It is as likely or more likely that 9/11 was an inside job as compared to any other scenario.

1R. The biggest problem with your photo references is that it's a photo that is very far away. You cannot clearly see a plane in those photos as the plane crashed into a building going over 400MPH- something that would cause immense damage to a plane, especially considering the reinforced walls of the pentagon. Nobody claims that the plane literally vaporized, so you are essentially shooting down a straw man here. The plane did not vaporize, but it did disintegrate. I have compiled a significant amount of photos proving that there was in fact debris all over the field of the pentagon. (http://dnpen.com...), located on my own website for convenience. 2R. There's a simple explanation for why you see no wings and why there are no 'wing holes'. To understand this, you need to think of what you would expect to see in this situation. The pentagon is surrounded by very strong reinforced concrete, while it was not strong enough to hold back a plane going ~500MPH- it will cause weak structures on the plane to collapse. The wings simply snapped off and into the hole along with the rest of the plane. Logic does not dictate that when a plane crashes into a reinforced building that there should be a cookie cutter outline of the plane, nor that the plane should be fully intact. 3R. Seizing video of tape and other evidence relating to the criminal investigation regarding the attacks on 9/11 is typical. I would find the government even more incompetent if it had not seized the tapes involved. I can understand why the government did not release tapes of the incident on private property, I'm sure that there's some standard of evidence which prevents tapes seized on private property from being made public. The videos they released were indeed of poor quality, so much so that you cannot clearly see the plane. This is to be expected, when you consider the videos were ~1FPS security videos, the chances of a plane going ~500MPH being caught in more than one frame are actually rather low. If you watch this video carefully, you can see a plane coming in (http://www.youtube.com...) at about 1:25 and at this video (http://www.youtube.com...) at about 24 seconds. The government not releasing tapes of the planes hitting (the ones taken on private property) means nothing; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Furthermore, video evidence is not the only evidence that you can clearly see, the most important being the large chunks of debris scattered all over the field. 4R. Very fun video, it's what first got me started on this sort of thing from your side. I too believed that 9/11 was somewhat questionable; however, as I researched more and started using my logic I had to come to the conclusion that the only plausible explanation was the normal story. Scenario 2. 1R. Refuted in S1R1 2R. My research has indicated that only one passport was found, which is not surprising considering the 'official' story mentions nothing of a plane vaporizing. In fact, shortly after the first plane hit, plane debris and paper was found all over the road (http://www.911myths.com...). Furthermore, how would having someone drop off a passport help their case enough to do it? If the government has the massive power to stage this whole thing, why would dropping off a single passport help their case? 3R. You're confused here. Simply because people have the same name as the hijackers does not mean that they were the hijackers. This was an article on mistaken identity, not an article trying to prove or show that hijackers are still alive, rather, some people have been perhaps mistaken as hijackers. The BBC made an effort to refute all conspyracy claims that came out of this story here (http://www.bbc.co.uk...), which I believe they did rather well. S3 R1. This should not need much explanation, so I'll make this somewhat quick- while still being thorough as possible. There is no special reason why the buildings should somehow be slower than usual in such a catastrophic collapse like this. Furthermore, the claim that simply because it has never happened before that it is impossible, unlikely, questionable, odd, etc is a outright fallacious argument, argumentum ad antiquitatem. A lot of firsts happen in the world, surprisingly. Before I had my first girlfriend was it impossible for me to ever get one? After all, she would have been my /first/. Was flight possible before our first flight? While no plane has ever hit a tower, fully loaded, going over 500MPH hour either, it's absolutely unquestionable that it happened. It's clear that the building was not falling at free fall. Parts of the building were falling ahead of the cloud of debris (http://dnpen.com...) , furthermore the collapse took around 16 seconds, much more than it would fall in free fall (http://www.youtube.com...) FURTHERMORE, the 'official' report mentions nothing of melting. It does however mention that the fireproofing was blown off, and that the structure was allowed to weaken (the floor started to collapse) after the main supports (Both in the center, and on the side, as in this specially designed building) were severely damaged. 2R. The building was designed to be hit by a 707, landing or taking off in foggy weather. The building was not designed to be hit by a fully loaded plane going 500+ MPH, furthermore, the issue involving fire insulation was not anticipated. The collapse was not caused by the 'netting' being damaged, rather the fireproofing being knocked off and the subsequent fire. "FACTS" 1. Building 7 did not have "minimal" fire damage, it was hit rather hard by debris, and was likely being fueled by a massive fire from fuel stockpiles. IT also had severe structural damage. A good deal of the building was on fire.(http://dnpen.com...) 2. A. I'd like you to prove that "Pull" is a real industry term for 'demolish'. I've looked around and have been unable to find this term used outside of 9/11 conspiracy websites. What he was speaking of was in fact, literally pulling building 6 down, sacrificing it. They were worried that building 6 would damage the slurry wall, and decided to pull it- not with explosives, but a crane (http://dnpen.com...) 3. Taken in context, this is what he said shortly after "at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding," 4- all other explosion related material--- You don't really cite anything, so it's hard to refute anything that's not very specific. It was a confusing day, many things sounded like 'explosions', including debris, or possible electrical fires. That means nothing. Please provide specific examples if you want a more thorough examination. 3 There is no evidence of molten steel. Although some 'molten' substance was spotted, this was shown to be aluminum. Aluminum can melt at much lower temperatures, temperatures of around 500- whereas the fire reached temperatures of over 1000. A bomb could not simply melt steel, thermite would be required to melt steel .If you know how thermite works, you would realize that this is far less bomb like, rather it's a very hot burning fire that simply 'melts' the metal. Now, how would this work, considering the columns are sideways? Thermite uses gravity as it's aid, how would this thermite travel sideways? In fact, if thermite was used, why would we hear these explosions you mentioned earlier? Thermite is entirely quiet, it's not a 'bomb'. Your attacks on bush and his family are ad hominem attacks, irrelevant to the discussion, as are your mentioning of ON, ETC. Sorry, hit character limit. Had to remove some stuff.