It simply doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence are debunked. The conspiracy theorists will keep coming up with new 'problems' to be solved.

Bill Owen thinks we who believe that a plane flying into a skyscraper might have caused its destruction are 'sheeple'.

Well Bill, you're an idiot, and an insulting dangerous idiot at that. I hope you never run into somebody who lost their loved one in 9-11.

I happened to come home early from work on 9/11 and immediately turned on CNN. They showed video of "farmers" in Pennsylvania who stated they witnessed other planes in the sky, heard a loud bang, and then falling debree. If memeory serves, one farmer showed something that had fallen in his field. Odd this was never mentioned again after that day's report.

It appears more than likely that Flight 93 was shot down. In the 70s, the DOD had implemented a system known as the Safeguard system, which could respond to Soviet missile attack within approximately a minute. I knew of this as I was stationed at MDW at the time. I find it hard to believe that our technology has gone backwards in time, considering the defense budget. Either that, or we have the most criminally incompetent government in our nation's history.

Secondly, better to have the poor souls on that jet be shot down before the hyjackers reached their mission target in D.C. and promote nuclear reprisal.

Well Bill, you're an idiot, and an insulting dangerous idiot at that. I hope you never run into somebody who lost their loved one in 9-11.

Those who declare that concern over the cause of the WTC collapses is insensitive to the victims deserve nothing but contempt, and their motives should be questioned.

AS far as allegedly collapsing at the rate of gravity, this only means the lower parts of the towers offered little or no resistance to the collapsing upper part.

Those with no understanding of elementary high-school physics should not pontificate about its consequences. Read about the conservation of momentum. It has nothing to do with the strength of the lower level support. A moving mass hitting a stationary mass will lose velocity. With this level of willful ignorance in the USA, no wonder this sort of thing can be pulled off.

Those with no understanding of elementary high-school physics should not pontificate about its consequences. Read about the conservation of momentum. It has nothing to do with the strength of the lower level support. A moving mass hitting a stationary mass will lose velocity. With this level of willful ignorance in the USA, no wonder this sort of thing can be pulled off.

Elementary HS physics may not quite be up to the task of explaining a large building's collapse.

Conservation of momentum holds only in systems in which there are no forces acting on the masses. In a fall, gravity will act to increase the momentum of various objects. Of course, in the earlier 'bowling ball' example, the force of gravity will be constant, so the bowling ball that hits panes of glass will never "catch up" with the one that does not - unless, of course, the non-glass-hitting ball reaches terminal velocity (beyond which air resistance will prevent it from accelerating, allowing the lagging ball to match its rate of descent). So, your point is taken, but it has little to do with conservation of momentum.

Nonetheless, I am deeply skeptical of any claims that the towers could be shown to fall at "the rate of gravity." The velocity of a falling object is a factor not only of the force of gravity and its mass (which, I suppose, could be calculated with some reasonable degree of certainty - though I would think the mass of people remaining in the building would be difficult to nail down), but also of air resistance (which we were taught to ignore in my HS physics classes). A collapsing building will not only experience substantial air resistance, but its shape and orientation will be changing as it falls in highly unpredictable ways, as pieces fragment, tumble, etc. The effects of air resistance on its rate of fall would be exceptionally difficult to determine precisely. And, given the relatively small amount of resistance posed by lower floors (remember that the falling floor need not impart all the momentum to the floor below, as some of that will be provided by gravity), the slowdown experienced as a result of crushing a lower floor would likely be well within the margin of error for any reasonable estimate.

...hitting a stationary mass will lose velocity.

Snerk. If the resistance of the stationary mass is low enough, there will be little or no measurable difference in the velocity of the moving mass. Think of a bullet going through a leaf.

The lower parts of the towers simply could not support the mass that was falling on it, anymore than a straw can support a bowling ball. No explosives are needed to explain the collapse.

Really, the suspect thing here is the measurement of the time of collapse. The towers fell in a mushrooming dust cloud, so what exactly was being measured here?

