Was 9/11 an inside job?

[Sertes]

And lastly, I'm not dodging a damn thing.

- Which part of AA77 made the 12 foot punch-out round hole at the pentagon?

- Where was Dick Cheney at 9:25 on 9/11/2001 ?

- Which block will reach ground first, the left or the right one?

[jimnyc]

Which part of AA77 made the 12 foot punch-out round hole at the pentagon?

Not sure myself as I'm not an investigator. Read the official reports. What I do know is there is tons of proof that an airplane hit the pentagon and not one bit of proof of it being anything but an airplane. Not one thing from investigators backs up the theory of any type of missile.

Where was Dick Cheney at 9:25 on 9/11/2001?

I wasn't standing next to him so I can't say for absolute certainty. What I do know is that regardless of your claims as to where he was there still exists ZERO proof of any inside job.

Which block will reach ground first, the left or the right one?

I'm not a physicist but I would imagine the one on the right. But your claims that the entire building fell completely at once doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You apparently didn't want to watch the film I linked to earlier in the thread where it clearly showed the core of the building remaining for quite some time as the surrounding parts fell around it, and the core went last. But even more importantly, throughout the thousands of hours of investigations and thousands of investigators involved, not a shred of proof exists pointing to anything other than the buildings collapsing due to being his by a hijacked plane and the ensuing damage.

Your arguments are getting farther and farther apart as we're supposed to commit to 2 replies per day. And now you drop 90% of the debate in your last reply. Either you are losing interest or you are conceding you have zero proof to backup your assertions that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Sertes]

Which part of AA77 made the 12 foot punch-out round hole at the pentagon?
I asked five times which part of AA77 created the 12-foot round punch-out hole in the pentagon third ring.
This is your first answer:

Here ya go:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/084.html

Some photo of a landing gear pole. When I asked “why it’s so dark out there” (outside the third ring) you changed your claim to:

That's it, "it's dark out there"? But since that isn't acceptable for you, here's another page that perfectly describes things for you, AND includes an outdoor picture of a portion of the landing gear:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0290.shtml

But that shows a landing gear wheel.
When I asked which one of the two, because it seems so unbelivable that a landing gear wheel could produce a 12 foot round hole in a concrete wall (after already hitting one in entering the pentagon, then navigating his way through a forest of columns) you dodged at first and later concluded:

Not sure myself as I'm not an investigator. Read the official reports. What I do know is there is tons of proof that an airplane hit the pentagon and not one bit of proof of it being anything but an airplane. Not one thing from investigators backs up the theory of any type of missile.

So, at least you’re not sure. You back off to other evidence to demonstrate your theory. I think this point is mine.

Where was Dick Cheney at 9:25 on 9/11/2001?

I wasn't standing next to him so I can't say for absolute certainty. What I do know is that regardless of your claims as to where he was there still exists ZERO proof of any inside job.

You completely dodged this one, and again you got back to the bigger picture for self-defense.
Rest assured as this is my smoking gun of the inside job, I’ll cover it in detail in my last post, tomorrow evening, italian time.

Which block will reach ground first, the left or the right one?

I'm not a physicist but I would imagine the one on the right. But your claims that the entire building fell completely at once doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You apparently didn't want to watch the film I linked to earlier in the thread where it clearly showed the core of the building remaining for quite some time as the surrounding parts fell around it, and the core went last. But even more importantly, throughout the thousands of hours of investigations and thousands of investigators involved, not a shred of proof exists pointing to anything other than the buildings collapsing due to being his by a hijacked plane and the ensuing damage.

No, you’re wrong, they reach ground simultaneously. At least according to the NIST section you quoted:

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Maybe you'll not so sure, now.

Evidence of explosives in the basement
I promised evidence of “Molten Steel, found at the basement of the three buildings, as much as 40 days after the collapse”, as EVIDENCE of temperatures even greater than burning jetfuel, which even NIST concedes, burned out in 6-10 minutes. You can believe that furniture, computers, carpets can burn hotter than jetfuel kerosene. I don’t.

---

Dead On Arrival

The NIST 9/11 Report on the WTC Collapse

By Mark H. Gaffney
Note to the reader: The following is a critique of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the World Trade Center (WTC) collapse. The 43 volume NIST report was the result of a 3 year investigation, and was released in September 2005. It remains the official US government explanation for why the WTC collapsed on 9/11. As you are about to discover, the report itself collapses under scrutiny. There is no doubt that the NIST investigation was politically controlled by limiting its scope, thereby making the truth unobtainable. This is one way to neuter an investigation.

