WTC 7 INVESTIGATION UPDATE!

[pjcz]

What does Hoffman think about this picture?



I ask because the History Channel claims this column was cut days after 9/11 with an oxy-acetylene torch during the clean up effort.

Is there any way to prove WHEN this picture was taken?

By a time stamp, or by the person who took the picture?

This is a very important issue because obviously that column was cut.

I, too, would love to have clarification on this photo. I've used it before to make the case of demolition, but it is entirely feasible that it was cut during clean-up. Any proof of timing?

[das_ding]

Timestamp is irrelevant in this context.
If the left column would cut to remove the debris, they would cut it the shortest way - and this is the 90 degree angle! Not 45 degrees!

The 45 degree cut is typical for controlled demolition to let the columns move in an 45 degree vector by the enormous wight on it.
Nothing would happen if it would be 90 degree in a controlled demolition 

[pjcz]

Timestamp is irrelevant in this context.
If the left column would cut to remove the debris, they would cut it the shortest way - and this is the 90 degree angle! Not 45 degrees!

The 45 degree cut is typical for controlled demolition to let the columns move in an 45 degree vector by the enormous wight on it.
Nothing would happen if it would be 90 degree in a controlled demolition 

Sorry, but I think it is incredibly relevant. If the truth movement cannot prove that the beam was not cut during clean up, the case becomes much harder to make to those who are not already in the truth camp.

[Byrne0ut]

[smokecheck]

 Watch this: explains demolition, shape charges, etc..--How and why I beams are cut at a 45 degree angle using shape charges. CDI- c.e.o. explains in this as well

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2147329422984355159&q=never+hit+by+a+plane&ei=OT4KSMrSFIqUrgLV4cS


A documentary filled with facts, evidence, video clips, news clips, pictures, music, witness and expert testimony on the events of 9/11 pertaining to WTC-7, also known as The Solomon Brothers Building

[pjcz]

Watch this: explains demolition, shape charges, etc..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2147329422984355159&q=never+hit+by+a+plane&ei=OT4KSMrSFIqUrgLV4cS

I do not need to be told about the use of angled charges in demolition. I am a truther, I've seen the movies and heard the lectures. What I am saying (and the other poster is saying) is that if we keep pointing to this picture as evidence of demolition but cannot validate that it absolutely happened before clean up, that's a problem.

[Byrne0ut]

I dont think that photo is enough evidence and it shouldn't be used to support controlled demolition of the towers. 

[smokecheck]

 

I do not need to be told about the use of angled charges in demolition. I am a truther, I've seen the movies and heard the lectures. What I am saying (and the other poster is saying) is that if we keep pointing to this picture as evidence of demolition but cannot validate that it absolutely happened before clean up, that's a problem.

First of all the picture is incomplete. The original picture has three columns. Also, notice the molten metal on the column. If you watch the video, controlled demolition is shown, explained, and compared.

   If someone wants to debate on a topic regarding 9/11, instead of them misdirecting you to an area that can be argued, bring them to the topic of WTC-7. Which is what all guilty and disinformationalists want your focus off of.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2147329422984355159&q=never+hit+by+a+plane&ei=OT4KSMrSFIqUrgLV4cS

[das_ding]

Wouldn't both columns have to have been cut at a 45 degree angle during a controlled demolition?

Maybe it is one and the same  The right one is the upper piece of the left one while it is sticking in the debris !

[pjcz]

First of all the picture is incomplete. The original picture has three columns. If you watch the video, controlled demolition is shown, explained, and compared.

   If someone wants to debate on a topic regarding 9/11, instead of them misdirecting you to an area that can be argued, bring them to the topic of WTC-7. Which is what all guilty and disinformationalists want your focus off of.

Well, I respectfully disagree. I don't believe that the truth movement can continuously point out the lack of detail and the lack of evidence in the 'official reports' (e.g., NIST) and then when pressed for our own details simply expect others to not care when we are lacking detail. Unfortunately, the burden is on us. To be clear, I'm not saying that the whole thing goes away without proof for this photo; there is SO much evidence that when combined makes a very strong case. I'm just saying that the argument would be even stronger if this photo could be cleared up.

[Byrne0ut]

Wouldn't both columns have to have been cut at a 45 degree angle during a controlled demolition?

Maybe it is one and the same  The right one is the upper piece of the left one while it is sticking in the debris !

So they cut the column and then stuck in the the ground for what purpose?  That explanation holds no water.

[smokecheck]

 Obviously you two are trolls.  WTC-7  FOCUS on it.

 WTC-7 clears it up for me. The evidence there is undeniable. It is all that is really needed to move forward.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2147329422984355159&q=never+hit+by+a+plane&ei=OT4KSMrSFIqUrgLV4cS

[pjcz]

Obviously you two are trolls.  WTC-7  FOCUS on it.

