"no planes on 9/11" thoery

I will address your post in a line by line format: "popularmechanics = yellow journalism" Your personal taste is irrelevant. Popular Mechanics is a legitimate citation regardless of whether or not it supports your opinion. "i think we can all agree that fire does not explode buildings period" You are quite wrong in your assertion. When fuel, fire, and air mix in the appropriate proportions with a steady supply of oxygen, an explosion will occur. If you have an airliner filled with high octane (read: octane ratings of 95+) fuel and oxygen, you will get a tremendous explosion. Similar to the ones seen on 9/11. "The towers came down in 9 seconds" Your wrong in your facts. The towers took 15 seconds to completely collapse. Furthermore, this is another matter of physics. Not an element of conspiracy or subterfuge. Take for instance the spire. Using the equation Distance=(1/2)(F_gravity)(Time)^2 We find the maximum amount of time it would take for the spire (The maximum height of the building) to fall naturally (read: due to gravity) to be approx 15 seconds - which is what you see in the video. If the towers had collapsed due to an explosion rather than an implosion, the time needed for the spire to fall would be significantly less, along the lines of 12-13 seconds due to the increase in kinetic energy. "6 OF THE 9 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY" This does not imply that they agree with your point of view in the slightest. "all the existing plane crash videos are forged, a simple back to back comparison shows how they disqualify each other" Give me scientific evidence that proves that the videos have been tampered with, and not pseudo-scientific analysis, and I will believe you. "And why is a Boeing 767 portrayed as black in full sunlight? and when you do a close up on it, i garentee you thats not a Boeing 767. Besides you think those amateur flyers could maneuver that big plane into that small target, when two experienced pilots tried to hit a target as big as the wtc and failed 6 times." It's black because of your angle relative to the light source. In most cases, as it was morning on the 9/11, the sun was rising. Thus the plane was placed between the light source (the sun) and your eyes, creating a silhouette. A rather crude example would be holding your hand in front of a lamp - it gets noticeably darker, though not "black" due to the crude nature of the model. Furthermore these "amateur" fliers all possessed aviation licenses - regardless of that fact, it still does not take that much skill to crash a plane. "ok for every action there is an equal reaction, so how is it possible that the plane disappears YES DISAPPEARED LOOK AT IT, into that steel building thats so stupid to think thats possible." As I've previously stated, there was enough momentum in the aircraft to initially pierce the building. And as you've noted for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So as the plane is applying 700000 kg of force per ft^2, the building is also applying relatively the same force back. As you could imagine, this would deform the plane rather drastically - causing it both fracture into component pieces, as well as becoming "stuck" in the WTC infrastructure. "Although i will say this three of the flights were supposedly headed to lax, were were the family members? not one showed up." Proof? Conclusion: My opponent has neglected to address the mathematical flaws of his argument. Furthermore he has challenged legitimate sources on the basis of his personal opinion that their research is flawed - and yet he has not offered any contrary opinions to refute their findings.