Mouse, with no disrespect whatsoever - cause I do consider you to be a free thinker - remind us where you obtained your physics degree?
Again, no disrespect... I just want you to realize that you can't go around calling someone out on physics concepts when the argument really goes both ways. Few people in here have a complete handle on the subject. But one thing is for sure; the conspiracist claims play on the logical reasoning of physics from the mindset of a 90% of the populace but this basis doesn't necessarily make them true. Most people can be swayed by sugar coating concepts to suit the needs of their limited understanding. To them the arguments make sense. In fact some of the arguments such as nbadan's assertion that explosions are required to propel dust and debris away from the core of the collapsing structure illustrate the limited understanding being propagated by some of these conpiracist websites. In light of real physics, however, none of the conspiracists' claims hold much credence.
Some, including myself, can see the events of 9/11 for what they were - terrorist attacks. Are there questions that remain unanswered? Sure.... because the dynamic data required to answer them went down with the buildings themselves. Because the window of opportunity to get the data closed before we knew what we were looking for and because the some parts of ground zero were inaccessible for weeks. That doesn't mean that I can speculate on the missing data and try to fill the holes with other distracting agendas. Did other buildings have to fall before I could believe that these would? Not necessarily. Not once before had a fully loaded passenger plane hit a building square on. There was no precedent for such event.
Am I supposed to believe that 'out of context' pictures prove much of anything?... No.
Am I supposed to believe that conspiracists really understand what 'free-fall' speed really means when they constantly fail to identify it.... much less understand it?
When they refuse to acknowledge that diesel generators, water storage tanks, and vehicle-fuel tanks were the possible culprits for subsequent explosions - choosing instead to believe more exotic explosives were being used - it beckons the question on whether or not they are fabricating the story that suits their needs. Do they construct what they want to see and ignore the rest?
When their arguments are filled with this many holes, how can I even take them seriously....
The biggest conundrum in the conspiracist's logical framework is that we are to believe that so many things were orchestrated under the noses of thousands of people and that no one noticed... furthermore, that the perpetrators have somehow managed to remain completely silent on the matter. The lack of leaks on a conspiracy of this magnitude, after six years no less, indicates that there is no conspiracy. Am I to believe that one of the nation's most notoriously lackluster presidents orchestrated a maniacal scheme to perfection. We're talking about Bush here.... Even the Roswell incident is 10 times more believable than this conspiracy.