 WTC-7 clears it up for me. The evidence there is undeniable. It is all that is really needed to move forward.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2147329422984355159&q=never+hit+by+a+plane&ei=OT4KSMrSFIqUrgLV4cS

WTF? I am not a troll. My name appears publicly on two major 9/11 truth websites. Obviously, you simply want to have (and share) an opinion about what happened that day. I actually want to turn others into believers  of 9/11 truth, and I believe you do that with evidence not with an opinion that becomes dismissive after a few moments.

[Byrne0ut]

yea Im not a troll. damn jarheads.

[smokecheck]

WTF? I am not a troll. My name appears publicly on two major 9/11 truth websites. Obviously, you simply want to have (and share) an opinion about what happened that day. I actually want to turn others into believers  of 9/11 truth, and I believe you do that with evidence not with an opinion that becomes dismissive after a few moments.

 Address my responses then. Many experts, greater than you and I, have called wtc-7 -"the smoking gun" Why?
  Because the evidence is irrefutable. So if you want to bring someone to the truth, bring them to wtc-7, that is where the evidence and the arguments are solid.

[pjcz]

Address my responses then. Many experts, greater than you and I, have called wtc-7 -"the smoking gun" Why?
  Because the evidence is irrefutable. So if you want to bring someone to the truth, bring them to wtc-7, that is where the evidence and the arguments are solid.

What are you talking about? I have already said I am a '9/11 truther' who has publicly put my name on the line. I know about WTC7. It's a smoking gun to us because we have all the other information that we've spent so much time digesting. But guess what, people who haven't come to accept that their government did this actually require more than one so-called smoking gun. They are not going to go from the official story to 9/11 truthers on one piece of information. If you really believe that the way to convert people, and to make major media someday investigate, is to be dismissive and unwilling to accept when the story has holes, you are in for a big let down. I am done now. I have put my self out there in this matter (Scholars for Truth and Justice, Patriots Question); I don't need to be called a troll by someone who isn't interested in making the case as strong as it can be.

[jimd3100]

I don't see any trolls on here, I see some good questions being asked. WTC 7 yes, that's good...but the question about this steel beam is a good one.

The cleanup started rather quickly however I am almost certain that no equipment or cutting was done until something like the 14th at the earliest. If it can be proven this picture was taken at a certain time that would help. If it was taken on the 12th, that's good evidence that it wasn't cut for cleanup. If it was taken on the 29th, it would mean maybe, maybe not. If it can be proven that it is cut with a torch, it would be nice to know. If it can be proven it wasn't cut by a torch, that would be nice to know.

Just from the picture it would seem difficult to me anyway to cut that beam. But I'm no expert.
I would like clarification on this picture too, as has been said on here, it has been used as evidence. How good is this evidence?

[smokecheck]

What are you talking about? I have already said I am a '9/11 truther' who has publicly put my name on the line. I know about WTC7. It's a smoking gun to us because we have all the other information that we've spent so much time digesting. But guess what, people who haven't come to accept that their government did this actually require more than one so-called smoking gun. They are not going to go from the official story to 9/11 truthers on one piece of information. If you really believe that the way to convert people, and to make major media someday investigate, is to be dismissive and unwilling to accept when the story has holes, you are in for a big let down. I am done now. I have put my self out there in this matter (Scholars for Truth and Justice, Patriots Question); I don't need to be called a troll by someone who isn't interested in making the case as strong as it can be.

  The truth hurts doesn't it?

  WTC-7 is more than one piece of evidence. Furthermore, if your bringing someone new to the truth of 9/11, they could spend weeks investigating WTC-7. Then once they see all the holes, the bad science, witness testimony,the lack of mention in the 9/11 commission report(I mean omission), the official story presents, you may have a chance at awakening that person.  Present them with facts and science that can not be explained by disinformation.

  WTC-7 places them in a solid position for debate and bringing others to the truth.

 For the record, I don't give a rat's behind on the number of sites your name is on. That means nothing.Whether your a troll or not lies in the content of the information/or lack of information you put out.
 

[jimd3100]

Some more pics of steel cut at an angle...the word "save" written on them......the impression here is that there was quite a bit of steel that had this angle at the wtc.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html

debunkers will say these were all cut during the cleanup. Is it normal to cut steel at that angle? I don't know.

[pac522]

I'm adding to what das_ding said. I think the lack of dust on those beams would be due to the fact that the columns must have been watered down by fire hoses. Look at the enormous amount of cooled molten steel on that column, too much in my opinion to come from a cutting torch. Also look at the column under the text box "45 degree cut on support column" and you will see another column cut at 45 degrees at the right edge of the picture.

