MSD

That's a bit of a loaded question. You've been around here for years, if you look at the older 9/11 threads, you'll see that I initially believed many of the conspiracy theories, then researched them and came to the conclusion that the most logical explanation is that a hijacked plane was intentionally flown into each tower and the Pentagon, and that all damage caused by the attacks was a result of the plane impacts and resulting structural damage. If you'd like me to recap my issues with any of the theories, I can do that for you. Thousands of people saw planes crash into the towers and hundreds, including public servants, military servicemen, and pilots, saw a passenger jet crash into the pentagon. A simple analysis of the damage shows that it could have been caused solely by those impacts; if the simple explanation of what happens is plausible, then elaborate theories involving directed energy weapons are unnecessary and implausible, especially considering that the energy weapons required to cause that kind of damage do not exist.

Concrete turning into fine powder when crushed under millions of ponds of debris falling the height of a skyscraper is perfectly plausible. A normal collapse doesn't involve the sudden, unplanned structural failure of two 100-story buildings.

The south side was damaged by falling debris from the towers, FEMA reports and on-the-scene interviews stated that between a quarter and a third of the depth of the building was "scooped out." When structural columns were damaged, the weight shifted to other columns, overloading them. A pressurized diesel fuel line running to a generator on the fifth floor kept the fire burning long and hot enough not to melt, but to weaken and warp these overloaded columns. Since the building had been evacuated earlier in the day, firefighting efforts were halted because the building was already a total loss and would have had to be demolished.
The first thing I have to point out is that there is no video footage, few eyewitness accounts, and not a lot of physical evidence to go by. In a dismal time of national tragedy, people needed good news. The idea that a group of heroes sacrificed themselves to save others, true or not, was an uplifting story. I don't think anyone who's still alive knows for sure what happened on board. We do know that passengers told their loved ones that they were going to try to overpower the hijackers. If a bomb really did bring down the plane, it was probably detonated because the passengers had rushed the cockpit and they wouldn't have been able to complete their mission anyway. If it was shot down by the Air Force, what good would it have been to admit it? Although we know that it would have saved lives on the ground, I don't think that people would be willing to accept that our government killed hundreds of civilians. Again, the hero story is something that