• You get 100 truthers in a room, they'll probably only all agree that a new and OPEN investigation be promulgated. The misinformation has bred so much skepticism, healthy and unhealthy, it's really the only way to better understand things. People who hate truthers can't distance themselves from the emotion of 9/11. But really, they want a new investigation, and they're going about it in a pretty harmless way.

• Pentagon. Speculation: If conspiracy plotters sought out to damage the Pentagon, a targeted missile would reduce variability and increase the chance for success.

• Hijackers. Many of the alleged hijackers, after the US government released their names and faces to the media, turned out to be alive as reported by the BBC and the Telegraph. Terrorist hijackers could have obtained their passports in any number of ways. But why wouldn't our government revise the list of hijackers, if not to help uncover the identities of the true culprits? Plus, the forensic team found the 19 passport needles in the haystack rubble of two gigantic skyscrapers within a week. If it were a Bruce Willis movie, you'd say, "This is effin' stupid!"

• Demolition. The buildings stood for nearly an hour after the jet impact and initial fireballs. But, they fell to the ground. The official story says the mass of the top portion of the towers above the explosion acted like a piledriver to bring the entire tower to the ground. I don't see how that's possible. The mass didn't change. The building below always held up the weight of that top portion. Imagine a Volkswagen (floors 85-110) driving head-on into a parked semi-truck (floors 1-85). Is the volkswagen gonna pop out the back of the cab? For me, personally, in that picture, the top portion of the South Tower looks like its sliding off the building at an angle. What happened to it? Why wasn't that top portion in one giant 15-story chunk on the ground?

Thanks for responding. Interesting points.

Terrorist hijackers could have obtained their passports in any number of ways. But why wouldn't our government revise the list of hijackers, if not to help uncover the identities of the true culprits?

Not sure I fully understand this, but interesting. I'll read more.

19 passports, 7 (maybe more) report they are alive. Why aren't those 7 people off the list? The FBI Website asks you, vigilant citizen, to call the toll free hotline number 1-866-483-5137 if you have any information on these people.

Call 'em up! You can give them that BBC article.

Anyway, 9/11 Truth.org has a "Top 40" Reasons to Doubt, from which you can link to the "crash course" and be introduced to the money/conspiracy angles which may or may not be compelling. Science is harder to argue with, however, and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is a good resource if you want often boring and technical discussions of physics and energetics, etc.

The government also found and delivered Mohommad Atta's passport to the media, UNTOUCHED and NOT BURNED, recovered from the wreckage... TWICE.

Building 7: was not hit by anything. Fell at free fall speed. The only logical explanation is controlled demolition, which takes weeks of planning and preparation.

Building 7 was hit by a shit load of debris. I don't know what videos or pictures you've seen but I saw the tower get slammed by debris from the north tower and there are pictures of WTC 7 from a north west angle that clearly show the south west bottom floors being significantly damaged. In fact, there is no footage of the damage from a southern perspective, so we will never be able to truly gauge the damage sustained by the building. In any case, since you simply stated that the building 7 wasn't hit by anything, when there is irrefutable proof that it was hit by something, the premise of your argument is refuted. Thus your conclusion would not be self-evident, even in the event that just an uncontrolled fire were proven to be unable to bring down a building of WTC 7's size and design..

You should have more upvotes. Evidence is evidence.

Frankly, if one corner of the building is so significantly damaged, Building 7 would be expected to fall in that direction; a natural, symmetrical collapse still defies explanation.

If you read my post thoroughly you'd realize that we don't know the extent of the damage. Furthermore, we don't have sufficient camera angles of the WTC 7 collapse to actually know whether or not the collapse was actually symmetrical. Lastly, there is no reason why a symmetrical collapse can only be induced by explosions.

Lots of surrounding buildings were hit by "a shit load of debris". Only WTC7 fell.

My hockey team captain worked at Merrill Lynch. Their building was HEAVILY damaged and burned here and there. Didn't fall.

The only thing agreed about would be that the official story is false. That is obvious and the only thing really of concern.

