Sigh. No disrespect intended, but you could spend the rest of your life arguing this stuff, just like any other conspiracy theory. But I'll bite this once so it doesn't look like I'm 'ignoring' your 'evidence'. I won't respond beyond this.

You can't argue against the fact of what would be required for this to actually be a conspiracy, that is concrete and vital to the contention that it wasn't what it appeared to be. You have to explain that, or otherwise we have nothing to talk about.

Remember - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 'This is weird' does not count.

But... I'll carry on for the sake of it. Saying things looking 'weird', or 'how do you explain x?' is meaningless - yeah, weird stuff happened, so what? In many scientific experiments 'weird' stuff happens that can't be explained, that's the way it is - nature is just a strange beast and weird stuff happens, despite us being able to determine the truth of the core matter. Ask any experimental scientist about this.

That is, of course, assuming there is any truth or validity in the 'evidence' provided which I really can't be bothered to look at, as I have n number of seconds left to live in my life, 0 of which I want to spend reading crank bullshit.

A brief few seconds of googling got me this - http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/dr-jones-reanimat...

I recommend in future you google both for and against ridiculous claims made with little to no evidence.

The crux of the matter is - did planes strike the buildings and cause them to collapse? The answer is yes, unless you believe the vast majority of competent engineers (note there are many engineers + architects who are also conspiracy theorists - also note my reference to 'competent' - there are plenty of incompetents and nuts in every walk of life, engineering + architecture being no different) and scientists out there who accept the cause of collapse are conspiring to lie too, in which case you may as well abandon any attempt at reason whatsoever because the whole world is just utterly one endless conspiracy.

On a personal note - I am a Civil Engineering graduate from one of the best CivEng departments in the world (Imperial College, London). I remember discussing the collapse with a professor of structural mechanics and he had no problems with the mode and cause of collapse whatsoever. I make this, not as a resort to authority, but rather pointing out that you, yes you have to explain why he could not work out what this internet randomer could.

The simple fact is that you can cling on to all sorts of 'weird' goings on as evidence of all sorts of strange theories, however several points remain the case:-

1. To prove point X, you don't need to explain every weird apparent occurrence Y and Z, you only have to prove point X. If this was not the case, experimental science wouldn't really have made much progress over the years.

2. If you make an extraordinary claim that utterly contradicts point X, you need to provide overwhelming evidence to back that up - saying 'oh isn't Y and Z weird?' isn't really sufficient.

3. Random shit off the internet doesn't count as 'evidence'.

I'd ask you to consider what we're talking about here - the murder of thousands of innocents, and I'd like you to ask yourself whether your not having even bothered to google for opposite points of view (took me all of 10 seconds), or considering whether that evidence is valid or sufficient to discredit the 'mainstream theory' is in good taste, or actually in essence quite offensive.

Note that a hell of a lot of the 'evidence' these sites mention is flatly false. Practical Mechanics gave a good overview - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/122...

Okay, that's it on this subject. I'm not interested in responding further to this.