[das_ding]

So they cut the column and then stuck in the the ground for what purpose?  That explanation holds no water.

They? I dont understand u - sorry
In a controlled cut of 45 degree - the upper column "walks" fast by the enormous wight on it and sticks itself deep into the debris around.
Watch the links and movies wich were posted in this thread 

[PplVsNWO]

I used to think that 45 degree cut was evidence of cutter charges, but after being shown the technique used to cut it, I have changed my mind.  If you look closely, you can see half a circle on the back edge that is cut out.  Apparently, they cut a hole in the beam so they can get a torch inside and blow the slag out instead of in.  I guess this makes sure you cut all they way through and that the slag doesn't fuse the two halves back together behind your progress. 
As for the 45 degrees, I am not sure why they cut some at 45 degrees because there are pictures of some of the columns that weres cut at 90 degrees using the same method of cutting a hole and working from the inside.

WTC 7 is the biggest smoking gun, the 90 degree beams can be debunked and so should not be an argument used, it gives skeptics and debunkers a straw man.

[pac522]

I used to think that 45 degree cut was evidence of cutter charges, but after being shown the technique used to cut it, I have changed my mind.  If you look closely, you can see half a circle on the back edge that is cut out.  Apparently, they cut a hole in the beam so they can get a torch inside and blow the slag out instead of in.  I guess this makes sure you cut all they way through and that the slag doesn't fuse the two halves back together behind your progress. 
As for the 45 degrees, I am not sure why they cut some at 45 degrees because there are pictures of some of the columns that weres cut at 90 degrees using the same method of cutting a hole and working from the inside.

WTC 7 is the biggest smoking gun, the 90 degree beams can be debunked and so should not be an argument used, it gives skeptics and debunkers a straw man.

That's not a half circle, it's just a jagged cut and there is no way they cut beams during demo at 45degree angles. You don't know because there is no reason too. They would cut a hole in a beam and cut from inside out to make sure the cut was penetrating the steel but it would be a straight cut. They would hook a crane up at the top of the beam and cut the bottom in the shortest cut possible. They wouldn't cut at a 45 degree angle, you know it so don't state it. And if you don't know it then you definitely shouldn't state it. Straw man indeed.

[PplVsNWO]

Pac, here you can see some beams that were cut for salvage with torches, the ends look very similar except for the 90 degree part. The difference is the these columns were likely already laying on the ground when cut, not still standing vertical which could have something to due with why the others have 45 degree cuts.
If you have evidence that the columns weren't cut with torches, I would love to have it because that would give me ammo on another forum.
On a side note, it is interesting as pointed out in the captions on that link that they started tearing down the core columns that were standing before worrying about the perimeter that looked like it could fall at any time.  Why the big hurry to get to the core which was in no danger of collapsing and was surrounded by so much debris?  I would think that the core should have been the last bit to go?

[point]

What is the size of the beams?  I wonder how long it takes to cut one.  Oxy-acetylene torches burn over twice the melting point of steel, but I wonder how long it takes to cut one of the beam from wtc.
@smoke:  That vid is exactly what a burning building does, it progressively 'melts', not fall in 8 seconds.

[pac522]

Pac, here you can see some beams that were cut for salvage with torches, the ends look very similar except for the 90 degree part. The difference is the these columns were likely already laying on the ground when cut, not still standing vertical which could have something to due with why the others have 45 degree cuts.
If you have evidence that the columns weren't cut with torches, I would love to have it because that would give me ammo on another forum.

I didn't say they weren't cut, I just said they weren't cut at a 45 degree angle. Every demo job I've ever been on you cut a hole in the top or weld a sling eye at the top to clasp the crane cable to and then you cut at the shortest distance across at a 90 degree line and you make a hole to see if your cut is going all the way through. Those beams that were at a 45 had to much slag or molten cooled metal at the bottom of the cut to be a torch. They look like thremate cutters, weather done before the buildings fell or during demo is another story. But in my opinion, from the looks of the picture it seems they were still in rescue mode not demo mode.

[changedname]

A forensic Analysis of 9\11
University of Waterloo

Would'nt it be ironic is this is where Bush meets his waterloo?

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/180508Forensic.htm

[beijingyank]

Where was Heinz?

Yeah was the baby killing war criminal quisling closet fag? Was he with "Mega?"

[moxiez]

A forensic Analysis of 9\11
University of Waterloo

Would'nt it be ironic is this is where Bush meets his waterloo?