The #1 problem with arguing about this is that there are so many details/theories and people get too wrapped up in that debate. The main argument should just be that it's impossible to happen the way that they claim it happened. Even the people involved in the investigation agree with that. The onus is on the gov't to prove what happened, not on us to grasp at straws as to the details

Whence came the thermite and the thermate that has been proved to be in the dust?

I'm interested in hearing from people who believe that the 9-11 attacks didn't unfold as most people believed they did.

What, exactly, are you asking here? Polls outside the USA indicate that "most people" don't believe the 9/11 Commission report. (Polls inside the USA can't be trusted, but I expect the numbers will be similarly anti-government.)

So, "most people" believe it happened some other way than what the 9/11 report claims.

Which brings me to the conundrum of your initial statement: Are you asking if there is anyone here who believes the government fairy tale?

You are, quite obviously, trolling. My question is: Why? Are you, Jwschmidt, redditor for 11 months, in the process of collecting names and identities of people who might be able to be classified as dissidents and/or domestic terrorists (e.g., a list of people who no longer merit their Miranda Rights)?

You've laid out all the points you want responses from and then pre-emptively dismissed all responses:

Again, I'm genuinely interested in hearing your views, not trying to condescend (though I doubt I will agree with you).

You are a troll.

[deleted]

Wanna know the punch line?

Jwschmidt didn't have a response for this... they just disappeared once they got called to account.

The nice thing about this, however, is that... well... I really don't give a shit what you think about me or anyone else in this subreddit. Ya see, there's a great irony in the fact that finally, after a few years of being labeled as "crazy", the material these people were submitting years ago is finally making it to mainstream reddit. Point being: the people here are being vindicated... almost on a daily basis.

Have fun labeling people. It'll likely end up costing you most of your friends, in the end, but.. you know... you will have had fun doing it.

This video was interesting to me if you have not seen it. I don't have an opinion about what actually happened, I was not there. All I know is that I have been lied to.

And this video http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

I wish I could give this 100 upvotes. This is by far the best and most damning 9/11 documentary I have seen. Logical, meticulously researched, and, ultimately, downright scary.

I already thought the circumstances surrounding the pentagon incident were dodgy at best, but this video just blew my mind. I was skeptical at first (their theory sounds crackpot to begin with) but I stuck with it because it was so well produced... but the way it mounts up the evidence... well, it's hard to argue with by the end.

EDIT: I would be interested if anyone has any critique or further analysis of the contents of this video, whether for or against.

The testimony of the two cops should be enough, but I especially appreciated what the Taxi Driver said in the end "I'm too small for this"

I have to say that the video did indeed make a great point, but I can see this sort of stuff being labeled irrelevant because it's circumstantial.

[deleted]

9 of the hijackers are still alive

There are a number of camps under the 'truther' banner that have different theories about what went on, for example the two main camps are the "Let it happen on purpose" group and the "Made it happen on purpose" group. They see eye to eye on a few things though...

Generally speaking, is there an alternative narrative to the attacks that is agreed upon by most 9\11 truthers? For example, if you got 100 truthers in a room, would most of them agree about which aspects of the plot were faked\set up and what "Actually" happened?

Building 7. It wasn't hit by a plane, it fell down at virtually freefall speed (gotta say virtually because people will argue over milliseconds here), which means that all the support columns were taken out at the same time. 'Skeptics' will say that WTC7 had an abnormal base to it, which is why it gave way and the whole building collapsed into its footprint. But demolition is a tricky business, it's actually pretty difficult to make a building collapse into a pile of rubble. For example, if you don't do things exactly right, something like this or this happens. There's a reason why the people doing these things are paid the big bucks... buildings are designed to take a fair amount of damage without totally collapsing.

A common theory seems to be the pentagon was not actually hit by a plane. Why do you think the conspiracy plotters would choose to do this, given that a hijacked plane hitting there would indeed cause a significant amount of damage?

