9-11 was an inside job

[NC2NH]

or when an infant needs to pass extra security because she shares a name with a "suspected terrorist"

not doubting your claim here, just stating my disgust:

I find it utterly incredible that 1) anyone involved with the air travel process would ask for an infant passenger's name 2) a parent would have no problem with disclosing the name of the child

???

[Dreepa]

I know that many people love when Penn & Teller debunk myths.
What if the myth is:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3143048862360929736&q=bullshit&hl=en

[Caleb]

A fact is a fact is a fact.  If something is factual there is no debating about it.

For instance, two planes hit each of the two towers.  That is fact.  There are tons of videos showing this, eyewitnesses, a list of those who were on the planes etc.  It?s not something that can be agreed or disagreed with.

I?ll agree that facts are facts.  But not every fact can be known.  That is why ?theories? are developed. Theories take known facts and attempt to suggest a rational explanation that includes all the facts. 

It is interesting that you chose this particular ?fact?, because in a sense it undermines the government?s theory.  You say that we have ?a list of those who were on the planes?.  Unfortunately, that list has never included any of the hijacker?s names.  So, no, we don?t know that the men named as ?hijackers? were on the plane.  That is NOT a fact. It may be that the flight manifests we have been given simply omitted the names of the hijackers as part of government policy.  I?m not contesting that.  I?m just showing you that you don?t really have a fact that you think you have.  You must take the government?s word for it, that the hijacker?s names are on the unedited version, because you have not seen it, nor has it been printed in the paper.

They either refuse to debate, or they refuse to accept any evidence they dislike (usually trying to claim it?s fake) or they demand evidence that does exist.

I didn?t refuse your debate, I said that I wouldn?t accept it on the terms offered.  I basically challenged you to come up with some terms that would enable me to convince you, and asked you what that would be.  The problem is that you guys won?t take the government?s lies as evidence, because you take it for granted that the government has been untruthful.  But the government?s lies are all over the spectrum, and since theories are based on facts, when the facts have been eroded so completely, there?s nothing left to build a theory on, and you?re left taking the government?s word that it wasn?t complicit based merely on authority. And the government's word is more often than not worthless.

Case in point, there is video showing the hijackers in an airport.  One theorist I?ve tried to discuss this with said that isn?t proof that they boarded the plane, they in turn demanded video showing them actually boarding the plane.  Now the commission report points out that there weren?t any security cameras set up to capture that.  In fact there weren?t any beyond security, so they refused to even accept any discussions about terrorists boarding the plane unless I could somehow provide this video that didn?t exist.  The insisted that the manifests were fake, the cell phone calls were somehow doctored, etc.

So what if the terrorists boarded a plane?  I don?t think that is even in question.  There were people who made calls to their family members saying that there were hijackers on board, so I?m certainly not disputing that there were hijackers. 

It?s interesting that you mention this particular episode, however, because it, too, undermines the official story.  Why would the hijackers fly to Maine, and then back again to Boston on that day?  It doesn?t make any sense, EXCEPT if the purpose were to intentionally show up on a video monitor.  But why would terrorists who were unaffiliated with the government want to do such a thing?

So I?m asking you to build your case, I?m the open minded jury here? convince me.

Well, keep in mind this is just a theory, but I like to apply Occam?s razor.  I think there were terrorists and planes, frankly.  Those who deny that are ? well, they?re further out than I want to be, and frankly they are making it far too complicated in my opinion.  My rough outline would go something like this.  The government (which has, by the way, thoroughly infiltrated Al Qaeda) finds out about an Al Qaeda plot to attack the WTC and several sites in Washington. This would be sometime in about 1998. Rather than stop the plot, they decide it would be in their advantage to allow it to happen in a controlled way.  They infiltrate the cells with CIA operatives of Middle Eastern descent on stolen passports, (who incidentally, don?t know that it is a suicide mission, but think it is a routine hijack.  This would explain the voice of the hijacker saying ?We?re going back to the airport?.  It also makes it far less complicated to explain why they were in strip clubs, etc. They weren?t particularly Islamic zealouts: They didn?t know they were going to die!) The planes are controlled from the ground, out of the pilots? control. (The technology to do this existed at the time.)  This explains a) why none of the pilots ever pressed the hijack button (they COULDN?T if the controls had been taken away)  b) why hijackers were able to fly expertly when none of them were known to be expert flyers. 

