I will argue that no passenger jet airliners hit the World Trade Center buildings on 911. I will use physics and engineering concepts to substantiate my claims. I will provide videos links of scientific explanation that support this claim. I will use video footage of the supposed airliners that hit the Trade Center Towers used by the media. I will use live media by reputable news sources, and media sent to reputable news sources provided by anonymous individuals. I will provide argument that is inductively stronger than the existing claims that passenger jet airliners hit the World Trade Center Towers. I will not begin this argument until Auschwitz Debate is finished, because of the apparent emotional response on here on that issue. I'm open to the standard set of rules, but I demand the arguments be structured with discipline or I will not waste my time arguing. If you don't have the energy or the discipline it takes to be formal with me, don't bother even trying to challenge me. I propose that written arguments themselves must follow these rules: 1. Each person must make an argument that declares the writer's position on the argument at hand. 2. Each argument must have a set of clearly defined premises that illustrate the argument's line of reasoning. 3. Each premise must be supported with evidence that validates the argument's premise. 4. Each argument must end in a conclusion that can be deductively drawn from the premises or end in an inductively strong conclusion that can be drawn from the premises.