The part hit was under construction so it was pretty much empty, and was in the process of being reinforced to deal with bomb blasts. I don't really know if a plane hit there or not, I happen to be one of the few people who actually believe the magic bullet theory, so maybe I'm the wrong guy to ask. But pilots have come out saying that the manuevering done at that speed to hit a reletively small target while not bouncing off the ground or anything would have required an expert pilot. And according to news reports on ABC and several others, the flight instructors interviewed said that the hijackers couldn't handle a single prop plane at much slower speeds. I'm sure you've seen this picture though that does raise some concerns. Frankly I don't really know what happened at the pentagon. I'd rather stick to things that are more concrete because if they can be proven false, the whole house of cards comes down anyway.

Do you believe that the hijackers on the planes were not, in fact, islamist fanatics who did what they did for those reasons? If not, how do you see a group of non-islamist conspirators coordinating their actions with them?

Probably the same way we coordinated their actions with the Taliban or any of the other rebel groups we've recruited to do our bidding... like in Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, etc.

I've read a bit about the controlled demolition theory, which mentions that the fires in the buildings were not enough to bring the support beams down. I have to ask... does this theory also incorporate the fact that the towers were hit by a large aircraft moving at high speed that subsequently exploded?

Assuming that fires alone couldn't bring down the towers, which is generally accepted... it must have been the planes themselves ripping out giant holes of support columns. The problem I personally see with that is that you have 2 buildings taking asymmetrical damage and falling symmetrically. If it wasn't the fires that spread (assuming somewhat evenly) that caused the collapse, the missing supports on 1 side of the structure must have been the culprit. But I'd think that they'd fall unevenly, right? Towards the path of least resistance. If it falls down evenly, it means that there must have not been any support anywhere for them to come down like that. But what we do see appears to be what is called a 'top down demolition', like in this video.

But really, no one truly knows what happened on 9/11. No matter which side you pick, all it boils down to is which 3rd party source you're willing to listen to. Some people will believe the 'official' sources because they don't see how or why the US would ever attack itself to justify war, which isn't entirely accurate... or they listen to 'alternative' sources where they think its 100% inside job, which I'm not completely convinced of either. No matter which side you pick though, you're picking it based on faith in whatever source you're listening to... the only real answer imo is to admit that you don't know what happened on 9/11. And it's not a bad thing to admit that you don't know. It's worse to pick a side and become so emotionally involved in it to the point where you're shoving it down peoples throats like some sorta religion. But based on the past actions which have been admitted to, the gov't isn't terribly opposed to breaking a few eggs to make an omelette and that's the scary part.

You don't need to know the truth about anything to know you're begin fed bullshit.

First of all, you should redirect your question. You are currently asking everyone. The United States Federal Government's claim is that 19 hijackers and Osama bin Laden's purported organization conspired to commit 9/11. It is a conspiracy theory. They have publicized little evidence to back their claim.

For your bullet points, I'll offer some feedback:

Generally speaking, is there an alternative narrative to the attacks that is agreed upon by most 9\11 truthers? For example, if you got 100 truthers in a room, would most of them agree about which aspects of the plot were faked\set up and what "Actually" happened?

As with any large story, you'll get lots of answers. And as with "conspiracy theorists" or those who tend not to believe the official story I sense that they will band together. So if you are asking this question to 100 people, in front of the 100 people, then yes, you'll get a consistent story. But individually, you'll get lots of theories.

I'm happy to offer my theories if this thread continues.

A common theory seems to be the pentagon was not actually hit by a plane. Why do you think the conspiracy plotters would choose to do this, given that a hijacked plane hitting there would indeed cause a significant amount of damage?

Something hit the pentagon. The going theory is not what hit but what didn't hit. There is little evidence that a large commercial airliner hit it, including the inability to fly an aircraft that size, that fast, that low. Those airplanes have too much lift to fly at 400+ mph at 40 feet.

Do you believe that the hijackers on the planes were not, in fact, islamist fanatics who did what they did for those reasons? If not, how do you see a group of non-islamist conspirators coordinating their actions with them?

I think it's likely they were. And they probably believed they were hijacking the planes. And they probably learned their fate the same time the other passengers did.