Like I said, just a theory, but one that fits in with a lot of dangling facts.

Here?s a link to a story about the thermate.  It was done by a chemical analysis, according to the article. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

It?s inconceivable that thermate was used in the construction, as that would be a clear fire hazard.  Possibly the cleanup, (if they used explosives to make the pieces smaller that could be conceivable), but its unclear why they would want to add the sulpher to the thermite for a cleanup operation, since it would make it burn hotter and increase the cooling time, delaying removal.  Since Dr. Jones had predicted thermate, specifically, prior to the discovery (based on his theory as to how the WTC fell), then the presence of thermate adds to the prestige of his theory (a good theory should be predictive), and puts the onus on his critics to demonstrate conclusively how and under what circumstances thermate could be found in the residue.

Why are there no reports of anyone seeing people planting the explosives in the buildings?  You?d need just about a quarter pound for every pound of steel it?s cutting through so there would have had to have been a large amount needed.
And I would assume all these thermite charges would need to have been set off by something.  Either wiring going the length of the building or remote chargers.  None were found during the clean up efforts.  Why?

Good questions, and frankly, I don?t know. I think you need far less thermate than thermite, for one. I think it would be relatively easy to plant them, since most people would simply assume that anyone they saw was with building maintenance, and it wouldn?t even occur to them otherwise, even afterwards. It would be easy enough for the government to secure whatever identification would be needed to have whatever access they wanted.  The detonation devices will probably never be known with complete certainty, but presumably they could have a remote device that self destructs on explosion.  I would think that would be fairly normative, actually.  It would be hard to imagine an explosive device that didn?t self-destruct. Should there be some evidence of it somewhere?  You?d think, but who knows what all was found, catalogued, or recycled in the mess that followed?  Those doing the investigations may not have known one piece of plastic or metal from another, and it seems to me that they probably weren?t looking for evidence of that nature anyway, so it may have just been thrown out with a lot of the other pieces of office furniture and other pieces of who knows what.

I assume using some super-secret Star Trek military technology that nobody realizes has been invented yet

This is what is known as a Straw Man.

Firsty, there was a 9/11 commission that was made up of both republcians and democrats that DID look into what happened.  The theorists have claimed it was all lies so now the burden is on them to show WHY it is all lies.

And David Ray Griffin has done precisely that.  Have you read his book, ?The 9/11 Commission Report:  Errors and Omissions??

The holes in the government's official story are, unfortunately for the "9-11 truth movement," few and far between.

To the contrary, the number of holes in the government?s story are so voluminous that it is overwhelming.  To attempt to catalogue all the evidence that has accumulated undermining the government?s story ? well, to quote St. John, ?I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.?

OH, that again? Those four were later found to have been victims of identity theft. Try again. (referring to the hijackers who are still alive)

This is a very good point, and Error actually made my point for me:  They were victims of identity theft!  YES!  EXACTLY!  This is such a crucial point:  They were victims of identity theft!  Let?s all say it together:  THEY WERE VICTIMS OF IDENTITY THEFT.

Error, don?t you see how significant that is?  Actually, almost ALL the ?hijackers? had reported their passports lost or stolen in the years preceding 9/11.  The four that are still alive (actually, its more like six or possibly seven) obviously did have their identity stolen.  So ? WHO WERE THOSE PEOPLE?  The answer is, WE DON?T KNOW AND IF THE GOVERNMENT ISN?T COMPLICIT NEITHER DOES THE GOVERNMENT!!!  All the government can say is that someone using such and such?s identity hijacked a plane.  But who was the ultimate hijacker?  It obviously wasn?t the person whose identity was stolen.  And a real Muslim hijacker would have no reason to conceal his identity:  he would want to get credit for his jihad after the fact.  Someone has a vested interest, therefore, in convincing us that 19 Middle Eastern Muslim men (mostly of Saudi descent) hijacked the planes?  But who?