12/21/06 -- -- Fires raged at ground zero for many weeks after 9/11. In fact, it was not until December 19, 2001 that the NYC fire marshall declared the fires extinguished.

The fires burned long into the cleanup. The removal of steel beams and debris from the top of the pile allowed oxygen to reach the fires smoldering below. As a result, the flames often flared up, hampering workers on site. Joel Meyerowitz, a photographer, made note of this in his 2006 retrospective book, Aftermath. Armed with his trusty camera Meyerowitz roamed ground zero for months following the attack. Police repeatedly ejected him, but he kept returning in order to document what had happened. Eventually Meyerowitz amassed an impressive photographic record. In his fine book he remarks that the ground in places was so hot it melted the workmen’s rubber boots.

But Meyerowitz was hardly the first to comment on the pile’s incredible residual heat. The first accounts of molten steel came just hours after the attack: from the search and rescue teams who were among the first on the scene. Sarah Atlas, a member of New Jersey Task Force One Search and Rescue, was one of these emergency responders. Sarah reported seeing molten steel in the pile even as she searched in vain for

---

K-9/11 Tracking the Rescuers’ Trauma



Even before the twin towers of the World Trade Center fell, Sarah Atlas and her canine partner, Anna, a black-faced German shepherd, were deployed by New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue. By the end of the day on September 11, they were at Ground Zero, where they stayed for ten days in a fruitless search for survivors.

“The [NYFD] people who called us had been killed,” Atlas considered as she surveyed the tons and acres of wreckage. “Nobody’s going to be alive.” Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. She wore a respirator to filter out the smoke, dust, and fumes, but Anna worked without a mask to sniff out places where the broken dead lay. Anna is a live-find dog, but she developed a “truly intent stare” that Atlas came to recognize as her response to catching the scent of a corpse. Mostly they found parts.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/new...2002/k911.html

---

Many have denied the existence of molten steel at ground zero. But there are too many eyewitness accounts to dismiss, including the testimony of engineers, city officials and other competent professionals who toured the ruin. One of these, Dr Keith Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers, later wrote in The Structural Engineer about what he had seen, namely: “molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event,” as well as “four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.”[2]

A similar account came from Leslie E. Robertson, an engineer who helped design the WTC. He is currently a partner at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, a structural consulting firm that was under contract to the WTC at the time of the tragedy. In a keynote address Robertson reportedly told the Structural Engineers Association of Utah that: “...as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.”[3] Public health officials/experts also toured the scene of destruction. Alison Geyh Ph.D., an Assistant Professor of Environmental Health at Johns Hopkins, was with one of these teams. She wrote that “In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”[4] The fact was even reported to the 9/11 Commission by Kenneth Holden, Commissioner of the city of New York. He told the panel about seeing “molten metal” during a walkthrough.[5]

The evidence accumulated even as the cleanup progressed. Work crews removing the mountain of debris, piece by piece, discovered pools of molten steel beneath the pile, where the towers had stood. One pool was found at the bottom of the elevator shafts. Some of the pools were not found until 3, 4, even 5 weeks after 9/11.

Contractors working on site confirmed these discoveries. Such as Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing New York, who was one of four contractors engaged by New York City to handle the cleanup. During an August 2002 interview Tully told the American Free Press that indeed workmen had seen the molten pools.[6] The same interview included a statement by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who, years before, ramrodded the cleanup of the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Loizeaux was called in by Tully to draft the cleanup plan for the WTC site. Loizeaux said, “Yes, hot spots of molten steel were seen in the basements.” Molten steel was also found under WTC 7.

These pools of molten metal have never been explained. Loizeaux told the American Free Press that the continuing fires were fueled by “paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they ‘pancaked’ into the basement.” Manuel Garcia, a physicist, has suggested that cars left in parking garages under the WTC contained gasoline that may have fueled the fires.[7] Both are probably correct. But none of these fires were hot enough to melt steel. Indeed, none of the combustibles in the wreckage burned anywhere near the melting point of construction grade steel beams (2800 °F). As noted, the smoldering fires for the most part were oxygen-starved.