I've read a bit about the controlled demolition theory, which mentions that the fires in the buildings were not enough to bring the support beams down. I have to ask... does this theory also incorporate the fact that the towers were hit by a large aircraft moving at high speed that subsequently exploded?

Yes, it does. Although remember that of your 100 conspiracy theorists, 99 of them are not engineers, and the one that is, probably isn't a structural engineer. So it's hard to say what impact the impact had on the buildings.

But you can easily offer some conjecture. For example, the damage caused by the aircraft was more or less instant. The damage didn't get worse over time from the impact, so the impact wasn't likely the cause of failure.

Yes, the fire was hot. Yes, steel weakens when it's hot. Did the fire cause the collapse of two steel-framed, concrete supported buildings--including the central concrete cores? Apparently it depends who you ask.

I think it's likely they were. And they probably believed they were hijacking the planes. And they probably learned their fate the same time the other passengers did.cc Would you explain this, please?

Sure. I will contend that the hijackers were patsies. They thought the plan was to hijack the planes, and play out some other scenario.

They learned after taking over the cockpit that the plans were on autopilot ... and not the normal kind, but remotely controlled.

In the case of Shanksville, the passengers overtook the hijackers and then learned the plane was flying itself (perhaps to DC.) When they learned this, they probably tried to contact someone on the ground. This communication was overheard and the plane removed from its flight path by Cheney's direction.

Anyway that's my theory.

So that explains why they argued over the price of a prostitute ...they didn't think they were going to their death....that is chilling!

• The only ones who know what "actually" happened are the perpetrators of the highly compartmentalized plot*. It doesn't matter if we agree what "actually" happened - at this point in time - if we can agree with the authors of the 9/11 Commission Report who have publicly stated the official 9/11 Commission Report conclusions are utter bullshit. If you believed them when they first wrote it, why don't you believe them when they later said what they wrote was false?

• It is irrelevant to an extent what hit the Pentagon when you consider that the wing that was damaged was empty for remodeling when it was hit, and the thousands of people whose offices were typically housed there had been temporarily relocated, and that undeniable evidence for what hit the Pentagon exists in the security footage from surrounding buildings - but the Pentagon will only release 30 seconds from one camera that is about two frames per second. Also consider that experienced pilots (remember the accused were not experienced, and in fact only marginally capable as stated by their trainers) have said they, in all their years of experience, would have great difficulty in simultaneously dropping thirty thousand feet while banking 270 degrees at five hundred miles an hour to hit a target ten feet off the ground without touching the ground and hitting their target the first time with no practice and little training.

• Several of the 'hijackers' have publicly appeared in other nations and stated that they were not involved and are clearly still living. Several other of the accused hijackers participated in US Military flight training through an exchange program. Who were they? I don't know, but I know they weren't who we were told they were.

• The WTC was mostly empty throughout its entire occupied life! How hard would it be to rig a nearly empty building, when the occupied parts were cleared for special maintenance & fireproofing service just a couple weeks before the 'attacks'? Also consider that the WTC was the tallest building in existence when it was built, and demolition was a huge concern, so it was constructed with eventual demolition in mind - making the demolition very straight-forward as it was a design goal.

Thank you for caring to ask. I didn't directly answer your questions but I hope I've given you something to think about why those questions might not be the right ones to ask.

* Most people think "how could anyone carry out a plot like this without leaks or exposure" while forgetting that the US Gov & intelligence agencies are professionals at compartmentalization, which means no one knows more than they need to know, the pieces are set so far apart you can't put them together without already knowing where they are, and everyone thinks their contribution is innocuous to the whole, or contributing towards a different goal than it actually does. Also consider that the US Gov & intelligence services use compartmentalization as part of their day-to-day operations, which are ongoing for sixty years and hundreds of thousands of people, and they rarely suffer leaks. Compartmentalization is stronger than you can imagine.

I've read a bit about the controlled demolition theory, which mentions that the fires in the buildings were not enough to bring the support beams down. I have to ask... does this theory also incorporate the fact that the towers were hit by a large aircraft moving at high speed that subsequently exploded?