Another interesting story about the hijackers involves ? Jeddeh, I think. I might have the wrong name.  The interesting story here is that he WAS A LEBANESE CHRISTIAN!  DOH!  Whoever stole his identity sure screwed the pooch on that one; seems someone forgot that not all Middle Eastern men are Muslims. 

Operation Northwoods has been gathering dust for years. That it exists is a far cry from that a similar plan was implemented. You have nothing but unproven allegations and a sheer lack of evidence to back them up.

Of course it isn?t evidential in this particular case, but it is evidential of the fact that the government WOULD do such a thing.  In fact, Northwoods was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the only reason it wasn?t implemented was because JFK pulled the plug on it. So, the argument that ?the US government just doesn?t think that way? is certainly invalid.  Let?s call Northwoods what it is:  It?s a character witness

Remember these weren?t blocks falling over, they were buildings whose insides were mostly empty air.

YOU are mostly air.  Don?t believe me? Ask the physics pro, Tracy.  99.9999% of the area of an atom is empty space. 

Then again, I would be most shocked to see Lildog collapse into his own footprint, regardless of how much his head was on fire.

Caleb

[KBCraig]

I know that many people love when Penn & Teller debunk myths.
What if the myth is:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3143048862360929736&q=bullshit&hl=en

To draw an analogy: just picture Jesus Himself bitch-slapping Fred Phelps.

[firsty]

caleb, thank you for stating those points so clearly.

[lildog]

I?ll agree that facts are facts.  But not every fact can be known.  That is why ?theories? are developed. Theories take known facts and attempt to suggest a rational explanation that includes all the facts.

That?s just it Caleb, many of the theories I?ve seen surface do NOT look at facts but take lack of facts as ways to form their theories.

For instance, as I already pointed out there are videos of the hijackers in the airports.  In face there is evidence that at least one was pulled aside for extra screening (lot of good that did) and as a result the airline held his bags until it was confirmed he was on the plane.  So there is evidence showing he and the other terror suspects boarded the plane.  There is also evidence (the many ids found in their cars and or rooms) that show they faked Ids.  But since some of the names suspected to have been used were found to be those of living people, theorists discount that the terrorists were ever on the planes.  Come on, that?s ignoring facts and going off into left field!

It is interesting that you chose this particular ?fact?, because in a sense it undermines the government?s theory.  You say that we have ?a list of those who were on the planes?.  Unfortunately, that list has never included any of the hijacker?s names.

Actually Caleb, you need to do your homework and stop listening only to the conspiracy sites alone for your information.  They were shown to be WRONG on this point.  But since many of these sites also pimp books or DVDs, it?s in their best interest not to be proven wrong.

The conspiracy sites use the list of victims printed in most major newspapers as the list of passengers which since the terrorists where terrorists they were not victims and hence left off those lists.  CNN printed the actual manifest days after 9-11, which did show the names of the terrorists and even gave their seat numbers.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/those-passenger-lists.html

I didn?t refuse your debate, I said that I wouldn?t accept it on the terms offered.  I basically challenged you to come up with some terms that would enable me to convince you, and asked you what that would be.

Just list facts, that?s all I?m asking.  Then we can examine the facts and a) see if they are real facts and b) see what theories they actually support or disprove.

So what if the terrorists boarded a plane?  I don?t think that is even in question.  There were people who made calls to their family members saying that there were hijackers on board, so I?m certainly not disputing that there were hijackers.

Well doesn?t that fly directly in the face of the theories that say the hijackers are still alive?  Clearly if you support the idea that they were on the planes as fact then unless there is evidence showing something happened to the planes other then their hitting the towns, the hijackers would be dead as well.  And that supports the theory that 19 hijackers flew the 4 planes into 4 different locations.

So far I don?t see where the conspiracy theories would come up from that?

It?s interesting that you mention this particular episode, however, because it, too, undermines the official story.  Why would the hijackers fly to Maine, and then back again to Boston on that day?  It doesn?t make any sense, EXCEPT if the purpose were to intentionally show up on a video monitor.  But why would terrorists who were unaffiliated with the government want to do such a thing?

They tested security on a number of occasions.  I don?t see why this is even relevant?  Why would someone believe that killing themselves would send them to heaven where 71 virgins would be waiting for them?  Can?t answer that either but it doesn?t mean people don?t believe it and blow themselves up.

