just never thought that the twin towers fell down because of the aeroplanes. When the towers fell, I just assumed that there must also have been bombs planted, because it is absolutely impossible that they would fall so uniformly, and within such a small space of time of eachother, I was studying structural engineering at the time, so I was very surprised that so many simply swallowed the lie.
There was another building, not a small one either, which fell that day, also in a clean fashion as in a controlled demolition, it was not hit by an aircraft. We are told it fell because debris from the other buildings caused fire, which resulted in structural failure, but this too is impossible, there has been no incidence of a very large building falling down suddenly as one, with no resistance between floors, except in the cases of controlled demolition.
This is old news of course, but people who STILL haven't got it need to swallow their pride now and admit they were wrong, and we should have all been more on the ball in calling this lie, and we should have shouted it louder, because we could have saved a lot of lives, and hastened the demise of the capitalist beast.
Not to mention the pentagon which was supposedly hit by an aircraft, but somehow nobody got any footage of this happening, and the pictures of the building after the attack showed no aircraft wreckage and only a very small hole in the side of the pentagon, which is by the way not a very tall building. It is not realistic to expect a suicide bomber, with limited flying experience to be able to control a large aircraft (having NEVER flown one before), so precisely and at such a high speed, into such a low building.

This is classic churchillian politics.
Commit an atrocity against yourself, or more specifically, allow an atrocity to be committed against your civilian population, creating public outcry (unquestioning patriotic mouth frothing). Then use that fervor to justify military action in order to secure, in this case, "history's greatest prize" i.e. middle eastern oil.
The same tactic was used to change public opinion in America in the early years of BOTH world wars (Lusitania and Pearl Harbor).
btw I am not a conspiracy theorist.... this is just really bloody obvious and it is very foolish for people to fall into the trap of simply branding any non-status quo opinion as some kind of wacky conspiracy theory.

The 3 enormous buildings that fell in the WTC complex had very substantial skeletons. Very thick steel vertical spines running up from bottom to top. Look at images of the wreckage! These huge and hugely strong skeletons were sheered at about 45 degrees, near the bases of each building (and no doubt at regular intervals along the way up) as if they were made of butter and cut with hot knives. How did this come about? How come the buildings all fell in the same style even though they all suffered very different impacts? Even the two towers that were hit by aircraft were hit at different levels. The only realistic explanation as to why they fell is that very powerful explosives were planted strategically in advance and detonated at once along these skeletons.
I'm sorry but there is no explanation I can think of other than controlled demolition in all three cases. The skeletons of these structures MUST have been planted very carefully with explosives in advance. That explains why they all fell as if there was no friction between floors. The fires which raged after the planes hit could not have produced sufficient temperatures to melt the steel supports, and the official version of events that the collapses happened from top down with the weight of successive floors falling down on top of each other is sheer fantasy, as this would have resulted in messy asymmetrical collapses, not free fall at terminal velocity.
NO NEED for science fiction explanations, its really just very simple.
Wtc 7 is particular fantasy as it only had minor fires on a few floors. How can it have suddenly turned to jelly? Try to find an example of this ever happening before, a massive building turning into jelly in a moment and collapsing tidily like a reverse jack in a box just because of localised fires. Even if the whole building had been engulfed in flames uniformly (which it wasn't), this could not have happened. We would have seen the decay of non-skeletal parts of the structure and would have been left with a burnt out skeleton.
TEN YEARS of shouting this shit and being laughed at by people who are too cool to be "conspiracy theorists" or just too fucking dumb to use their own brains.

I'm no structural engineer, nor am I privy to any information not available to the general public. I don't have a definitive explanation for the collapse of the buildings in New York that day, and I've never been involved in controlled demolitions. However, I did manage to get to read a copy of the New York Times dated from the 12th September. The 'Pancake theory' relating to the collapse of those buildings was included in this print, which considering the lack of structural and forensic analysis on the wreckage, would seem rather premature. Remarkable how this piece of speculation morphed into the axiom it still is today. Unless of course, rather coincidentally, the reporter just happened to be an expert in both. Anyway, thanks for the level headed original post.

Few people seem to know why the official report for World Trade Center building 7 is false and unscientific. Some might have heard that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (or NIST) has admitted that the building fell in free-fall acceleration for a period of time. But the fact is that the building could never have begun to fall the way NIST said it did. Here’s why.

'Why the NIST WTC7 Report is False' by Kevin Ryan
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU

More by Kevin Ryan:
 http://www.ultruth.com

"Not to mention the pentagon which was supposedly hit by an aircraft, but somehow nobody got any footage of this happening, and the pictures of the building after the attack showed no aircraft wreckage and only a very small hole in the side of the pentagon, which is by the way not a very tall building."

I think you're mistaken:

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman
 http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

The Pentagon Honey Pot by Arabesque
 http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/pentagon-honey-pot.html

Pentagon "Missile" Hoax by Mark Robinowitz
 http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

If I was the mastermind of a conspiracy to kill people in the USA, in order to lead the country into military adventures overseas, then there are many things I would not do.

Two of these are:

1) I would not tell the media what was going to happen and I would ensure that those in the know did not tell them either. A conspiracy on this scale would be unlikely to be kept hidden and the fewer people who knew the more likely the secrecy is to survive. Telling the BBC what was going to happen is not something I or any other conspirator would do, they make a living investigating stories.

2) I would not arrange for the buildings to just fall down vertically. It would be far more terrifying to make the twin towers fall over sideways, crashing into buildings far and wide and causing even more deaths. If I was prepared to kill thousands in the towers then it would be nothing to kill a thousand or two more in surrounding buildings and the larger destruction would cause more terror in order to help my plan.

Winston Churchill caused the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour? Don't make me laugh. At the time the Japanese military/industrial complex was very angry with the British. They felt they had been abandoned by the British as the former very close relationship had become more distant.

Winston Churchill was responsible for the sinking of a merchant ship? Don't make me laugh. At the time many merchant ships were being sunk, the Lusitania was just one of them. They hadn't worked out any useful tactics for countering submarines at the time. Transatlantic liners at the time were subsidised by governments in various ways in order to have ships available for wartime. Later on the same thing was done with airlines, for example lots of airports were built with government money.