Never associate to malice what can easily be explained through stupidity ...

The general consensus on terrorists in North America before 9/11 could be summed up with the question "What could a bunch of primitive dirt farmers from halfway around the world do to us?"

The assumption was that there was not threat of domestic terrorism from these foreign terrorists, so threats were not taken seriously.

I did some editing to the previous post after you responded. They were interviewing the actual people that trained them. I guess those trainers couldn't tell that they were very inexperienced. Driving a car and a plane are completely different. Driving a car you don't have to worry about rolling (unless SUV and taking a hard turn), stalling out (unless you drive a stick but you just sit there you don't fall out of the sky), etc.... I bet if you had a 14 year old play GT5 that he could still not operate a standard transmission car. He would either stall out or grind the gears. He would not know how to operate the clutch/gas pedals to switch gears. He probably wouldn't even know that you have to hold the clutch down to start the car.  Driving a small plane and a 757 are almost as different as driving a car and small plane.  There are plenty of maneuvers that wouldn't get you in trouble in a small plane that would spell disaster for a 757. 

That's actually pretty close to what I believe happened.

I don't think the US administration actually planned or carried out the attacks. But the list of oddities surrounding 9/11 is indeed just endless. Sure, as with every conspiracy theory, there is a somewhat plausible alternative explanation for everything. But the oddities are so numerous that I just can't believe the official version is really 100% true. The whole 9/11 commission for example appears like it was never actually supposed to reveal the truth: They got very few money, were not even allowed to interview the terrorist suspects, and Rumsfeld even warned them not to dig too deep. And every single sentence that went into the commission report had to be approved by ALL members of that commission, so "control" over a single member of the commission would have been enough to remove just any unwanted sentence from the report. (That's for example why there is not a single word about WTC 7 in the report)

I really think the US administration did not tell us the full truth. Personally I think high people in the US administration knew about the attacks, but decided to simply let it happen as it seemed such a great opportunity to convince the public for a looong stay in the middle east. Maybe they even decided to clear some small obstacles that might have ruined the terroris attacks - like sending the NORAD planes far away on that day, even though they had been warned about upcoming airplane attacks by multiple credible sources only weeks ago.

I am pretty much in the same boat as you guys.  While I think there was some involvement; I am not sure how much.  The government could have simply known it was about to happen and let it happen (aka Pearl Harbor).   The USA has been driven into many wars under false pretenses.  Vietnam War, 2nd Iraq War, Spanish-American War are all wars started because of misinformation/ false attacks.  Just going by history it doesn't prove too good of a track record for the USA.  USA citizens have been lied to many times to justify going to war, yet the public keeps falling for it.  It doesn't help much now that the media is pretty much in bed with the Pentagon.  They drool over whatever information the Pentagon gives them without second guessing.  The drum beat for the 2nd Iraq War was insane.  It was obvious the USA government was going to go to war no matter what and the media was right behind him.  Once the war started you had famous "reporters" on Fox News pretty much saying it is time to shut up,you are unpatriotic, etc.. if you are second guessing the war.  When in actuality they were the most patriotic people for wanting to make sure that the war was right to send USA troops there.

Nope, I'm saying most (if not all) of the muslims that worked at IBM in Rochester, MN knew about the planned attack. That's a far cry from being involved, and is not so far fetched once you understand how close knit the muslim community is. 

The big difference with the Manhattan Project is they didn't drop the nuclear bomb on New York and then keep it a secret for a decade.

What is hard to understand?  The South tower was hit about 15 floors lower than the North tower.  That would put more than double the amount of floors above the damaged area.  You just need to know elementary school physics to realize that putting more weight on something will make it more likely to fail.  If the plane had hit at the 30th floor it would have fallen faster, if it had hit at the 105th floor, it might not have fallen at all.

I'm sticking with the engineers of the WTC.  They designed it to withstand an airline hit anywhere.  The way that it was built allowed it to take a blow and still be structurally safe.  There is no way both buildings that were designed to take a hit falling so quickly.  There are reports (from the firefighters that were on the floors where it was hit)  that the fire wasn't even that bad and was about to be contained when all of a sudden the tower went down.   Would you agree that most of the jet fuel burnt up outside the towers?  It looks obvious to me that most the fuel was burnt up outside the buildings. 

Apparently it just hadn't been planned for. A passenger plane hadn't been hijacked in something like 35 years in the USA before 9/11, they turned the electronics off that gave a signature on the radar (they could still be tracked, but were just one bleep among many) and the US defence system just didn't have any plan for the situation of a bunch of domestic flights being hijacked - all of their planning was focused on outside threats coming in.

And the titanic was constructed not to sink...that one didn't work out as planned either.

Seriously, have you not heard of Thermite plasma? You take aluminum and rusty iron mix it together, add an ignition source, and boom, that stuff will burn through anything, it even melts through concrete to a degree, allthough with the heat from the jet fuel, and the thermite plasma, I'm sure the concret literally exploded. It's simple physics, the water that is left in the concrete boils and expands at impressive rates, which literally makes the concrete "explode" Then add to that, thermite plasma with burns through steel like a red hot knife through butter, and there is literally no way to put the stuff out (it even bruns under water) it does not surprise me that the buildings fell like they did.

Yes, thermite plasma taked precise amounts of both rusty steel, and aluminum...but I have a friend who worked at a machine shop, and he inadvertantly set a machine on fire because he was machining aluminum after steel was machined, and the machine wasn't cleaned out as well as it should have...and I saw the after effects of it...they couldn't put the fire out, so they put the chip pan out in the parking lot, where it proceeded to melt a huge hole in the pavement. So it does happen.

I'd like to see design documents showing it was meant to withstand a 767 loaded with fuel going at a high rate of speed hitting the building in any location.  They designed for situations like the ESB and 40 Wall St. building crashes.  In other words, a plane that was attempting to land at a nearby airport, but got lost for whatever reason.  That means it would be traveling at a slow speed with a small amount of fuel left.  Also an office building is loaded with things which aren't jet fuel that can burn.

It's kind of hard to take any structural engineering claims from you seriously when you didn't even understand why the South tower fell quicker.