I've always wondered why this seems to be forgotten. A fuel-laden large jet, traveling at a high rate of speed, and which explodes. Yet, "the fire was not strong enough to bring down the building." Of course it wasn't! The impact and the explosion helped!

"But, it was engineered to withstand a 707 impact!" Yes, and if ANYONE ever read that engineering, which I doubt anyone here has, you will see that the engineers NEVER expected the plane to be flying at full speed. Their assumption was that a 707 would be traveling slowly because it either just took off from one of the three airports nearby, or was about to land. And finally, sometimes, engineers are flat wrong. The Tacoma-Narrows bridge was engineered to withstand the wind, and it didn't.

http://listverse.com/2007/12/04/top-10-worst-engineering-disasters/

The thing is, a "controlled" demolition ISN'T NECESSARY for the story. This could have been a government operation, an Israeli operation, or even a Islamic terrorist operation. But blowing up the buildings with explosives isn't necessary to the story, UNLESS you simply like conspiracy theories.

Well, yeah. This gets to the heart of what I'm trying to learn about from the Truther point of view. It seems to me that there are many aspects of the conspiracy that you could choose to include or not, and I'm interested in seeing if/how it comes together into a single workable narrative for them.

For me, i dont think things go perectly into a single workable narrative. The fact is, there are so many holes, and possibilities, that we dont really know for sure what happened. All I know is the official story is false. The Towers came down at free fall speed. To me, it seems improbable, that there would be "Explosions" All over the building from the planes themselves, or the towers beams being severed the way they were. Same with building 7, same with the fact that there was no video footage released by the pentagon. Why is that? With all these questions and no answers, its obvious there was a cover up. As well, it is obvious it was used to go into iraq for oil.

I'm interested in seeing if/how it comes together into a single workable narrative for them.

Since we have no real venue to develop a single workable narrative for everyone who disbelieves the official story, as there is no coherent evidence-obtaining and evaluating investigation, you have to understand that what is most important right now isn't developing a single narrative that can also be proven untrue, but demonstrating how the existing narrative isn't true - what anyone person thinks about what actually happened is simply not relevant at this stage.

I'm interested in hearing from people who believe that the 9-11 attacks didn't unfold as most people believed they did. I am not a 9-11 skeptic...

If you're not a 911 skeptic, you're in the minority according to recent polls, so your initial statement is self-contradictory. I would like to know why you are a firm non-skeptic of the official conspiracy theory.

ditto, but more elaborate

The simple physics of all the buildings falling, and the lack of ANY plane wreckage at the Pentagon makes believing the "official" story an insult to any individuals intelligence.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people.

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations. Source: SFGate

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had - in a way - conflicts of interest”.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

The members of the commission were:

1. Thomas Kean (Chairman) - Republican, former Governor of New Jersey
2. Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 9th District of Indiana
3. Richard Ben-Veniste - Democrat, attorney, former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office
4. Max Cleland - Democrat, former U.S. Senator from Georgia. Resigned December 2003, stating that the "the White House has played cover-up"
5. Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel
6. Jamie Gorelick - Democrat, former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
7. Slade Gorton - Republican, former U.S. Senator from Washington
8. Bob Kerrey - Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska
9. John F. Lehman - Republican, former Secretary of the Navy
10. Timothy J. Roemer - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 3rd District of Indiana
11. James R. Thompson - Republican, former Governor of Illinois

Of those 11 Members, 6 (marked in bold) are quoted and sourced here by very reputable main stream news organizations, implying that the official version of events is fiction. That is 55% of the commission, more than half, that have publicly stated or implied that the official version is false.

more than half

Question: WTF does an "opinion" had to do with what did/didn't happen on 9/11?

Brilliant job on the open mind thing, pal. What you need are FACTS. I'm firmly convinced that it was an inside job. I was one block away from the first plane and down in the battery from the 2nd. Being there tells you NOTHING about what happened, though. But does the official story hold water? Hell no. Research who Hani Hanjour was... the supposed pilot of the Pentagon 757, for instance.

