9/11 was an inside job and the official 9/11 Commission Report does not explain what really happened

I negate the resolution and will move through his points quickly to debunk this nonsense. A. Warnings. Many of the "notices" of the impending attack were not actual notices, but more "general threats" and vague details. And by the way, For example, Putin (and Russian Intelligence) is cited as a common source for detail - however, Putin's own statement revealed that he was talking about IRAQ and "terrorist attacks... beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets. But we did not have information that they [Saddam's Regime] were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things." As one can see - (http://www.foxnews.com...) - outlines several different pieces of "forewarning" - many of the tips were incomplete, too vague, delivered after the fact, did not come from reliable sources, or were delivered far before 9-11-01. The amount of raw intelligence, combined with the task of sorting through what was credible and what was not produced a situation that has been described as containing no "actionable intelligence." B. 19 Hijackers. UA Flight 175: Marwan al-Shehhi, Fayez Banihammad, Mohand al-Shehri, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Ghamdi. AA Flight 11: Mohamed Atta al Sayed, Waleed al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, Abdulaziz al-Omari, Satam al-Suqami. UA Flight 93: Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ahmed al-Nami, Saeed al-Ghamdi. AA Flight 77: Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi. C. Bin Laden. Aside from the fact that Bin Laden has publicly stated on numerous accounts that he was involved, had specific foreknowledge, and personally communicated with the hijackers... There is also the testimony of Khalid Sheik Mohammed that he (Mohammed) not only planned the attacks, but presented them to Bin Laden and Mohammed Atef. Bin Laden then both approved the plan, and supplied the financial means for it to take place. D. Pentagon. Here's a quote from his flight instructor that granted Hanjour a commercial pilot's license in 1999: "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot... There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." I'm not sure what "experts" you consulted to determine this 270 degree spiral claim. Pilots do it frequently when they need to land on a different runway that was originally intended, or are flying a flight time that forces them onto an inconvenient (geographically) runway. It would be child's play to program the autopilot on a relatively modern 757-200 to execute the maneuver and then resume control when the plane was close to its destination. The plane that hit the Pentagon did NOT disintegrate. There is wreckage ALL OVER in photos that were taken before the cleanup started. If you take the time to actually look closely at the photos, you can see all sorts of debris - engine parts, wheels, aluminum pieces, burnt corpses... The pentagon is made of masonry, concrete, steel, brick, and wood. Where'd all the aluminum come from in the wreckage if not a plane? Where'd the aircraft components come from? Read this: (http://whatreallyhappened.com...). Also, from the nature of the Pentagon's construction, much of the debris would be inside the E ring and between the D and E rings, not on the exterior of the building, where most of the pictures are taken from. E. Shanksville. Actually, this article (http://www.smh.com.au...) about the Nigerian plane crash sounds very much like what happened to Flight 93. It cites things like no whole bodies, papers surviving, and a 20 meter wide hole. Which is pretty much what we see in pictures of the Flight 93 crash F. WTC 1, 2, and 7. Soooo many things wrong here... 1) The pancake theory doesn't take into account the fact that the jetliners severed several of the support columns in the center of the building... and that the weight of the floors above that was transferred to the remaining columns - weight they were never meant to hold. 2) Demartini is a construction manager, NOT an engineer. His quote actually reads: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building..." A fully loaded 707 is almost 67,000 pounds lighter than a 767 (the plane that actually HIT the towers) and carries almost 1000 gallons less fuel. 3) Actually, if you use some common sense and consider the fact that it took about 17 seconds for the towers to fall, it;s pretty obvious that they didn't just pop down into the ground. The pancake effect would have this EXACT effect considering the snapping of the outer mesh, which is plainly visible in the various video clips of the falls. 4) The core columns show shear, not explosive separation. If you look here (http://algoxy.com...) you can see the difference between explosive shear (left) and cuts. If you look at pictures of the wreckage of the towers, you will plainly see that what he calls explosive shear is post-collapse cleanup cuts with an oxyacetylene torch. 5) Dr. Jones was never at the WTC site, and is merely presenting conjecture that thermite (aluminum + rust - plane + steel building??). Furthermore, thermite is not stable enough to be used in large-scale detonations. 6) WT7 burned inside-out and out of control for some 7 hours... most pictures of the building are from the outside... not the side torn to shreds by falling debris from WTC1 & 2... or the burning cantilever beams that collapsed and brought the middle of the building down. 7) There are numerous videos and pictures of the lobby. Any explosion powerful enough to push people upwards would have damaged the floor of the lobby. None of this damage is visible in any photos. The powerful explosions in the basement are probably the result of electric feedback into the machinery that controls much of the tower's internal functionality. These explosions would have been instantaneous with the crash of the jet into the upper floors. G. Norad. Why did the NORAD failure occur? Well let's look at NORAD's timeline: (http://911research.wtc7.net......) Oops - it looks like the maximum time from FAA notification to NORAD planes being in the air was only 12 minutes. H. 9/11 Commission. As stated before, there are multiple sources stating that al-Qaeda was responsible for the funding. The 9/11 commission report is only about 1 and 2 WTC... not the whole blessed complex. It doesn't mention any of the OTHER WTC buildings either. When top government officials are meeting, they usually don't invite civilians. The 9/11 Commission was not a government legal body - they didn't NEED to be under oath. And if the media and civilians weren't present for the commission's questioning, how do they know there was no recording or transcript? It's not the least bit suspicious that the administration would review the 9/11 Commission's Report - it would have included possibly sensitive data regarding NORAD, CIA, FBI, and other government procedures and capabilities. I. Terrorism. A false flag operation? Really? An operation that cripples the domestic economy and gives an excuse for a war about oil that makes the price of oil go UP and the US get LESS of it?? Really?? ******************************* My apologies, but I am out of characters. See the following for more info: http://www.debate.org...