just randomly found this thread on google. I'm part of the group that thinks there was more to 9/11 then we are led to believe. First off Osama didn't take credit for several months even though most of our intelligence agencies had intel before the attacks and after identified the attackers as Al Qaeda. Why would no one claim responsibiblity for the largest terrorist attack on US soil. perhaps they didn't do it? Secondly it IS a big deal if it was a false flag, because that's 3,000 American lives lost at the hands of our gov't to justify even more killing elsewhere. As for the science of it all, the one thing that most "truth deniers"(?) don't like to touch on is the presence of nano-thermite at the location. Is it possible that it was just jet fuel that took down the towers, maybe, but they stood for about an hour allowing many people to escape and time to weaken the structure like /u/overand says. The biggest piece of the puzzle for me is not even WTC 7, which could've been taken down either through the falling debris, jet fuel or thermite, but the Pentagon attack. The way the pilot crashed into the Pentagon, destroying their accounting records, which Rumsfield couldn't account for trillions of dollars, was way too precise and too skilled of a manuever than for someone of the presumed terrorist skill level. IIRC the pilot that crashed into the Pentagon had just recently learned flying, and the flight path he took into the Pentagon was a descending cork screw that missed the White House. If this was truly a terrorist attack, why wouldn't Al Qaeda try to make the biggest noise and cause the most panic possible, by attacking the White House. Not only that there were no pictures taken of the Pentagon plane. I've been to the White House and I've seen the snipers on the roof, and I find it impossible to believe that they would miss something like that and not inform anyone. For me personally there are not adequate answers to many big problems surrounding 9/11. The free fall issue not withstanding, because if the structure was weakened from the top then it would have to meet some resistance falling down from the non-weakened levels at the bottom, but this is not the case. The pancake theory for me is hard to believe, because each level would have to fall before the previous collapsed onto it. It would seem the base supporting structures for the Twin Towers and WTC 7 would most likely need to be cut allowing that free-falling pancake theory to seem plausible. This isn't even bringing into the discussion of Dick Cheney's association with Halliburton, a huge benefactor of the War