Watch this video http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

1.5 hours of Timeline and Circumstantial Truth:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3865048042993700360#

2 Hours of Evidence ands technical analysis by qualified parties:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314#

Pentagon story cannot hold water upon elementary forensic scrutiny

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

You can deny all you want. You can hide and demand everyone is nuts to believe this much less actually "take a look and listen and look again." I never wanted to think it but I can no longer believe for one minute the USG story holds water, whatsoever, and that we are indeed being run by shadow conspirators who have the money, power, and desire to steer this nation into radical directions.

1) A zionist-neocon cabal planned and orchestrated the whole thing.

2) False. Plane hit the pentagon.

3) Hijackers were useful idiots with Mossad handlers. Planes were remote controlled.

4) Towers were designed to withstand aircraft collision. Controlled demolition theory takes these collisions into account.

You are wording people up with your comment "most people believed they did".

Around the world surveys have more people not believing the official story. Try googling or searching the surveys undertaken.

The words "conspiracy theory" is what the now privatised version of operation mockingbird has taught americans to say whenever anything concerning the USA's black operations is mentioned.

It takes the testimony of only one man to convict another in the united states of a crime yet 10,000's of qualified people are questioning 9/11 and are ignored, this conduct by the US government is the biggest alarm bell.

Before you ask people for answers you need to learn the questions

http://patriotsquestion911.com/ Military for the truth (and others)

http://www.ae911truth.org/ Architects and Engineers for the truth

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ Pilots for the truth

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ Scholars for the truth

http://pl911truth.com/ Political leaders for the truth

http://mediafor911truth.org/ Media for the truth

http://l911t.com/ Lawyers for the truth

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/ Fire fighters for the truth

http://rl911truth.org/ Religious leaders for the truth

The events of 9/11 are only a small part of something much bigger and more sinister and are actually irrelevant when viewed in the bigger picture.

Well if you feel like taking the red pill, Let's Roll Forums has a shit ton of pictures, videos, and theories will shatter every perception you ever had of 9/11.

In response to your second bullet point:

The Pentagon is not an easy target. A huge plane like that, heading toward the ground at top speed (or faster) would be extremely difficult to control. At around 19:00 of this video you can hear a couple of pilots describing how unlikely it would be for even an experienced pilot to crash into the Pentagon under those conditions. A missile, or explosives of some kind, would be much more manageable.

Transportation secretary Norman Mineta (the man who gave the order on 9/11 to ground all civilian aircraft traffic for the first time in U.S. history) testified to the 9/11 Commission about his time spent with Vice President Cheney during the Pentagon attack, revealing that Cheney knew the attack was coming and allowed it to happen, but this was omitted from the final 911 Commission Report. Video.

Fishy.

The answers are all at your finger-tips but they are only part of an equation of being able to 'see' the truth (being that we have been blatantly lied to on such a massive scale). The other parts of the equation involve your ability to think critically and put pieces together in order to see the big picture and lastly your willingness to deal with the cognitive ramifications of accepting said truth. 2 out of 3 isn't going to do it.

Keep in mind that the government has taken the affirmative position and that any number of things in the official story could be lies. It's not the truthers responsibility to explain every detail of what happened that day. Its almost impossible to know exactly what happened as well as who knew what or when they knew it, but it's more likely that individual pieces of the story will be proven false. When enough pieces have been demonstrated to be false, there will be public demand for a new investigation and hopefully it will not be another whitewash.

Osama Bin Laden works for the CIA.

If the towers were brought down by demolition charges, why bother with planes at all?

You should have more upvotes. Evidence is evidence.

Frankly, if one corner of the building is so significantly damaged, Building 7 would be expected to fall in that direction; a natural, symmetrical collapse still defies explanation.

Lots of surrounding buildings were hit by "a shit load of debris". Only WTC7 fell.

I think it's likely they were. And they probably believed they were hijacking the planes. And they probably learned their fate the same time the other passengers did.cc Would you explain this, please?