1) The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand [The buildings were not designed to withstand head-on collisions from fully loaded passenger jets which weren't introduced until ten years after the construction finished], and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects. [Just a massive fire, and steel supports gradually losing their structural strength? Negligible, obviously...]
2) The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down. [For the most part, melting steel did not. It was the steel warping, easily possible within the temperature jet-fuel burns at, which caused the towers to collapse]
3) UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt. [This may have been true at the time of construction, but reports released prior to the attacks showed that the fireproofing on the steel was in very, very poor condition]
4) If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed. [How do they know the floors didn't sag and tilt? You wouldn't have been able to see from outside, and no one who would have witnessed it from inside survived]
5) There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall. [Where are the figures to suggest this? I highly doubt this is the case]
6) There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.
7) Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me. [I'm sure this is rubbish somehow. The structural design used in the twin towers had never been used before, and to my knowledge, never again (Excluding the other buildings in the WTC complex, WTC7 for example)]
8) The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives. [These figures are rubbish. Conspiracy debunkers have proven that the towers fell slower than free fall speed]
9) The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down [The "Pancake Theory" doesn't apply to a solid tree trunk. This is a completely ludicrous comparison], which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.
10) Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four, and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause. [Provided all of this is true, how do the conspiracy theorists propose it came about?]
11) WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it" ["Pulling" in controlled demolition is the process of literally pulling a building mechanically, not the signal to carry out the demolition. Silverstein actually meant to abandon the fires in the building and pull the firefighters out] , displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT. [World Trade Center 7 did not collapse directly as a result of the terrorist attacks. The damage to other surrounding buildings was also not mentioned by the commission, because it was not their job to do so]
12) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757! [The hole in the Pentagon was actually the exact right size for a Boeing 757, and not for a missile. The fragile tail and wings would have disintegrated on impact (thus not denting the building). There was actually a considerable amount of material retrieved, including a number of bodies, personal effects (which were returned to relatives of the victims), and even documents such as passports and driving licenses. All of this would have been nigh-on impossible to plant]
13) The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
14) The aerodynamics of flight [What "aerodynamics of flight"? There are no aerodynamics of flight which prevent airplanes from flying close to the ground] would have made the official trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater [there is not crater because that is not what happened. Poking holes in your own explanations does not mean there are holes in the official story] and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
15) If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size [According to who? Where is the evidence to suggest this?], but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario.
There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes [They took pilot lessons, and although they were not excellent, it can't have been difficult to carry out the task they did with just basic piloting skills. They did not need to take off or land, just aim the planes at easy-to-hit targets]; their names were not on any passenger manifest [This was just one person's word, and it was disproved days after the attacks]; they were not subject to any autopsy [What would be the point? It was obvious how they died, and their remains would not have yielded much anyway]; several have turned up alive and well [This has been disproved as pure coincidence and mix-ups. There is no proof - aside from a few outdated and untrue news reports - that any of the hijackers are alive today]; tthe cell phone calls appear to have been impossible [What cell phone calls? All the calls I have heard about were made using in-cabin telephones, which were certainly possible]; on and on. The evidence may be found at st911.org.
