's potentially the most challenging discipline for myself. Thus, I will only provide the opinions of people who are qualified to discuss this matter.Dr. Stephen Jones and His Thermite GibberishLet's start with Stephen Jones. Stephen Jones is a Physics professor at BYU. He conducts research on solar energy, and nuclear fusion. Nothing in his academic career suggest he knows a damn thing about building-collapse forensics. He has no background, history, or qualification to discuss civil engineering, let alone a building collapse as complex as the WTC. (On a side note, I could not find a thing about RJ Lee)"But David" You may say, "Your adversary just presented scientific evidence that the building was sketchy, you can't make your case without addressing these points."I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sit infront of a computer screen reading through forums and scientific journals for a week and a half to debunk my opponent. Instead, I will allow professionals who know what they are talking about do it for me.Not only was Stephen Jone's paper NOT peer reviewed by a civil engineering journal (where people may have some credentials in the feild of civil engineering) but even Stephen Jone's collegues say that his paper is (now I'm going to paraphrase here) stupid.Here I will give you quotes of people who are qualified to speek on the matter: "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims." - BYU Chairman of the department of Civil and Enviornmental engineering."I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable. The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents." - Dr. Allan Firmage, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU""The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones." - The College of Engineering and Technology department I can give you several more, but you get the idea. All these quotes and more can be found here: http://www.debunking911.com...Thus, we can conclude that Stephen Jones is not qualified to speak on the matter, therefore rendering my adversaries evidence as unreliable. I have also given several quotes from people have credentials in the matter saying Stephen Jone's hypothesis is (once again, paraphrasing) stupid.Gibberish About High TemperaturesI'm not going to lie to you guys, I have no clue what any of this is saying. I am not proficient with science, I've never claimed to be, and I struggled to get through half of that. So, I will not be debunking these points. HOWEVER, I noticed my adversary put this together pretty damn well on such short notice. So out of curiousity, I took a few of his passages and Googled them. What did I find? Well, he damn near plagarized from this website.http://www.takeourworldback.com...I would like to ask my adversary to reword this, and make it comprehensible to someone who isn't proficient in the sciences to understand, so I can actually know what it's saying, thus debunk it. If my adversary understands it, he should be able to word it differently, and format it differently. If he does not truly understand it, then he is no more qualified to speak on the matter than I am. I think it's only fair to ask for a rewording seeing as how this was almsot directly stolen from another website.Molten Steel BusinessOnce, again I'm not going to pretend I'm qualified to have this discussion. While, I could, in theory, sit on this for a few days, really digest the information and find a way to elequently word it in a few thousand characters, I'm really not going to put that much effort in. I'm a college student with more important things to fill my time, and I regret accepting this debate because it's beginning to take up more of my free time than I intended. So, instead of arguing about all this molten steel business, I am going to give a link that makes a very convincing case that what my adversary says inhabits BS mountain (Jon Stewart reference)http://www.debunking911.com...http://www.debunking911.com...I'm sorry, but life really isn't long enough for me to personally research this matter to great detail, and write an essay on Molten Steel, melting points, and all of that. My TurnAhh, now it is my turn to go on the attack. This should be fun.I will not hold it against anyone who believes I have conceded the molten steel point. Yes, in fact I would probably do the same. However, lets look at the big picture here.My adversary claims that thermite was placed in the World Trade Centers.My question is, who placed it there?Next, why is it very FEW true professionals and experts in the feild have come out and said they believe 9/11 was an inside job? Why is it a very fringe minority that is dismissed by the rest of the scientific community?Next, what about the government officials who orchestrated this plot? One certaintly couldn't have done it. There would have to be many people involved in order for this operation to work.What about the people flying the planes?What about all the families that have claimed to loose victims in the plane crashes? Are these just actors?Next, if these points my adversary has made is true, why hasn't the news media picked up on it? They must be part of the conspiracy theory too then.A 9/11 conspiracy requires something absolutely illogical to believe in. A MASSIVE cover up. The people I alluded to earlier would ALL have to be in on the conspiracy for this to work. Not one of them can come out and show either a government check, letter, conversation, phone call, ect. that shows the government was planning this. Every single one of these actors would have to walk around and NEVER say a word. "Well, maybe they weren't all involved," you may say "That would just be stupid. There's just too many people. They are just afraid the government will kill them, so they cover their tracks."Well now, we have identified that this whole opperation is working because not a single person is brave enough to stand up and say, "Look what the government has done!" Sure, a few "experts" have, but a few experts also don't believe the holocaust happened.I'm running out of characters, so I'll keep my conclusion short.9/11 was not inside job.(I know, the formatting is weird. My computer refuses to cooperate. This is definately a government conspiracy.)