Well, at least a possible motive has come up since I last read this thread. It wasn't the US government, it was insurance fraud!

Hey, it could have been. I could see a greedy corporation doing this before the US government.

Insurance fraud....watch this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D-aO3...elated&search=

yeah and the phone calls the night before to stay out of building 7 and why did FEMA move there comand center?

IMHO they were all pulled. in 50 years no modern building has ever collapsed due to fire and there have been over 200 uncontrolled fires hmmmmm

I can't believe how people have suddenly become experts. You are "proving" things based on video'* off youtube....gimme a break...

I saw a british chick with big ***** on YouTube eat a bunch of mento'*, then chug a 2-liter of pepsi.

She blew up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec7Xxf1Mjrs

They actually used 457 cambodian refugees in this exact manner to bring down WTC7.

That makes perfect sense! It'* a brilliantly simple plan. Pepsi, Mentos, and Cambodian refugees are all very easy to smuggle into an office building! Cambodian refugees look remarkably similar to regular people. And of course, Pepsi and Mentos are standard office food products.

Really, it'* eerily similar to the easy-to-find fuel oil and fertilizer filled rental truck used in Oklahoma City. Shame on the government for not seeing the signs, and banning all common substances!

Gonneville, you explain how elaborate it is to demolish a building, yet these buildings fell in a controlled fashion by fire and structural damage that was done in a very unorganized way. The damage to buildings 1 and 2 was consolidated to certain, higher-up floors. The plans didn't hit EVERY floor, so why is it necessary that you wire explosive on every floor? If the buildings are already damaged, and you're not worried about safety and the effect on the surrounding environment, using excessive explosives on the supporting floors would not be hard.

Also, explain to me why it would be so hard to "sneak" explosives into the buildings. If you own the building, who is doing the oversight on that? No one is going to question a large semi truck making a delivery to the WTC, which I'd imagine requires a lot of supplies. If you're carrying explosives, it'* not that obvious. It'* not like they have to carry them around in a huge ACME box that says TNT or something.

It'* shocking that people would be offended by questioning what happened to the buildings. Saying that it is dishonorable to those that died is completely wrong. I think that we would owe it to those that died to make sure we know what actually happened. If you think that we shouldn't investigate what happened to the fullest extent, then you are promoting ignorance. It is our duty as a people to be a watch dog for our own government, lest you become a subject rather than a citizen. We grant our government the power, and I think it'* a shame that people don't realize this. We agree, for our own safety and well-being, that we need to be governed. If you aren't willing to second guess the government, then you are have failed your nation. The government does not make the nation or a country, it just governs it.

Also, if for those that believe there is no conspiracy because Osama took credit for it. The Bin Ladens have been in with governing families of America for a long time. I am not espousing this theory as true, but I'm just asking questions: If the president needed a scape goat, what would Osama have to loose by taking credit? He'* already a terrorist and by doing this, he gains support for his movement. We also, conveniently, have not caught him. I actually don't think this is true, but I can't say it'* not true.

Mythbusters proved that this won't work. Once you drink the soda, it looses it'* ability to react as catastrophically as it does in the bottle.

Mythbusters also leaves many analytical and scientific possibilities untested in each episode. They are MEDIA approaches, not sciience in many cases.

I have yet to see an episode that wasn't flawed in a major way.

I'm not saying I'm PROVING everything, but just because they're on youtube does not mean the videos have no credibility. Most of these videos have appeared on TV first, many of which were live during 9/11, so would you say that when they appeared on TV they were not credible either?

Chromius said what I have wanted to say for a while:

People are afraid to admit it'* possible. They don't want to believe something like this could happen by the hand of our government. We have been conditioned to think that terrorists did it. As soon as the second plane hit the second tower, everyone knew it was not an accident and assumed (with good reason) terrorists did it.

I didn't even think TWICE about what happened on 9/11 until the author of this post started this thread. I saw a video a couple years ago that suggested explosives were in the WTC, and they showed the bursts blowing out of each floor as the building went down. I thought about it for a few seconds, and have never thought about it again until now.

The point I want to make is that I've seen a lot of things that show huge holes in the official story, and so have countless others. The whole conspiracy theory isn't made up by anarchists who just want to denounce the government for sh*** and giggles. There is VERY GOOD REASON to question what happened that day, from the towers, building 7, the Pentagon attack (which doesn't make complete sense either), and flight 93.

If you don't question anything about 9/11, then you must have absolute certainty and proof that terrorists did it. Because if not, simply denying our government had a hand in it because "it could never happen" and because they TOLD you what happened is ridiculous IMO. But no one does have absolute proof, and until we do this debate will continue.

I'm not trying to get people to change their views. Just ask yourself what you truly believe and why.