Your other points are just irrelevant and not worth refuting.

Once you understand how the building was constructed, you can understand how it collapsed like that. You can understand how it fell at nearly the speed of free fall. And you can then understand why explosives were not necessary to take the building down and thus why explosives were probably not involved.

Once you understand how the collapse could have occurred, the whole idea of a government conspiracy collapses as well. The government's biggest crime on 9/11 was simply to be caught flat-footed--stuck in the chair for seven minutes, if you will.

The way to figure things out in the reality based world is to figure out one thing at a time. Get one thing figured out, then you have a chance to figure out another thing. That way, things fit together and you don't end up with 200 or more irrelevant points screaming for your undeserved attention. Simpler thought is better thought.

As far as WMD, I decided when we invaded that there were probably no WMD to be found in Iraq. I strongly doubted we would have invaded had there really been a serious threat of WMD against our troops or against our shores. I also knew that the stories of the centrifuge tubes, the Nigerian yellow cake, the drone planes, and so on, were all highly dubious tales and that Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was extremely weak, based on nothing but silly pictures and even sillier audio.

Therefore in my mind I didn't think there would be any WMD found. That's how good thinking works: you put together pieces that fit and then you can come to definite conclusions instead of endless mysteries.

Oh nerdnam, you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence. You'll just keep repeating the same old irrelevancies, refuting strawman points that weren't made.

The strength of the joints is not required to make the falling rate, of building 7 especially, suspect. The floors could have been like the proverbial camel's back, ready to drop with one additional straw, and they would still have caused more resistance than is evident with the drop observed, by, hmm, let's see... conservation of momentum, as mentioned earlier.

The fact that the construction was light is irrelevant, guess what, the floors falling from above were equally light. It's relative mass that counts.

As I said (and you ignored), the pools of molten metal supposedly from fuel/air fires don't require you to strain yourself with difficult concepts:

Surely you understand that heat doesn't self-generate? Or did these feather-light floors somehow spark up a few thousand degrees through friction? On the other hand, someone wanting to demolish large steel framed buildings would do what? Hmmm, they'd use thermite charges to cut the steel, which would generate a huge amount of heat - enough to have pools of molten metal on site for weeks. Goodness, there's a coincidence! What could it mean?

Just scroll down about one pageful for pretty pictures of red-hot metal on 27 Sept 01, and a nice video of the cleanup weeks after that when it was still extremely hot: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I'd suggest you read the whole paper, but it would be over your head.

...is like arguing with the creationists.

You can't argue geology, biology, zoology, or astronomy with creationists, because they don't care about rocks, animals, life or space; they only care about proving their religion and nothing else.

But guess what: once you understand that the age of the earth is over several billion years, the biblical story of creation is finished. There is no need to worry about all the other 'evidence' that creationists are constantly coming up with. How about those 'fossils' down in Texas that show human footprints side by side with dinosaur footprints? You can just go, "Pfft! It's nonsense! It doesn't fit with the enormous evidence that shows dinosaurs died out ages before man evolved." And you can forget about it, even if you can't make the creationists forget about it.

Same with the WTC towers: once you understand that each floor was designed only to hold its own weight, then you can understand why they pancaked when the floors above fell on them. Once you understand that the strength of the WTC towers lay in their boxlike frames, then you can understand why they fell apart as each box was torn apart one by one. Once you understand that the resistance to the collapse lay in the floor joists, and not in any columns below, you can understand why it fell near the speed of free fall.

But you're probably not going to understand that, because you're not interested in any of that. You're not interested in physics or even in thinking. You just have a political point of view that you want to push. Unfortunately, your PPOV just doesn't happened to fit reality as it exists.

All the stories are conspiracy theories, even the government's version. I have no proof that ANYTHING happened on that day. I have no proof that this universe is anything more than my overactive imagination.

I hope that I am wrong...it's getting lonely in here.

But oh boy nerdnam, you are a piece of work. Can you possibly believe what you write? Is your grasp of logic so hopelessly broken?

You keep going on about the weakness of the floor, like it somehow refutes anything - plainly you didn't comprehend the momentum point at all.

What's my political agenda? Huh? Can you tell me? You're the one with the agenda to prove, I'm just saying it's crap. I have no idea what really happened on 9-11, I just have some ideas about what didn't happen. I'm not pushing anything in particular, I'm just debunking your conspiracy theory. With evidence.

Now I do think it's interesting that thermite (or similar) demolition charges fit the evidence better than the official story, but I have absolutely no idea whether that's actually what happened. I suspect we'll never be sure.

It's ironic that you bring up religion because I see the positions reversed. You have faith in spite of evidence, and like an agnostic, I'm saying "I don't know the answer, and what's more, I don't believe you do either". In this case though, there is solid evidence that you're wrong.

I bring up the pools of molten metal, not because they're some minor questionable anomaly, like some quirk of evolutionary evidence as yet unexplained, but because they are impossible under the official scenario.