they still do not know what happened. Being skeptical, or not believing things that do not make complete sense is not the same as knowing. Believing there are logical errors in anothers statement. Does not show you the truth.

EDIT: some more people posted, I am addressing Metallicube

I'm not going to address every point again as it is a waste of time, but there are a few things.  First of all the WTC buildings did not accelerate at the rate of gravity.  Any video or picture you see shows debris that is falling faster than the building itself.  Just because it became obscured by dust and smoke does not mean it had completely collapsed.

Most of a building is made up of air.  When the WTC began collapsing it pushed the air in it down.  It will follow the path of least resistance which in many cases meant a window being blown out and dust being carried by the air.  For example, when I close my grill, the pressure pushes air out little holes on the bottom sides, and a small spurt of fire will come out.

The WTC was not designed to withstand multiple deliberate impacts from 707's.  Did you even look at the first part in my last post?

Also a 707 is not larger than a 767.  A 767 has a maximum takeoff weight of 315k lbs to 450k lbs and a wingspan of 159 ft to 201 ft depending on the type.  A 707 only had a maximum takeoff weight of 222k to 333.6k lbs, and a wingspan of around 131 to 146 ft.

There was plenty of debris besides things that were 'Microsopic pices of debris and ash'.  I'm not sure where you are getting this from, same with your claim earlier than the flight recorder wasn't found.

I really don't understand how you can just keep beating that drum when so many of your claims are simply not true.  I really don't get why people like you need to come up with these ridiculous theories when you could just say the CIA contracted the hijackers or something.  At least that would be tougher to disprove.  Not to keep hammering this creationist thing, but it is the same with them.  Why not just say God set forth evolution.  Why make everything so complicated?

Which part is ridiculous?

1. Buildings lose structural strength when a plane crashes though them, breaking walls and destroying the steel structure that makes up the building
2. Heat weakens the structural strenght of steel; being that it is a well known fact that steel loses half its strength at 800 degrees, far below its melting point.
3. When the building starts to collapse when multiple floors don't have the strength to support the building above them, the upper part of the building will gain speed until it begins to hit the building that hasn't been weakend by the crash or fire.
4. When the upper part of the building has accelerated until it has similar momentium to free falling 1 to 2 stories it will have a high enough momentium that the force required to stop it is an order of magnitude greater than the force the floor it hits was ever designed to support

in order to disprove this, he would have to give a logical, and mechanically sound reason explaining another theory and disproving yours. and not say "I'm laughing blah blah blah"

I'm not with the conspiracy people 

but, one theory could possibly be was a plane crashed, and a bomb was set. (which might have been his argument or I think I've read that before) But the pancaking still applies.

But then you've got to prove who set the bomb and why.  If the U.S. did it why?

With the terrorists crashed into the trade center belief. And the reason that they would do it is believing that then the U.S. would go on freedom wars acting like a jack ass, hurt U.S. international relations,  and would destabilize the U.S. economy.

The bottom makes more sense to me... but just me.

Then one has to decide

Occam's razor.

That is all.

Fixed

What ridiculous theory have I mentioned? I'm only stating that the official story is simply not true. THAT is the ridiculous theory. It only happens to be the accepted one because it is an "official" story. I guess if the government said the tooth fairy was real, people would believe that too.. It's sad how the government is just an unquestionable authority to some.

People don't believe the "official story" because it is from the government, they believe it because it is the simplest and most realistic explanation ...

You seemed to be insinuating that the reason the WTC 7 collapsed was because of insider trading documents contained inside.  Now was that just a nice bonus or is that why the entire attack was planned?  Did their shredder break and they decided they better create a conspiracy consisting of thousands of people across the globe (I guess that means Al-Qaeda was either working with them or created by them as well) in order to destroy those documents.  After all, the best way to destroy incriminating evidence is to create a shitload more.  I guess next they'll nuke NYC in order to destroy the evidence from 9/11.

That comes back to the attack itself.  Why all the theories about missiles, holograms, thermite, controlled demolitions, etc....?  I mean any theory you have is going to require the terrorists to either be cooperating with the government or they were just fabrications created by the governemnt.  So why bother with another layer of conspiracy on top of that?  Did the FBI decide to fly planes into the WTC, but the CIA was like "that plan sucks, let's rig it for demolition too.  After all, making things more complicated is a sure route to success!"?  Then the EPA says "Hey, let's also hijack another plane, but instead of using that we'll shoot a missile at the Pentagon"...................and I could go on trying to translate the conspiracy theories into real life scenarios.

Do you really not see how this gets ridiculous?  Instead of just sticking with a simple theory that it was perpetrated by a few dozen people, all of a sudden you've got thousands of people in on the plan because it is ridiculous and bloated.  I mean if the government could do all that, couldn't they just plant some WMDs in Iraq?

Then we get into the false statements you've made.

The WTC buildings did not collapse at free fall speed.  1 & 2 are especially easy to tell, the debris falls faster than the building itself.  Cut and dry.

You claimed the black box from flight 93 was vaporized.  It wasn't.  It was recovered and I linked you to a transcript of the contents.

You claimed all of the wreckage from flight 93 was ash or microscopic.  You can find plenty of pictures with wreckage that is easily identifiable as airplane parts.  I mean shit, some of the conspiracy theories center around wreckage being too far (in their opinion) from the crash site.

Similar thing with the Pentagon, you seem to be focused on a hole in ring C, and assume it was what?  A missile?  I don't know, but you again ignored all the plane parts that littered the impact area.

You claimed the WTC buildings were designed to take multiple hits from 767's, then 707's.  They weren't.  You took the comments from someone who had no part in the design of the WTC and created a whole conspiracy around it.  Then you ignore the quote from the lead structural engineer on the WTC who states it was designed for a scenario where a plane was lost in the fog, attempting to land (low on fuel), and flying at a low rate of speed.  (in other words, exactly like the planes that crashed into the ESB and 40 Wall St.)

You claimed a 707 was bigger than a 767.  It isn't, the closest you can get is the biggest 707 is about the same size as the smallest 767.  I'm guessing you just saw a 707 had 4 engines and thought it must be about the size of a 747.

You seem to be under the impression that anyone who disagrees with you is just a sheep who follows what the government or the media says.  How many of the claims you have made in this thread were your own conclusions and how many were you seeing some youtube video and thinking 'yeah, that seems plausible'?  I also have to ask if you have any background in engineering or physics?