The persistence of molten steel under the WTC for many weeks is extraordinary–––and anomalous. Evidently, the hot spots under the wreckage were not in the least fazed by heavy rain on September 14-15, nor by the millions of gallons of water that firemen and cleanup crews sprayed on the smoking ruins. Five days after the attack the US Geological Survey (USGS) found dozens of “hot spots” in the wreckage via remote sensing, i.e., an infrared spectrometer (AVIRIS). The two hottest spots were under WTC 2 and WTC 7. The USGS recorded surface temperatures as high as 747°C (1376°F)).[8] The molten pools below the pile must have been at least twice as hot––––hot enough to evaporate rain and the water sprayed on the pile, long before it reached the bottom.



Notes

1. Penn Arts and Sciences, Summer 2002. <www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html>
2. Dr Keith Eaton, The Structural Engineer 3, September 2002, #6.
3. James Williams, “WTC a Structural Success,” SEAU NEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001, #3.
4. Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, late fall, 2001. When I contacted Dr Geyh she confirmed the report. She stated that people involved in the clean up effort told her they had seen molten steel in the debris.
5. Commissioner Holden’s testimony before the 911 Commission is posted at http://www.globalsecurity.org/securi...401-holden.htm
6. Christopher Bollyn, “Seismic Evidence Points to Underground
Explosions Causing WTC Collapse” American Free Press, August 28, 2002.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm
7. Manuel Garcia, “The Thermodynamics of 9/11,” November 28, 2006. posted at http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html
8. The results are posted at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-...ermal.r09.html

---


“Thousands of degrees are needed to bend steel this way” says the welder in the interview.

---

Danger in the Dust


It is 4 a.m. in New York City as four researchers from the School enter the site of the World Trade Center disaster on foot. Each is lugging from 50 to 90 pounds of air-monitoring equipment onto Ground Zero. In the dark, the tangled pile of wreckage takes on a distinctly hellish cast.

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm

---

NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION

“Once the area was cleaned, normal commercial trash collections resumed by the haulers that are licensed and regulated by the Trade Waste Commissioner,” Dawkins says. But for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains — running trucks back and forth between Ground Zero and Fresh Kills landfill, which was reopened to accommodate the debris.

Kathy Dawkins, NYDS spokeswoman.
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

---

Ron Burger - Public Health Advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

The National Environmental Health Association’s paper “Messages in the Dust” quotes Burger: “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster.”

---

Guy Lounsbury - Member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing:

National Guard Magazine article written by Lounsbury (excerpt): “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...15802#continue

---


As of 21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.

---

After heroic efforts at the World Trade Center, New York City’s Fire Department had the Herculean task of documenting human remains found in the rubble.

Anyone at the site—a policeman, a crane operator or a Federal Emergency Management Agency official—who discovered a body part had to notify the fire department.

A firefighter would then collect the remains and write down a tracking number, date, time, description and location.

The Fire Department mapped Ground Zero into grids and cells. A fireman might locate the remains as “in grid B, cell 7,” write it on a slip of paper and take it to the quadrant command center. A FEMA agent would then transcribe the note and enter it into a database.

Not only was this laborious for the firefighters, but the working conditions were hellish, said Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. of Norwalk, Conn.

For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said.

http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news

---

Firemen commenting molten metal
[youtube]8X5F5PttzJY[/youtube]

---

This one is important
[youtube]M5n4splER9E[/youtube]

[jimnyc]

Which part of AA77 made the 12 foot punch-out round hole at the pentagon?
I asked five times which part of AA77 created the 12-foot round punch-out hole in the pentagon third ring.

So, at least you’re not sure. You back off to other evidence to demonstrate your theory. I think this point is mine.

The funny thing is that YOU yourself who is asking the question don't give any proof of what caused the hole. You theory is that a missile hit the Pentagon but you offer absolutely zero proof to backup the claim. I stated it was a hijacked airliner and offered enough proof to fill a dump truck. And you think you made a point?

Where was Dick Cheney at 9:25 on 9/11/2001?

You completely dodged this one, and again you got back to the bigger picture for self-defense.
Rest assured as this is my smoking gun of the inside job, I’ll cover it in detail in my last post, tomorrow evening, italian time.

