911 was an inside job

Thanks Pro for challenging me. Hopefully this goes fairly and without malice. I will first do my best to counter some of your arguments then present my own, all the while being as factual as I can. All my sources will be cited in parentheses after the statement, and my main source the be the actual 9/11 commission report (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu...). You say the Japanese Navy radioed PHNAS warning them of an attack. In actuality, this event was much more discreet. The AMERICAN navy gathered intelligence that Japanese military officials and agents were focused on Hawaii. This was so broad and far-fetched that Roosevelt thought nothing of it. This was obviously regretted, and it emphasized American passiveness on the growing worldwide conflict, but no messages were exchanged between the US and Japan. You also mention the Lusitania. You are correct in saying that many outlets warned of danger on North America-UK shipping routes, but I have no knowledge of US government halting these stories. In fact the line that operated the Lusitania posted a sign at the ticket office and on the docks warning of danger on the route (http://www.worldshipny.com...). Therefore the public signed up to travel at their own risk. The Germans warned allied countries of U-boat presence and potential, but the United States allowed its shipping industry to continue because they didn't want their booming economy to be slowed by the growing international tensions. This, as with the last incident I described, illustrates American passiveness when it came to global affairs and fears. Since I see that I have taken up much space countering you, I will only address one more statement of yours. You probably saw my post in the comments section about the phones used by passengers on each of the four flights, but I will restate that. The phones used by a majority of the passengers were airphones, which were installed in the planes by the manufacturer (Boeing and subsidiaries, in all four intances) specifically designed for use at high altitude. Calls were made from personal phones, and I understand these were the least successful in terms of quality and preventing a dropped call. Now I will begin my arguments. Since this debate is basically me trying to prove a notion false, I will focus on debunking several popularized "truther' assertions. It is often claimed that no planes hit the towers and that what we saw as planes really were illusions or missiles altered to look like planes. I don't know where to begin with this. If no planes were lost that day then how did 2 Boeing 767s, and 2 757s just disappear including their registrations? And what about the passengers? No more words should be wasted on this ridiculous thought. The most famous defamatory claim is "jet fuel cant melt steel beams." This actually is correct, jet fuel can't melt steel beams. However, if you take that jet fuel, roughly 23,000-25,000 lbs. of it (necessary for flight between LA and NYC), and add to the equation a 350,000 lb. Boeing 767-200 making approximately 500 knots, you are dealing with a lot of force. Upon impact, that force immediately trapped oxygen, a necessary component of fire, in each stairwell. Needless to say, a very large explosion will occur, and we saw one. Unobstructed, the resulting fire reached over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, well under the possible burning heat of jet fuel (http://education.jlab.org...). This heat could soften the steel, and after prolonged exposure, including being under the weight of the tallest buildings in the world, the steel could reach a point of collapse. I could, and would like to, go on and continue debunking theories, but there are more rounds for that and I will give Pro a chance to say his peice.