Well, keep in mind this is just a theory, but I like to apply Occam?s razor.  I think there were terrorists and planes, frankly.

Ok, we have a starting point we agree on.  Some theorists don?t even agree on that point.

My rough outline would go something like this.  The government (which has, by the way, thoroughly infiltrated Al Qaeda) finds out about an Al Qaeda plot to attack the WTC and several sites in Washington.

Ok this so far isn?t unbelievable.  Thanks to Clinton the agencies were unable to share information so I do believe they had all the information needed to prevent 9-11 but walls prevented them from actually connecting the dots and doing something about it.

This would be sometime in about 1998. Rather than stop the plot, they decide it would be in their advantage to allow it to happen in a controlled way.

See that?s where I disagree.  I think it?s just government incompetence and even though they knew what (maybe not when) and might have even known who, they weren?t able to get their act together enough to actually do something about it.

Napoleon once said, ?Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.?

They infiltrate the cells with CIA operatives of Middle Eastern descent on stolen passports, (who incidentally, don?t know that it is a suicide mission, but think it is a routine hijack.  This would explain the voice of the hijacker saying ?We?re going back to the airport?.

Another explanation could be that the hijackers knew people would fight for survival if they were told they were going to die.  If you say sit back and everything will be ok vs. I?m going to kill you, the person has more of a chance of sitting back in hopes you wont actually kill them (at least prior to 9-11 they would).

It also makes it far less complicated to explain why they were in strip clubs, etc. They weren?t particularly Islamic zealouts: They didn?t know they were going to die!)

I can show you tons of cases of religious hypocrites, some who even devote their lives to a faith then turn around a rape young boys.

The planes are controlled from the ground, out of the pilots? control. (The technology to do this existed at the time.)  This explains a) why none of the pilots ever pressed the hijack button (they COULDN?T if the controls had been taken away)  b) why hijackers were able to fly expertly when none of them were known to be expert flyers.

You don?t need to be an expert pilot to point a plane and crash it.  Heck, I?ve done that tons of times in flight simulator games.

Also, if the pilots lost control PRIOR to the hijackers taking over, why wouldn?t they have communicated that over the intercoms?  This is a case of a theory with no evidence to support it.

I can come up with tons of theories of what could have happened, but the probability of their being true (especially considering there is no evidence to support them) is slim to none.

Here?s a link to a story about the thermate.  It was done by a chemical analysis, according to the article. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

I?ve been looking for a site with his actual words on them or his actual finding.  As I pointed out with the manifests, many conspiracy sites either twist the truth or have been shown to report false information.  I?m going to keep reading up on this.

Why are there no reports of anyone seeing people planting the explosives in the buildings?  You?d need just about a quarter pound for every pound of steel it?s cutting through so there would have had to have been a large amount needed.
And I would assume all these thermite charges would need to have been set off by something.  Either wiring going the length of the building or remote chargers.  None were found during the clean up efforts.  Why?

Good questions, and frankly, I don?t know. I think you need far less thermate than thermite, for one. I think it would be relatively easy to plant them, since most people would simply assume that anyone they saw was with building maintenance, and it wouldn?t even occur to them otherwise, even afterwards.  It would be easy enough for the government to secure whatever identification would be needed to have whatever access they wanted.

Ok, fair explanation.  But this is adding to the level of complexity and the number of people involved necessary to pull this off.  When you start getting into theories where hundreds or thousands of people needed to be in on it then I wonder how that many people could have been in the know on a plan where they were going to kill their own country men and in the case of the pentagon, co-workers and not a single person blew the whistle.  That?s just a little hard to swallow.  Heck I know if I caught wind of a plot to kill people I?m be yelling from every soapbox I could find.

The other thing that wouldn?t make sense is why if they were plotting this out to blow up buildings with explosives, would they have picked WTC 7?

There are so many other things that would seem out right stupid if the government in fact was trying to do this in a way not to arise suspicion.  Such as Bush months before saying we were going to be attacked on National TV? why raise a flag if he were in fact the one doing the attacking?

And David Ray Griffin has done precisely that.  Have you read his book, ?The 9/11 Commission Report:  Errors and Omissions??

