9/11 was NOT a hoax or conspiracy.

Finally... some actual good debate on this subject. I would like to see where you get your information as well, since you only provide one link to a picture. Your quoted material is from where? Mine is summary, but in the future I will provide links to my sources. As you have said, Demartini was a construction manager - not an engineer. He is not authorized to pass judgment on the structural capabilities of the towers. On top of that, his statement did not mention any actual hard data concerning multiple jetliners: "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 PROBABLY COULD sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. [Emphasis added]" Demartini's belief has no bearing on the actual capabilities of the structure. In fact, Demartini wasn't even involved with the WTC untill the truck bomb in 1993. (http://911research.wtc7.net...) As for the free-fall - I will appeal to common sense. The towers could not begin to collapse until the internal connections between the floor and the mesh/core were severed. A collapse of one floor probably isn't enough to damage the building. However, the jet took out 3 or 4 floors at once. The combined collapse would not only begun a pancake scenario inside the building, but destabilized the mesh, causing the snapping we see as the mesh buckles outward in the collapses. This snapping, nearly a thousand feet off the ground would have only needed to impart a VERY SMALL lateral velocity to move debris 500 feet away from the tower. That's only a 6 inch per foot lateral movement as it falls 1000 feet. As for your picture, you didn't present that before, so claims I didn't refute it are immaterial. Examine the following pictures: 1) http://milmac.com... 2) http://milmac.com... 3) http://milmac.com... 4) http://milmac.com... 5) http://algoxy.com... The first one is the inset beam in the picture. Second is what we'd expect to see from an explosive shear of the same beam (I simply modeled a beam in 3ds Max 9). Third is what we actually see in the photo - the brown segment representing the differences. The fourth picture shows the surfaces with molten metal on them. And the last picture is a comparison between explosive shear (left) and a torch cut (right). Now compare the first and last pictures. Looks like a torch cut to me. There is no evidence to suggest that Steven E. Young - the "experienced doctor" who put forth the argument towards thermite - was even present at ground zero to examine the materials. All Young says is that it's possible that thermite could have been used to demolish the Towers. It's also possible that a nuclear bomb could have done it. Young does not present fact - only conjecture. Furthermore, there is a list of reasons why thermite could not have been the cause of the collapse, including the fact that pre-planted thermite on the upper floors would have ignited when the plane crashed into the building. Also, thermite isn't stable enough to be used in large-scale detonations like would be required to level the WTC Towers. (http://www.cloakanddagger.de...) The hijackers that were on the airplanes are dead. A simple Google search will reveal a number of images of the hijackers going through airport security (http://images.google.com...). This notion that the people who flew the planes into the towers are still alive is laughable. The people claiming to be the hijackers are clearly seeking media attention, or being paid by al-Qaeda. If you watch this video (http://youtube.com...) you will see a scientific reconstruction of the collision with the building. Debris can clearly be seen exiting the far side of the building in both the reconstruction and in actual footage. It's not hard to believe at all that portions of the cockpit module could have remained intact and exited the buildings. You provide no counterattack besides third hand accounts of Bin Laden financing the attacks. Al-Qeada members have specifically stated that Bin Laden financed and was partially responsible for 9-11. The person who PLANNED the attack even said Bin Laden was responsible. (http://www.9-11commission.gov...) and (http://news.bbc.co.uk...) This notion of there being only safe pilots and non-safe pilots is laughable as well. You call the person who graduated last in his class at med school "doctor" - you call the person who graduated last in his class at flight school "Captain." Look here: (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org...) a picture of Hani Hanjour's Commercial Pilot's License. Obviously he must have been able to pass the tests to get a license. The FAA doesn't just hand them out as party favors. I still await your source on this "impossible maneuver" that is performed on a daily basis by pilots, live and computers. My source? I've been INSIDE a plane performing that maneuver on three separate occasions. The FBI only confiscated 3 videos of the Pentagon attack. The gas station, the hotel roof, and the camera overseeing I-395. You present a series of quotes, all of which are refuted by the link I already posted that you apparently did not read. So I'll post it again: (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com...) 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. I'm not sure that your point is here. The Zeitgeist movie is simply using one aspect of a crash to support claims about the entire thing. 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. 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. The FBI was not behind the WTC attack in 1993 - it was Ramzi Yousef (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Provide a source for ridiculous claims like the CIA being behind terrorism. Do your research - the quote about the scenario being run was about the London Bombings, not 9-11. (http://www.wsws.org...) This last quote doesn't really surprise me - another example of bureaucratic failure. So what? All that means is that it could have possibly been prevented - not that it didn't happen. My response to your final question: I question anything that purports the United States as the responsible party for the attacks on 9/11. And you should too, when they are as founded on conjecture and hypothesis as the Zeitgeist source and not science and logic.