Again, I dodged nothing. You have an uncanny ability of making things up as you go along! I was not with Dick Cheney and cannot say for certainty where he was at every minute. And unless you offer us documents or eyewitnesses testifying that they have knowledge of an inside job, you not only don't have a smoking gun, you once again have absolutely nothing.

No, you’re wrong, they reach ground simultaneously. At least according to the NIST section you quoted:

Maybe you'll not so sure, now.

No, I'm not wrong. I provided proof of the core structure NOT falling simultaneously and you somehow keep failing to acknowledge that. And you're right, I'm not just "sure", I'm 100% positive of what happened.

I promised evidence of “Molten Steel, found at the basement of the three buildings, as much as 40 days after the collapse”, as EVIDENCE of temperatures even greater than burning jetfuel, which even NIST concedes, burned out in 6-10 minutes. You can believe that furniture, computers, carpets can burn hotter than jetfuel kerosene. I don’t.

This is a weak link and I told you that earlier in the debate. Read this page:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Simply put, you again have no evidence of anything other than in fact there was molten steel. I never stated there wasn't. I simply stated it wasn't from a bomb and that you couldn't prove that it was. If you have the smoking gun of proof of bombs at the WTC, now is the time to offer them.

Otherwise, I'm afraid you laid out one hell of a great conspiracy theory based on no facts whatsoever.

And yes, I haven't went into great detail as we have progressed responding to your points. But quite frankly, I'm not going to spend a great amount of time responding to theories that have no factual evidence to back them up. I'll let my original facts and investigations stand up to your lack of proof at this point. I believe in order for you to win a debate proclaiming that "9/11 was an inside job" you would have to actually offer proof to maintain your position, not just theories and "what if's".

[Sertes]

It’s a fact that no bomb was found at WTC complex. In fact out of the thousands of people involved in the recovery effort, not a single piece of evidence of bomb making material was recovered. So as a matter of fact no direct evidence of explosives or cutting charges has been produced over 6 years.

Are we left with only one option? Of course not. In fact as some theory might sound outrageous, the governative version is the worst of them all. In the opinion of 192 real life architects and structural engineers, all listed with name, surname, and degree, the “collapse” of the three high-rise buildings that fell on 9/11 has more than ten elements in common with controlled demolitions while showing no point in common with gravitational collapse. No one can deny that the collapses showed a triple effect of proceeding at free-fall speed, through the path of most restistance, so the columns gave way almost istantly, with still enough energy to completely pulverize all contenets including all concrete. The towers were destroyed down to the single elements that composed them. And no one can deny that after 40 days there were still pools of molten steel under the basement of all the three buildings, officialists only try to lower this finding, which has multiple corroborations, and paint it as useless. Satellite thermal images show that 5 days after the collapses there were temperatures in the rubble higher than the jetfuel burning. What can cause them? No one can deny that explosives and cutting charges could be placed in months before the strike by working inside the elevator shafts with the complicity of some part of the WTC complex security. And no one can deny that something really strange occurred in the weeked before 9/11: for 26 continous hours the electricity was cut off in the upper half of the south tower, to provide “some exceptional works to the building”, and these squads worked so carelessy that the building was dirty, there was a lot of concrete dust everywhere in the upper half of the south tower.
Would you question a worker squad escorted by your own security team? Of course no one would.
All three official studies spend a lot of words to explain the hits, to provide models for the fires in the tower, but as James Quintiere, former head of Nist fire department, efficently put it: “In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.”. The collapse of a 47 stories steel framed skyscraper it’s not mentioned even in the FEMA report. That’s pretty strange, because no other steel framed high-rise building ever fell from fires alone ever in history before nor after 9/11.
And the closest steel-framed buildings that fell from fires are a theater and an exhibition hall.
Mr Sunder from NIST claims evidence emerged for the building being damaged by a gaping hole, 25% of the building size. But they can only produce a photo that amounts it to 7,4% of a side.
And the “raging inferno” we keep hearing about is still left that way – hearsay.

When we look to UA93 we have in fact many phone calls that the receiver assure us are authentic. That’s not in discussion here, the source of the calls is in discussion. Bodies of the dead were supplied to the medical facility for identification, it’s a fact we have positive identification, but where they came from is still a matter of faith. They were not identified at UA93 location, they cannot be seen in the photos. Pieces of the plane, who allegedly hit a field in one piece, are found scattered in an area many miles across.

