Which doesn't say much for a few adults here (and you know who you are). The points you raise are valid and logical. Can't say the same for the official reports on WTC "collapses." Basic structural engineering is indeed missing from those "official" report, so it's easy to "imagine" the collapses when you leave out key factors. And as long as you slap NIST on the report, people will accept the most ludicrous claims.

The suppression of truth related to a crime is in itself criminal. So much for justice.

See the actual Evidence

http://www.ae911truth.org/

> say that the 911 conspiracy theories are

> hogwash.

Fallacy: argument from authority.

> All 19 terrorists died on the planes. They

> weren’t on flight data because they used

> false names.

The claim that the terrorists' names weren't on the flight manifests is one of the commonly repeated errors in the 9/11 literature. The flight manifests were never released by the airlines. The lists published by CNN specifically say that they were put together by CNN from public information and reports by family members — and that the [alleged] hijackers' names were kept off the lists out of respect for the families.

> The BBC has not interviewed them. If they had it

> would be common knowledge. It’s another lie.

Sorry, you're wrong on both counts:

Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559…

Years after 9/11 skeptics made an issue of this, a BBC editor claimed to have retracted the story, but the story was retracted only partially, and in regard to only one or two of the hijackers. It's really quite bizarre — and a bit pathetic — to see a journalist squirming the way he did.

You have an absurdly misplaced faith in the media. MANY things are true that never become common knowledge … just as many things that are not even remotely true are widely believed. For a bare start, google _Operation Gladio_ and _Operation Northwoods_.

> The FBI is confident that it has positively

> identified the nineteen hijackers responsible

> for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Wrong again:

"FBI Director Robert Mueller [admitted] that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." After that admission a strange thing happened – nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open."

http://www.realnews247.com/fbi_denies_mix-up_of_9…

> Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly

> reviewed by the National Commission on

> Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

> and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither

> of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt

> about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

PLEASE. The very family members whose insistence finally got the Commission started after more than a YEAR of stonewalling were disgusted and outraged by its performance. Watch _9/11: Press for Truth_. Three-fourths of their questions, which the Commission had promised to use as its marching orders, were ignored or lied about. One Commission member (Max Cleland) resigned in protest, saying he would not be part of a Warren Commission-style cover-up. Two other Commissioners wrote a book (Kean and Hamilton, _Without Precedent_) in which they said the Commission had been "set up to fail" and that they had considered referring top military officers for criminal prosecution for misleading the Commission and obstructing its investigation. But these Commissioners were told that they did not have to power to even REFER those officers for that action. It was left to the military to police itself. Hmm, I wonder why that never happened. Read Griffin's book _The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions."

Come back when you've done your homework.

My car has a 1.9 Diesel with turbo, it takes 18 seconds to do 1/4 mile in Air from a standing start.

Do you suspect I could do that time if I put the brakes on 79 times?

Wake up people, I can only do that time with the brakes off.

Just like the building on 911, the building with no air resistance would have taken precisely 9.22 seconds. Once you factor air resistance it always reduces the acceleration and therefore increases the fall time.

NIST; the Videos and the seismic data all show both twin towers fell in under 10 seconds.

In other words, the bottom 80+ floors offered almost zero resistance to the falling top portion.

Controlled timed demolition is the only way the bottom portion can appear to offer near Zero resistance.

Sorry to have to prove it to you, but it means the US government is a big fat Treasonous CROOK!

Peter, H = 1/2 g t^2 mate, use the Physics pall, plug in 417 metres for H, rotate and get a value for time.

So go on then Peter, why did the bottom strongest (UNDAMAGED) lower 80+ floors offer almost Zero Resistance?

How could any hijackers do that? Oh and by the way Peter, two are still flying for Saudi Airlines and are suing the US government – that's a bit hard to do if they really were dead dont you suspect?

Use the Physics – not Engineered Diatribe!