I don?t doubt the government may have gotten parts of its story wrong.  Remember, they are doing just what conspiracy theorists are doing and trying to guess what happened based on the facts on hand (which some theories out right ignore).

If you look at murder cases, they sometimes theorize incorrect about what happened.  Heck look at Jack the Ripper, how many different theories are there around that.  And most of them are plausible.

To the contrary, the number of holes in the government?s story are so voluminous that it is overwhelming.

Then why can?t someone show me the facts that clearly show these holes.

The best I?ve seen is thermite which I?m still reading up on and it hasn?t proven anything to me yet.

This is a very good point, and Error actually made my point for me:  They were victims of identity theft!  YES!  EXACTLY!  This is such a crucial point:  They were victims of identity theft!  Let?s all say it together:  THEY WERE VICTIMS OF IDENTITY THEFT.

Error, don?t you see how significant that is?  Actually, almost ALL the ?hijackers? had reported their passports lost or stolen in the years preceding 9/11.  The four that are still alive (actually, its more like six or possibly seven) obviously did have their identity stolen.  So ? WHO WERE THOSE PEOPLE?  The answer is, WE DON?T KNOW AND IF THE GOVERNMENT ISN?T COMPLICIT NEITHER DOES THE GOVERNMENT!!!  All the government can say is that someone using such and such?s identity hijacked a plane.  But who was the ultimate hijacker?  It obviously wasn?t the person whose identity was stolen.  And a real Muslim hijacker would have no reason to conceal his identity:  he would want to get credit for his jihad after the fact.  Someone has a vested interest, therefore, in convincing us that 19 Middle Eastern Muslim men (mostly of Saudi descent) hijacked the planes?  But who?

See this is where I don?t understand the leap of faith.  You accept the fact that 19 men did hijack the planes.  There?s evidence to support that.  You also accept the fact that at least two of the planes flew into buildings (there?s theories around the other two so I?ll leave them out).  But you suddenly leap to a belief for which there is no real evidence to support, which is they were not the ones who actually flew the planes into the buildings.  Why is that so hard to believe but a plot involved demolition experts, remote control planes and hundreds of people if not thousands required to turn on their own country without saying a word about it is totally believable?  And with very little evidence to support (mostly just unanswered questions)?

Another interesting story about the hijackers involves ? Jeddeh, I think. I might have the wrong name.  The interesting story here is that he WAS A LEBANESE CHRISTIAN!  DOH!  Whoever stole his identity sure screwed the pooch on that one; seems someone forgot that not all Middle Eastern men are Muslims.

If they were stealing identities why would it matter who?s they stole?  If they were Muslim I could understand why they wouldn?t want Billy Joe Bob as that wouldn?t be believable but as long as it?s another Muslim name, does it matter who?s it is?

Of course it isn?t evidential in this particular case, but it is evidential of the fact that the government WOULD do such a thing.  In fact, Northwoods was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the only reason it wasn?t implemented was because JFK pulled the plug on it. So, the argument that ?the US government just doesn?t think that way? is certainly invalid.  Let?s call Northwoods what it is:  It?s a character witness

Ok, assuming it?s actually a true document, I agree it would be a character witness.  But then shouldn?t the countless terror attacks including the 1993 WTC bombing be considered as well?  There is FAR more evidence showing terror attacks then 1 document showing JFK?s staff considered attacks on their own country.

YOU are mostly air.  Don?t believe me? Ask the physics pro, Tracy.  99.9999% of the area of an atom is empty space.

Then again, I would be most shocked to see Lildog collapse into his own footprint, regardless of how much his head was on fire.

Then why do controlled demolitions fall into their own footprints?

The above argument would lean toward buildings NEVER falling into their own footprints.

Here?s a good article you should read:
http://progressive.org/mag_wx091106

[error]

Oh, there was plenty of government incompetence. I've even documented some of it.

[mvpel]

YOU are mostly air.  Don?t believe me? Ask the physics pro, Tracy.  99.9999% of the area of an atom is empty space.

Physics pro Tracy would probably correct you by saying that "air," consisting mainly of atoms of nitrogen and oxygen, is not the same thing as "empty space." 

