Actually I didn't want start this discussion, but Dan has written this:
This isn't a political thread, but the reason people believe 2 planes brought the towers down is because they did. Not only is it totally plausible, but all available facts support it. It's actually completely crazy to think otherwise. A fully loaded jet airliner traveling at that speed, impacting a tower designed in that way (with a VERY weak glass-aluminimum shell, for starters), combined with the office combustibles, WILL destroy a tower in the manner it DID. It isn't up for debate or discussion. That's what history will record forever, and it's what the vast number of scientists and structural engineers conclude.
So in order to his rightful request to open a new thread instead to bloating unnecessary the reunion threat with it here we go.
Regarding the structural engineers:
When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:
Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
http://www.ae911truth.org/home/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.htmlThis doesn't mean that the towers are understandable, but it says that the structure was well enough to compensate this accident. So this means that a critical hit could have bring down parts of the towers but not the whole two (three) buildings, which, against any probability, collapsed accidentally same way as a professional demolished building. No matter who says the truth either the politicians lay or all the demolition experts do and their job and all their talks about static is fake, because any building will be collapse this way. I mean 3 of 3 buildings have collapsed this way, how big is the possibility that this happens for only one building? Buildings, which are also designed to be airplane proof? They did also take the fuel in account, which is the base of the official explanation.
How could they have found the passports of the hijacker if the fire was so hot that it has melt steel? This alone is ridicules and this isn't in any way 'totally plausible'. If crazy means that I don't believe their poor explanations all there laughable experiments to negate the hard facts, which are shown as theory, well then I guess I'm super crazy.
Real life propaganda depends on being able to hide the truth. That's the other reason why 9/11 is not a conspiracy. It would be impossible to hide the truth.
Hitler has done it before very well. The shockmoment is only important to force people to let them do even an unwanted reaction. And if the truth about a thing finally comes out, then call it conspiracy theory and place some more conspiracy theory by yourself and no normal citizen on these world is able to tell you what is a lie and what not. This is a simple propaganda mechanism. The advanced propaganda of this lies in the detail, because the word 'conspiracy' is negative and let people automatically think about stupid looking people which has no idea what they talking about.
How good this works shows the new age word anti-Semitism. Nobody knows what Semites are nor do they knew about the history of the Jews (me too), but if a person is called an anti-Semite, after he talked the truth about something unpleasant regarding the Jews, he will be social brand marked as a person who tortures helpless little Jews and the unpleasant thing what he has discovered will go under in the media.
Also you only need to pay a lot of money to a presumably repeated person (doctor, engineer, etc) and they say what ever you want and the people will believe it, because he has to know about it and it is official. After all, why should he and the official investigation committee lie? But if a other actually repeated person say that this can't be happened that way (often with more detailed explanation) and it's not an official person, people usually mistrust him and say this is only conspiracy theory. But what is his motivation to tell you an untrue story?
So it isn't needed to hide the truth, you only need to create many versions of it and destroy the reputation of the people who do not agree with the official statement.
I have read in a book from 1996 (from Jan van Helsing*) that there are plans to nuke one of three major cities (New York, LA, I'm honestly not sure about the cities) in America to motivate the people for an military intervention in the Iraq. Well gladly the nuke was left out, but still the Iraq had paid the price.
*There are a few books out from him. I had read two from him, but the third I could put my hands on is different the way of writing and let him look like an complete idiot on peyote. So my guess is that some other have abused his pseudonymous or he really has taken these mushrooms.
Anyway, it is hard to tell what is true or not, these days. Look at the different news about the Ukraine in west and east. Both tell the truth, but from different positions. We do see Russia as aggressor and Russia see the NATO as aggressor which has hurt standing agreement several times.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/19/359239/nato-broke-standing-agreement-with-russia/When I see an important event I often look at what the results can be: A weak East and Middle Europe and a heavy armed Mideast doesn't look so healthy, especially not if in the same book, I had read, locates the World War III in Europe between the irreligious west and the religious Mideast. (I really hope that guy has taken to much drugs and nothing like this will happen ...
)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqjQD6HwAE