As for the pentagon, no video clearly showing AA77 hitting the pentagon has been released among the 85 confiscated that morning by the FBI. Even debunker websites show a embarassing “nothing” where the plane should be clearly visible.
It’s a fact that many, many people saw a 757. But’s also a fact that someone saw a smaller plane, a commuter plane, a 12-seater. And when we move closer to the face of the pentagon we see that there’s only one hole large enough to accommodate the fuselage or the two engines, and that’s at the middle of the damaged area. On the left of that , there’s no mark of the left engine. On the right of that, there’s no mark of the right engine. On the top of that, there’s no mark of the rear tail wing, which officialists claim was destroyed in an inpact so hard that it disintegrated but so soft it didn’t dislodge even one window. And the lawn is intact, so it’s a fact the plane didn’t go down either.
Inside the pentagon, after a forest of hundred of columns we find a single punch out hole, as big as the single punch in hole: 12 foot. Some claim the landing gear pole caused it. Some claim a landing gear wheel caused it. A shockwave from a military-grade explosives could cause it. And it would be consistent with the single punch-out hole and the other missing damage, too.

Last and most important we have the issue of the missed intervention. It’s a fact that even after the second hit on the towers, when it was clear to everyone that america was under attack, AA77 was able to fly undisturbed for 20 full minutes to Washington D.C., straight toward and in blatant defiance of the most defended airspace in the world.
The 9/11 Commission Report tells us that the plane was lost, they didn’t see it coming, Dick Cheney arrived in the bunker just moments before the hit on the pentagon. Too bad the access computer of the white house bunker broke down: it could have provided the entering time of Dick Cheney. Why it’s so important?
Because minister of transportation Norman Mineta testimonied under oath before the 9/11 commission that when he arrived the vice president was already there. Mineta testimonied also he phoned Monty Berger, No. 2 at FAA, which gave live information to him and to others where the plane was, and where it was heading. Some young men also told the vice president personally that the plane was 50 miles out. Then he came back to say the plane was 30 miles out. And when he came back to say the plane was 10 miles out he also dared ask the vice president “do the order still stands?” to which the vice president snapped back “of course the order still stands, have you heard something to the contrary?”
It’s suspicious to say the least that –this part- of Mineta testimony was left out of 9/11 Commission Report.
Was he talking of UA93 rather than AA77? Of course not, as the quotes from mineta second interview are:

Some young man came in and said to the Vice President, "There's a plane 50 miles out coming towards D.C." So I said to Monty Belger, who is the No. 2 at FAA, I said, "Monty, what do you have on radar on this plane coming in?" He said, "Well, the transponder has been turned off, so we don't know who it is, and we don't know the altitude or speed." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "It's somewhere beyond Great Falls right now." Then, the young man came in and said it's 20 miles away. I'd say, "Well, Monty, where is this plane in relationship to the ground?" On radar it is hard to associate with a ground point, but they'd be able to tell you roughly the distance from wherever you are, but he couldn't tell you the speed or altitude, and then all of a sudden, as I was talking to him, he said, "Oh, I lost the bogie. Lost the target." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "Well, it's somewhere between Rosslyn and National Airport," and about that time someone broke into the conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we just had a confirmation from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines plane go into the Pentagon."

This is a Google map made by me highlighting all those landmarks:

Green: great falls park.
Upper yellow: Rosslyn
Lower yellow: National Airport
Red: the pentagon

A detail of the area between Rosslyn and the National Airport:


Keep in mind that at Langley, 105 miles away, Brad Derrig and Dean Eckmann got the order to scramble and will effectively be airborne at 9:30. A F16 flies at 1500mph, even at half speed they could intercept the incoming flight.

It didn’t happen

[jimnyc]

This is a recap of the debate offered by my opponent, Sertes. His original assertion was that 9/11 was an inside job. Let's take a peek at what he offered us to backup this "conspiracy theory":

Foreknowledge by internal (the Able Danger case) and foreign secret services

I have given evidence that the 9/11 Commission looked into this and found and that the "claims didn't stand up". I have also given additional proof that the official military report stated "the evidence did not support the assertions"

The collapse of the three WTC highrise buildings

My opponent states that 190+ real life architects and structural engineers claim that the buildings fell as a result of demolition (explosives) and that it could be proven.

These "experts" are direct from a 9/11 conspiracy website. Why would an expert in the field rush to an internet website instead of a true authority if they felt they had direct evidence?

