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.

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.

What positive evidence do we have that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? I'm not talking about refuting supposed evidence against, but actual evidence in support.

1. Eyewitness testimony is worthless for at least two reasons: many eyewitnesses said that the plane hit the ground before hitting the building, which is patently false. Also, they didn't have the time to see the plane clearly before it hit.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

The story of the plane making the circular dive contradicted the initial Bush Administration story about AA 77.

At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way.

"That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."

The Bush Administration has lied hugely about what happened in 9/11.

We are supposed to believe that mediocre terrorist pilots flew in a way that 90 percent of trained pilots couldn't fly, seriously jeaprodizing the mission (risking hitting the ground instead of the Pentagon), succeeding, yet hitting the Pentagon where it would do the least damage -- killing fewer than 200 persons instead of thousands.

If anyone believes this, I have some oceanside land for sale in the middle of the Sahara Desert.

2. Photographic evidence is neutral to against. There is no photographic evidence whatsoever in the public arena showing that the plane hitting was in fact a commercial airliner. Furthermore, all video evidence was seized. Only a few lousy pictures and very slow video that doesn't show what the thing was that hit the Pentagon have been released.

The release of those obscure images was done in manifest bad faith. Why don't they release a video that actually shows something? Probably because it would show something other than a commercial airliner.

The fireball is primarily from the fuselage, with minimal fire from the fuel in the wings.

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/pentalawn/pl8.jpg

Many columns remain where the wings should have penetrated. If they were strong enough to resist the wings, burning fuel would have splashed outward -- you'd see a ground covered with burning fuel. Instead, the ground wasn't touched.

Large wooden spools of industrial cable block the wings and were almost untouched.

3. Scraps and forensic evidence found there -- I can't recognize anything as definitely from AA77 myself. Given the Bush Administration's lies about 9/11, I refuse to believe this until I get independent confirmation from experts I can trust. If DNA from victims was found, I want proof that it was actually found in the Pentagon.

The on-time performance data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics leaves out American Flights 11 and 77 completely for September 11th. (United Flights 93 and 175 are listed as "diverted.")

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ID=236&DB_Short_Name=On-Time&SYS_Table_Name=T_ONTIME&USER_Table_Name=On-Time%20Performance&Frequency=Monthly&Data_Frequency=Annual,Quarterly,Monthly&Num_Geo=2&Info_Only=0&Year_Info=1&Last_Year=2004&Origin_Field=ORIGIN_STATE_NM&Dest_Field=DEST_STATE_NM&Is_Big_Table=2

The Twin Towers: the spectacular attack

The Pentagon: the mild self-injury

Flight 93: the heartwarming tale of tragic heroism and self-sacrifice.

Why have almost none of the passenger lists actually included the hijackers? Where are the official manifests? Documents that can't be altered once the plane takes off?