Then again, I would be most shocked to see Lildog collapse into his own footprint, regardless of how much his head was on fire.

Did you ever visit the WTC?  Did you ever stand quietly on the observation floor just to feel the building swaying just a little in the wind beneath your feet?  Have you ever stood in the plaza and gazed up in wonder at the enormity of human achievement that they represented?  I remember the last time I was there, and I really regret that I didn't bother to take the trip up to the top.

But your statement here, Caleb, suggests to me that you have utterly no understanding of how the WTC towers were designed and constructed, with a load-bearing outer wall, tubular inner core, open floorplan, and concrete floors supported by 32-inch trusses topped with corrugated metal.

Because if you did have even the slightest understanding, you would realize that the design of the WTC towers made it virtually impossible for them to collapse in any other way than straight down.  If someone is postulating otherwise, then it is incumbent upon them to show how the buildings "should have" collapsed when their principal supporting members softened and weakened.

[Caleb]

I'll try to get to a commentary on this tomorrow, if I can, Lildog.  I don't have time right now to give your commentary the analysis it deserves.  From what it seems, we are in agreement on much.  I'm not a far out conspiracy theorist, as I believe a little common sense can go a long way. I think you'll find most of those on this forum who believe the government was complicit do *not* buy into the more radical theories.  In fact, I am more suspicious of some in the truth movement than I am of people like yourself who believe that the government was not complicit, and require strong evidence for the assertion. That is, after all, the basis for any belief:  strong evidence.  If strong evidence is not available, then strong conclusions are, at best, merely a hunch.  My suspicion is that much in the 9/11 truth movement is disinformation designed to make us look like kooks. Unfortunately, in discussing 9/11, I end up having to explain repeatedly to people that I do not buy into certain theories.  That's why I gave you the rough outline.  It wasn't designed to "prove" anything, per se, but just to give you a rough outline of what I consider plausible so you'll know where I stand.

To mvpel, I would say that you might benefit from some research into the design of the WTC building. The assertion that the walls were what held most of the weight was an assertion made in the 9/11 Commission report, but it does not stand up to the evidence. There were 47 central steel columns that supported the weight of the building.  Even in the unlikely event of the collapse of the floors, the collapse of these columns is inexplicable. The 9/11 report ignores these columns entirely.

Caleb

Physics pro Tracy would probably correct you by saying that "air," consisting mainly of atoms of nitrogen and oxygen, is not the same thing as "empty space."

Correct, but then again, air actually provides some resistence, whereas "empty space" does not. Therefore, Lildog should be more likely to collapse into his own footprint than was WTC. 

[mvpel]

Correct, but then again, air actually provides some resistence, whereas "empty space" does not. Therefore, Lildog should be more likely to collapse into his own footprint than was WTC. 

Is Rick's atomic structure arranged as a load-bearing outer wall, tubular inner core, open floorplan, and concrete floors supported by interior trusses topped with corrugated metal?  You're getting flat-out ridiculous here, Caleb, is it the cognitive dissonance kicking in?

Let me try again, in the interests of FSP camraderie.

The visual evidence of the air providing resistance to the fall of the towers is the plumes of smoke, paper, ash, and dust that were forcibly ejected from each floor as the thousands of tons of the floor above pancaked downward.  Is it possible for you to slap two pieces of plywood together from an inch apart without having them deflect significantly?  Think about it.

The width of each WTC tower was 208 feet - that is to say each floor in the 110-story was wider than the wingspan of a 767, and almost exactly one acre in area.  And they were 1,362 feet high, for an average floor height of about 12 1/2 feet.  The width and breadth of each floor was 15.3% of the height.  The floors themselves were about three feet deep, counting the 32" trusses and the concrete floor surface:

So for example, if you had a piece of half-inch thick plywood represent the 36-inch-thick floors, or 1/72 scale, your model would be nearly three feet (2 feet 10 inches) wide, and each piece would be separated by - get this - 1.5 inches.  So something along these lines:

|------------------------------------|
|------------------------------------|
|------------------------------------|
|------------------------------------|

Or more precisely:



I would really love to know how 110 acre-sized slabs of concrete can fall any way other than essentially straight down, as each floor above comes slamming down with all the enormous accumulated weight of the upper floors on each floor below, especially when the towers were built to withstand about 11 million pounds of deflecting wind-shear force on a single face.  What would push such a structure with such immense inertia off to one side?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

[Caleb]

mvpel,

I've never said the tower should not have come down; it's how it came down that I find suspicious.