Furthermore, I've provided extensive evidence to explain what happened to the buildings that day, why they fell, and why they fell in the manner they did. My opponent has offered no proof at all other than a theory.

The missed intervention

My opponent claims that flight 77 was this missed intervention as a result of a "stand down" order. Of course he offers no proof to justify this statement. Here's some more reading to show actual facts instead of theories:

http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

AA77 and the damage at the Pentagon

My opponent claims it was a missile of some sort that hit the Pentagon rather than an airliner. He has given us absolutely no proof at all of a missile hitting the building. I have given evidence of airplane parts, official reports of how a Boeing jet caused the damage, official reports of the bodies, official reports of the black box being found on the scene & many eyewitness accounts seeing an airplane.

UA93, the fake phone calls and the missing wreckage

Sertes claims that the phone calls made by the passengers of flight 93 were fake and/or made from a place other than the hijacked airplanes. We have direct testimony of one of the calls entered at the trial of one of the 9/11 defendants. We also have loved ones telling us there stories of the calls they received from passengers that day explaining they were on a plane that was hijacked. I've also given professional accounts of how these calls were very possible by cell experts. My opponent has offered no proof other than a theory to support this claim.

My opponent further proclaims missing wreckage at the crash scene of flight 93. First off, there was plenty of wreckage found at the scene and I provided documentation to prove this. I further added proof from investigators explaining what likely happened when an airliner nosedived into a field at 500+ mph.

Even former head of NIST fire department James Quintiere recently asked for a peer review of NIST work

Sertes tried to make more out of his words than were actually there. Quintiere simply wanted additional information/explanation as to how and why buildings fell that day. Quintiere never stated anything about bombs, or anything at all to support an "inside job". He simply wanted further investigation.

and there was no elevator going all the way to the floor except for the “express elevator” highlighted by the green arrow

My opponent claimed there was only one elevator in the WTC that went all the way from the top to the ground level. I have provided proof of about 20 elevators that went the length of the building AND official reports showing that some in fact did free fall to the basement level.

Scott Forbes and the power down of the WTC

My opponent claimed the WTC had an unprecedented power down the weekend before 9/11 and that all security was down as a result and all doors open. This is when he claimed a lot of the demolition equipment was installed. Further review I provided about Scott Forbes account showed that he really only knew about the floor HE was working on, and that power was actually only out from above the 48th floor, and he had no knowledge of WTC1 at all. My opponent has also offered no proof at all that security was down as a result or that any doors were left open.

The elevator doors blew open and the windows broken in the lobby were due to explosions in the basement

Sertes states that the elevator doors being blown open in the lobby and the windows being blown out were as a result of an explosion in the basement. He has offered no proof at all other than that of words from a janitor. He initially stated the janitor heard loud explosions. I later offered proof and direct testimony of the janitor himself shortly after 9/11 that what he actually heard was a loud rumble, and his story changed the further we got away from 9/11. Let's also consider that this janitor is now involved in a lawsuit seeking monetary gain from that day. So he wouldn't have anything to gain from his change in testimony, would he?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...z#RICO_lawsuit

Quite the opposite! The hijacked one is the only one on radar without its name tag attached to the dot!

My opponent contends that even though the transponders were turned off on the hijacked airliners that they should still have been easily tracked. I have already offered a direct rebuttal to this but allow me to add more:

http://www.911myths.com/html/primary_radar.html

As to whether it was Flight 77 that hit their or not” we cannot trust one single testimony that contradics all other photographic evidences

Once again my opponent implies it was something other than an airliner that hit the pentagon but offers no proof at all to backup his assertion. Furthermore, he mentions "one single testimony", while the fact is there were MANY eyewitnesses and a bunch of official reports stating otherwise.

The passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site. -That is part of the false flag inside job conspiracy, coverup.

I stated that remains from passengers and crew were recovered at the pentagon. My opponent's claim is that they weren't and that they were in fact killed elsewhere and shipped to the medical facility for identification. Again, no proof whatsoever provided, but I offered a ton of proof confirming an airliner hit the pentagon, reports of bodies on the scene, and official reports of bodies being sent for identification and their subsequent positive identifications.

Moreover, the black boxes for American Airlines flight 77 -- the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder -- were found at the Pentagon crash site. -Found, or placed?

