this poll should have a "seth be trollin'" option. because i cant truly believe that anyone would actually choose these  illogical, inconsistent, easily debunked positions as the start of their argument. even taking into account that, according to numerous studies, truthers tend to be of a lower intelligence than the rest of the population.

Not to mention that the steel structure of the towers would have easily hold the blaze. There was a movie which I downloaded a few years ago that mentioned that the temperature reached by the burning fuel is well below the temperature needed to melt steel. In fat there is no known case of any building collapsing directly because of fire. It's a shame no one digs this further... 

Before 9/11 there had ony been 1 black box(the other one from the plane was found) that was never found on ground (agian besides the ones at 19k feet). Even with all that rubble the odds of all 4 never being found is astronomical. there were eyewitness reports of three of the black boxes being recovered. link is here

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/281004blackbox.htm

Furthermore with the dozens of reports that there was an explosion from the basement its clear there was a cover up. some might say these people only said that after hearing 1 person "make that up" but most of these eyewitnesses said this from right after the buildings fell through the next day.

http://cheney.pblog.org/2011/03/10/911-explosion-in-the-north-tower-before-the-plane-hit-eyewitness/

is this man lying, did hear it from some one else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3uFvOiTNz4

In this video you dont see anyone object to what the lady is saying, they also believe the was an explosion from the basement.

I could have presented tons of others positions that cause serious doubt about the official explanations.  A few others have already brought a few of them to light.  If you think my op is so shitty then explain to me about the pentagon.  Where are the engines, where are wings/tail, why is the hole not even big enough for the plane to fit in (if just the fuselage went in then where the hell are the engines and wings outside the building)?  Those engines would still be there and the actual debris that was on the ground (was like 1 little piece) the engine maker said it didn't belong to any of their engines.  Why is there a wooden stool on the first floor right by the "plane" entrance that has a book on it that isn't even burnt, why is there a wooden desk on the second floor with a computer that is in near perfect condition?  Wouldn't those things be burnt from the jet fuel?   Look at the poll if I was so illogical, inconsistent, easily debunked then why do almost half the people think there was USA involvement (right now it is 22 yes, 26 no, 6 maybe)? 

I'll go after your lower intelligence claim.  Do you think it is more intelligent to believe the government never lies to you?  That they never misinform you?  If you do then you are of lower intelligence.  Instead of being all high and mighty by insulting people's intelligence maybe you should start questioning things before taking everything as absolute truth.  

Explain the pentagon crash to me....

Every time I see 911-truther's arguments I realize how bad the American education system is ...

First off, much like how cars are engineered with crashes in mind, when large towers are designed there is a considerable effort put towards managing how the building will fail. Being that you don't want a 100 story building to tip over and spread its destruction over many blocks, most of these buildings are designed to collapse inwards and fall ontop of itself.

Secondly, being that the weight of materials on tall towers is the primary stress on these buildings they're designed with a relatively small margin of error. When you (effectively) have the weight of dozens of floors falling 1 story because the structure beneath it has given way due to a fire damaging the structural integrity of the building, the force is so much greater than what the building can handle that every story will collapse as they experience this force.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlMXkWW_LM
If you dont believe that there was an explosion watch this video. At 6 minutes and 50 seconds it switches to a video that is by TWC. Just seconds before you hear the planes hit there is a clear thump from an underground explosion

Also jet fuel's maximum burning temperature is 1800 degrees F while steel melts at 2500 degrees, so how did building 7 a steel building collapse (like demolition charges) from a fire when its impossible for it to reach sufficient temperatures to melt steel. Explosives such as c4 can reach 3000 degrees. Fire engineering magazine had said before 9/11 that "no steel building has ever been destroyed by fire."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDCSR3HfhVk&feature=related
This video will show you everything you need to. Watch this then tell me 9/11 wasnt a conspiracy.

this video shows george bush clearly lie about seeing the planes hit the tower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=related

I don't really know if the government was involved in 9/11. What I DO know is that building 7 could not have fallen that way without explosives. That's simply a FACT. A steel building CANNOT fall straight down and implode in freefall acceleration without explosives being involved. And I don't see how al qaeda could have managed to plant explosives all over the building. So yeah, you fill in the rest..

Thanks for the unintelligent remark..  I thought Mr. Bubbles had that covered.  Anyways, I have heard those statements before.  I could correlate that was what happened except that apparently most of the jet fuel burnt up outside.  There is a flash before the plane even hits the building.  There are unknown huge things underneath the fuselage that are never on commercial flights (people at airport would have recognize them).  Witnesses said that the plane wasn't an American Airlines plane (didn't have markings).   How did the terrorist with little flight training pull of maneuvers that even trained pilots admit is impossible for inexperienced pilots to preform?

Can you explain all that too?  How about explaining the pentagon crash and why there was such little debris?  The hole wasn't big enough to fit the wing/engines/tail in yet there was barely if any wreckage outside.  Why did they release only one security camera footage of it when there were numerous more cameras.  Why can't you even see a plane in the footage?  Can you explain the pentagon crash?

so you blindly believe that what happened was a lie and believe any abusrd claim regardless of how fucking retarded it is.  because you have already asked the question so there is no longer any need to continue to question.   the answer must be right, because you were a sheep and did as you were told and asked the question.  you took your red pill and went through the rabbit hole, so obviously everything on the other side must be reality even when it doesnt quite make sense.

and regarding the floor numbers i do love your inability to count to five. kinda supports my claim though.

So according to that video the engines just burnt up and disappeared right on impact right?