No need to apologize, Jim. It's a highly charged topic, and as you know, anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong.

John, they withstood the impact but not the fire from what I can see.

Justin, what you said about the middle east situation is dead on. There is no war on terror, it's a catch phrase. It's a war on a few thugs who outsmarted the CIA/ FBI you name it.

The US government created this situation. I don't know who I hate more, Bush or Bin Laden. Our government just keeps f ucking up over and over.

The war on terror is GWB. His administration is responsible for this hugh mess we are in now with Irac. Bush is the terrorist here.

If the fire from jet fuel, most of which burned up in a fireball outside the building, was hot enough to melt the fire-protected steel, and make it molten (7 floors underground?!?!) for months, why are there pictures of people standing in the open gash? Wouldn't the heat that could melt hardened steel have completely vaporized all humans in the area of impact?

How did a building that was not hit by planes (WTC7) or substantial debris, and had a couple floors on fire, completely collapse upon itself into it's own footprint, with no trace of any of the vertical support beams? It takes the very best, most experienced demolition companies, of which there are only a few, to make a building fall upon itself gracefully in that manner, leaving no support structure standing.

I'm certainly not saying Bush piloted a plane himself, but there are a lot of strange coincidences, not the least of which was the fact that although other buildings took more debris, all buildings owned by Silverstein collapsed fully into their own footprint. He then collected at least 3 billion dollars in insurance money, since he had recently purchased "terrorist insurance" on the buildings, and, subsequently, the administration was given the go ahead to invade oil-rich countries "to protect us".

BTW, molten steel is a by-product of a thermite reaction. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt hardened steel. Certainly not in 56 minutes.

Further, why was the crime scene off limits to even FEMA, and the steel, conveniently in truck-sized pieces, was immediately sold and shipped overseas. Crime scene evidence was immediately shipped overseas.

The "pancake theory" doesn't hold up, either, because all concrete was pulverized into dust. Buildings that pancake down leave a stack of floors piled up at the bottom.

Why was trillions of dollars "missing" after the attacks, and trucks loaded with gold were found under building 5, in an escape convoy? Who had the knowledge to clear out the money? Who stood to gain from this event? Certainly the Bush administration and the PNAC war machine.

Why did it happen on September 11th, when Marvin Bush's WTC security contract was up on September 10th, and the whole US defense system was skewed by false blips and false hijackings due to training excercises? Talk about convenient.

Do you really think that fire brought down these buildings, when fire has never before, or since, brought down a steel building? Especially into it's own footprint in a pile of dust? The towers were "over-engineered" for fire and attacks, even hurricanes, yet 3(?!?) buildings did just that on that terrible day...

I was never a conspiracy theorist, but I would like to hear logical answers to a number of questions like these.

Me too, as well as a reason why three black boxes magically all failed to work, when 99.999% of crash recovered boxes work flawlessly.

I certainly don't know the answers - or even that those are all facts, for that matter. But I'm sure that if they are facts that there are answers. Or not - when was the last time airliners crashed into skyscrapers?

Operation Northwoods is a frightening story, by the way. It's hard to say whether that was why Kennedy was murdered, but I wouldn't be surprised.

All I'm saying is that you should research this if you think these are not facts, and that fire from jet fuel is what brought down 3 steel buildings, and pulverized the concrete to dust (except for the discovery of an intact hijacker's passport), and melted steel in the basement floors 7 stories underground. Unprecedented fire.

You said "they withstood the impact but not the fire from what I can see." And "The way it collapsed means very little to me, and everything else is coincidence." This is simply a repeat of the official story, and is a "head-in-the-sand" approach to the truth, whatever that may be.

This is typical of the mindset here. If I question the official story, I am branded as a nutcase and unpatriotic, but then you won't research any real, scientific answers to my questions. I asked someone if they knew what the PNAC was, and he said "No, and I don't care. The government is not smart enough to have pulled this off." The propoaganda machine is in full force, and ignorance ("I don't even know if these are facts") is abundant.

Really. Fire brought down 3 steel buildings. Hmmmm. Into their own footprint, nice and neat. No toppling, no beams left shooting into the sky, etc. Maybe you can believe this, but it was remarkably like a controlled demolition.

It is interesting to note your extensive knowledge and opinions of the political and economic side of the war and the administration's policies, but you should research this. These are not small, insignificant, coincidental questions. And there are many more.

"To start with, the ability to speak coherently is a major part of the job description."

Where's that list?

Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist, not a president. The job descriptions are quite different; obviously he doesn't have to talk to do what he does.

However, he does happen to be very articulate in writing. It takes a talent to explain all that incredibly complicated stuff as well as he does.

Sean, I don't have my head in the sand - as in deliberately and aggressively ignoring reality - but it seems totally implausible that anything happened to the WTC other than the official story, and totally plausible that the planes caused them to collapse. I'm starting with that assumption, as most people are.

In other words, it's far more likely that there are answers to every one of the strange coincidences than that there aren't. And the problem with doing "research" is that there are lots of nutty sites that report what look like facts but aren't; they don't look any different from sites that do have facts.

How do we know that the steel was shipped the way you say, for example? It may well have been, but if so there's probably a good answer.

I certainly don't think you're a nutcase or unpatriotic, I just find it totally unlikely that this was a case of friendly fire.