I stated that the voice recorder and flight data recorder were both recovered at the pentagon crash scene. My opponent claims they were "placed" there. We have no proof to support his conspiracy theory but tons of proof that a hijacked airliner crashed there where the devices were recovered.

But answer me on this issue you skipped: Why the FBI didn’t release a single video from the 85 confiscated where AA77 can be clearly seen, closing the issue once for all?
They first said such videos might be used as proof on the Mousaui trial, but NOW? Now they simply deny FOIA requests.

Sertes claims that FOIA requests are denied for the hidden cameras surrounding the area of the pentagon. I have offered a link showing quite a few of these "missing" tapes, all brought forth as a result of FOIA requests.

See what Robert Hordon, a professional flight controller and member of Pilots for 9/11 truth, has to say about the call he made for American 11 and United 175

Robert Hordon made no such call. This is a widespread outright lie on many conspiracy websites. Robert Hordon retired as an air traffic controller in 1981.

Where was Rumsfeld on 9/11? He was on the pentagon lawn just after alleged hit by AA77, directing the removal of the pieces of evidence.

My opponent has given no evidence that Rumsfeld had evidence removed. In one of his own provided links it clearly explained why Rumsfeld was outside at the time, due to mandatory evacuations as a result of the crash.

Like I debated the calls from UA93, they routed the call from the area where the passengers were held to the area the AA77 drone was flying. Difficult to prove unless someone comes out, but not difficult to make.
The bodies of AA77 and those of UA93 were sent to the same military medical facility.

Once again my opponent claims the calls from flight 77 and/or 93 were made from other than the airliners and once again offers zero proof. I won't tire the board with the evidence yet again of how they were in fact made by the very passengers on the hijacked planes. He also again asserts his claims that the bodies weren't recovered from the scenes but shipped to the medical facility from elsewhere, another claim given with no proof whatsoever.

A small plane or a cruise missile hit it

Despite overwhelming proof to the contrary, my opponent still claims a missile or small plane hit the pentagon. Notice he never, not once, offered any proof of any kind to backup this assertion.

A drone of some sort, a flying machine such as a Global Hawk or a Cruise Missile, all we know for sure it that it was painted as an american airlines flight, it had only one small rotor, could fit in a 12 foot hole, it could produce an explosive shockwave capable of making a 12 foot hole straight ahead

Again with the missiles or drones but nothing in the line of evidence and nothing more than a conspiracy. I've provided much evidence that a Boeing jet crashed at the scene and expert testimony to back it up from the official investigators.

How much gold there was stored under the Twin Towers and how much gold was recovered from the rubble?

My opponent believes there was a lot of gold stored under the WTC towers, was recovered and possibly stolen in the aftermath. No proof at all has been given to show any gold at all remains missing and not a single person, company or entity claiming anything missing.

As you recall, my opponent requested this specific debate and said he would support the claim that 9/11 was an inside job. He has not supported this claim. He has not supported any of his claims. I have not saw on piece of credible or direct evidence provided by my opponent. Every last thing he has posted is based on conspiracy theories and "what if".

One would think if you are going to accuse the largest free country in the world of perpetrating the worst disaster ever on it's own soil that you would have something clear to backup such an outlandish claim. As an American citizen I am insulted at these claims and lack of proof. As someone who was in NYC that day and saw the effects of the aftermath, I am insulted. As an opponent in this debate I am insulted. The readers of this debate should feel insulted for being subjected to such claims without any proof offered. But we are believers in freedom of speech and allow not only our fellow citizens to speak their mind but also others from around the world. I have entertained the claims of my opponent and gave the most in-depth and direct proof I could while placing his argument in the conspiracy theory category, filed under "F" for failure to provide evidence to backup his claims.

9/11 was a terrible tragedy for the entire United States. It's become clear from the investigations that America as a whole could have done much more to prevent such attacks. Mistakes were made an our country paid an extremely large sum for these mistakes. We are all working harder to ensure an attack of this magnitude can never happen again. 9/11 is a day that terrorists attacked America and caught us asleep at the wheel. There is clear, convincing and irrefutable evidence of these attacks by terrorists. My opponent has offered us nothing to believe otherwise.

[jimnyc]

The 9/11 "inside job" debate is now complete and we welcome everyone who has an opportunity to have read the thread to vote for who they feel made a more compelling argument.