Kevsh

Not to dodge the question, but that's for the FBI and/or government to explain. But the fact they have not released them doesn't mean this conspiracy is true at any level.

It does raise questions, certainly, but as I pointed out a few pages back "holes in the plot" aren't by themselves a smoking gun: Hard evidence is. From the evidence at the scene, there was more to show a plane hit than a missile.

For example, at what point were scraps of a plane brought in and dumped at the scene? No explanation.

They had 1 guy saying he saw a windowless plane. If 500 people witness a plane slamming into a building you are surely going to get a few different descriptions. Show me *any* video that clearly shows a windowless plane or drone - you can't.

The 2nd plane was caught on a few cameras and no one is questioning it was a commercial plane .. so the first was a drone or cargo plane but the second was a commercial plane?

Is there even a tiny shred of *physical* evidence that bombs were in the WTC? Sure the area was closed off (it was a crime scene) but to date no has produced any evidence bombs were there - who put them there? How exactly did they get in there? Where did they get the bombs from? A demolition team was at the scene *after* the buildings fell, sure, but how about before? Anyone?

I could go on and on and on.

For every single point in that video you claim is a smoking gun, I can point to something (or someone) that claims it isn't. Some experts say that the jet fuel absolutely could've caused the collapse, others don't agree. The documentary chooses to quote only those whose opinions fit into their conspiracy theory - but they fail to present any arguments to the contrary, even though on most points there are many more.

Applaud them for a neat little video and lots of research, but it's completely skewed to suit their message. It's not investigative journalism because it doesn't allow for a counter-point. It's not fact, it's opinion.

I'm off to bed.