First of all thanks to those who at least attempt to refute what I and of course all the other "tin foil hat" wearers say. I am open to any point by point refutation of what I or others say in regard to explaining what happened that day. Some of the best, most detailed "conspiracy" posts here have only been sneered at, or the poster has been called names. And thank-you to abc for your supporting me against the attack that claimed I am insensitive to victims, "dangerous" even (so much for free speech). Quite the opposite, I have every respect for the victims, I seek only to do them the honour of seeking the truth about how they died and why. If I am wrong I am wrong, but I am not attacking or dishonouring anyone!

Mr. Levine also has done us a service by his analysis which is, at least, an honest attempt to refute my argument. I had not given much thought to air resistance, wrapped up as I was in considering the numerous eyewitnesses who heard and saw explosions in the basement, the lobby elevators, and the lower floors. My attention was also distracted by the fact that the tower that was hit second collapsed first - even though it is clear from the video that most of the aviation fuel blew out the side, and that the smoke had died down and turned black (indicating oxygen starvation and therefore less heat), just prior the "collapse". The idea that air may have appreciably slowed the progress of tonnes of debris slipped my mind as I focussed on the molten metal found in the basement, (molten metal which was still hot for weeks), and the debris that shot out from the sides of the building for hundreds of feet? I was distracted too, by the videos of smoke and dust plumes detonating just under the collapsing upper stories. My attention must have been diverted by wondering.. How is it that the towers were reduced to dust, and not simply shredded, twisted, and destroyed in a more "normal" manner, as the energy required to do that far exceeds that amount of energy allowed by the fall of the mass involved.

I wonder too what the "margin of error" is? The rate of fall is easily calculated. The video(s) are there for anyone with a stopwatch to see. Some people think that we can't even ascertain such basic information as the time to collapse because of the smoke and the dust. That's funny!

Just as important and even more suspicious, is the progressive collapse of WTC 7. Why did it collapse, and why did it collapse in exactly the same manner as towers one and two, even though it was a block away and only lightly damaged? And please don't tell me about the freaking generator in the basement - there is no record, no report about massive fire in WTC 7 - none. And even if there was a fire, why a collapse, and why a symmetric one? Google the Madrid Towers for a point of comparison.

In any normal plane crash the various parts of the aircraft are painstakingly reassembled (see Lockerbie). This never happened with the towers, flight 93, or the Pentagon! How is that possible? What possible reason is there for this? The steel from the towers was sent to China almost immediately! Can you say crime scene destruction? Why can't we see the the plane debris from the Pentagon? (for the record a plane hit the Pentagon)

The collapse of the towers in no way resembles a "bullet going through a leaf", what a silly analogy, and no wonder people are so easily fooled. And do you know what? If you did fire two identical bullets through two identical leaves, the bullet that hit the leaf would be travelling measurably slower than the one that did not. And if it went through 100 leaves it would be travelling slower yet.

And it does matter how many of my points are "debunked", I would posit however that calling me an "idiot" hardly constitutes a "debunking".

Search for the truth people, if your back yard shed just fell down one day, I am sure you would want a better explanation than we got for the towers. "What do mean a bird hit it and it just "fell down"? And okay, even if that is true, please explain why my garage collapsed too."

Oh, and while I am it, can someone, anyone, please please tell me... Where where the interceptors that day? America has thousands of interceptors. 10's of thousands. They are strategically stationed all over America. These planes have missles that can acquire, attack and destroy a target at distances out to 150 miles. The Pentagon was not hit till nearly an hour after the initial hijackings, Andrews air force base is 13 miles from the Pentagon. There were 125 interceptors there that day. Why were the skys above Washington not filled with jets, AWACS, helicopters et al? The White House Secret Service, quite reasonably has MANPADs - handheld anti-aircraft missles. I assume, with a high degree of confidence, that the Pentagon has the same. We have heard that the plane was being tracked. Why, WHY, was there not a single person on the lawn of the Pentagon with a stinger missle?

And for those of you who believe the official story, why are you not screaming for the heads of the real morons, the ones you elected and hired to protect you? The ones who could not stop the 19 real idiots (from your POV) who pretty much called the Pentagon before "dropping in" for a visit?