1)  For one, if it "pancaked" down it should have left the central steel columns intact.

2)  Secondly, the tower's supports on the weakened floors should not have fallen uniformly.  The weakened joints should have given first, with the result that the weakened side of the building would have collapsed, placing undue stress on the unweakened joints, which then would have collapsed.  The collapse was too uniform, in my opinion. 

3) Thirdly, the floors below the impact point should have been unaffected by the fires or impact.  That means that their collapse would be due entirely to the weight of the collapsing floors weakening the joints.  Whereas an object that falls naturally (without resistance) will fall at a uniform rate of acceleration, the towers should have fallen with an initial burst of acceleration (representing the weakened joints collapsing initially), followed by a sudden decrease in the rate of acceleration (as the collapsing floors met resistence from unweakened joints) while the rate of acceleration gradually increased with each subsequent floor (since each floor would have a greater weight than the previous floor, each lower floor would be able to resist the accumulating weight for gradually lower periods of time, resulting in an increase in the RATE of acceleration.)

Let me explain this point 3 a little more.  On earth, objects fall at a rate of acceleration of 10 meters per second each second.  (The first second, it falls 10 meters, the second second it falls 20 meters, the third second it falls 30 meters, etc.) This is the rate of acceleration, and will hold true unless their is resistance. The floor joints should have provided a gradually reducing amount of resistance, (since as weight was added, they would collapse sooner  with each floor).  I don't have the engineering talent to work the numbers out for you, but it should be possible to determine roughly how long it should have taken the floors to collapse, given a certain amount of weight, and this number would result in an increasing rate of acceleration.  On the other hand, the controlled demoliton theory would predict the destruction of the underlying supports prior to the collapse of each floor, and therefore the controlled demolition theory (perfectly executed) should anticipate a roughly even rate of acceleration, without significant variance. If it were not perfectly executed, the controlled demolition theory should predict fluctuating rates of acceleration (with no pattern, as opposed to the pancaking theory, which should anticipate a steady upward pattern in the rate of acceleration).  The point is, it should be possible to determine which theory is correct merely by timing the collapse at various points and determining if the rate of acceleration increased or was even or haphazard.  To my eyes, the rate of accleration looked even ... but that having been said, we could be talking about tiny fractions of a second, so we would probably need precise instrumentation to make that call.  I've not seen any studies done on that, but it would be a relatively easy way to decide whether the collapse was natural or not.

4)  The final point I want to make on the towers is that I don't know who suggested that they should just have toppled over on their side.  I haven't heard that, but I have heard a lot of talk about whether they should have toppled at all.  I personally don't think they should have toppled at all.  I think the firemen should have put out the fires, the buildings should have been repaired, and they should still be standing today.  The man who designed the towers said that he thought they could take multiple plane impacts.  I know, I know "it failed the field test" ... but a cynic could simply retort right back at you "or DID IT?"  It's just begging the question, since the question is, precisely, whether the towers collapsed naturally.

Caleb

ps, mvpel, you need to lighten up a little, bud.  Loosen the tie and have a few beers or something.  The comment about lildog collapsing into his own footprint was a quip.  That's why I put the little  sign.  I'm not expecting that to happen anytime soon, and as far as I know he isn't composed of "a load-bearing outer wall, tubular inner core, [weight bearing central steel columns], open floorplan, and concrete floors supported by interior trusses topped with corrugated metal."   

[error]

Caleb, according to the NIST, that's exactly what happened:

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.

[FTL_Ian]

If Truthers are really looking at all the evidence, then they owe it to themselves to read:
http://loosechangeguide.com
I was persuaded by some of Loose Change.  It's a very slick production.  This site pointed out how gullible I was.

http://911myths.com
Just digging into this one, also interesting.  I like this page: http://911myths.com/html/site_faq.html

[KBCraig]

[Russell Kanning]

Digging for truth is not an insult to victims.