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/180508Forensic.htm

Your post reminded me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSuhuopoLiI

[stann]

Sorry, but I think it is incredibly relevant. If the truth movement cannot prove that the beam was not cut during clean up, the case becomes much harder to make to those who are not already in the truth camp.

careful what you claim to be evidence. there's plenty of compelling evidence but i don't think this will be important. see: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

[moxiez]

careful what you claim to be evidence. there's plenty of compelling evidence but i don't think this will be important. see: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Debunking911.com is a joke. Just look at the hit piece regarding Bldg. 7. Total BS. HAHAHA.

[IridiumKEPfactor]

I we find out who originally took the picture and if it was taken from a digital camera when can extract the metadata within it right down to the date is was take and serial number off of the camera.

[Anon-PatriotUSA]

OK folks, here is the over-arching picture to WTC 7.

WTC 7 SMOKING GUN


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739



World Trade Center 7 building was CIA war bunker

http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/07CIA.html

http://www.wtc7.net/lcache/wtc7.htm

Larry Silverstein (WTC Leaseholder) Admits “Pulling” (Demolishing)
building at behest of NYFD Official



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4779078755753451581

WTC 7 contained ENRON evidence, as well as other evidence for important Securities and Exchange Commission investigations.



http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

“America's Mayor” Rudy Guliani's “Command Bunker War Room” within WTC7



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/wtc7.html

THE BBC reports the complete collapse of WTC 7 over 20 minutes before the actual collapse! (Smoking Gun of pre-scripted media event!).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc


All this info and more can be found at http://anonymouspatriotusa.googlepages.com/home

[beijingyank]

I can see how the Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, from India, running the NIST report is under tremendous pressure to the families that count on a paycheck from his 60 million dollar annual budget.

He is playing a bad card game. The report won't stand up to scrutiny over time. The 10,000 pages will buy time but ultimately it will be tossed on the garbage heap of history and his name, legacy, and his people will become pirayas to society, worth less than zero, with any legacy tarnished forever.

We know all too well how the Bushnik zionist criminal gang works and the last thing this M.I.T. leader wants to happen is death by suicide if he does not play ball.

This is the only excuse I can find for such a ridiculous conclusion, isolated fires bring down a reinforced steel structure at free fall speed. It's so ridiculous you can argue he gave a gift to the Truthers like Vietnam POWS blinking morse code with their eye lids from North Vietnam.

Remember Galileo recanted this theory because it meant burning at the stake not to do so. I think Dr. Sunder is in a similar tight spot. He tows the line or he commits suicide and his budget and people begin looking for a new job.

Truthers, when talking to the good doctor you must encourage him to tell the truth. Let him understand there is safety in going public. He owns it to his colleagues, his budget, his legacy, and his good name in history.

Explain war crimes trials are coming. And it is best to come clean now before things get very embarrassing during the war crimes and crimes against humanity trials in the future.

Push "the truth will set you free." Truthers, hit him with Gandhi philosophy, and most important treat him with respect.

We can only hope he comes clean and flip flops like so many others in the Bushnik baby killing, war criminal administration.

If he flips, he is a hero, and it's over for the baby killers.

 

[beijingyank]

What does Hoffman think about this picture?



I ask because the History Channel claims this column was cut days after 9/11 with an oxy-acetylene torch during the clean up effort.

Is there any way to prove WHEN this picture was taken?

By a time stamp, or by the person who took the picture?

This is a very important issue because obviously that column was cut.

It's amazing this photo came out. Cameras were prohibited on the site remember!

The criminal demeanor of this administration around 911 is incredible.

[Jackson Holly]

We the truther people generally do not have the resources and access to the evidence to cover every argument against the obvious fact of the towers' demolition - so I say as well - Stick to Bldg #7 - it is indisputable. It was professionally demolished - thus, the charges were set well in advance.

Show this photo to the newbies - they will 'get it' - other WTC buildings closer to the towers were greatly damaged and did not crumble - #7 slightly damaged pancaked straight down in freefall:





http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread182546/pg3

[Terral]

Hi pjcz and Byrne:

I do not need to be told about the use of angled charges in demolition. I am a truther, I've seen the movies and heard the lectures. What I am saying (and the other poster is saying) is that if we keep pointing to this picture as evidence of demolition but cannot validate that it absolutely happened before clean up, that's a problem.

I dont think that photo is enough evidence and it shouldn't be used to support controlled demolition of the towers. 

I have read your comments and my 911Truth.org WTC-7 Controlled Demolition Presentation is here if either of you are interested.  A better picture of the one in question looks like this:

Whatreallyhappened.com



The column we are talking about stands about six feet directly over the head of the confused fireman positioned atop a debris pile. A closer look at the column cut his here (pic) where I would direct your attention to the molten iron froth that appears on the inside ‘and’ outside of the severed column. Look how the molten iron (Thermite Residue) has spilled 75 percent on the outside and 25 percent on the inside to realize that any torch operator must stand inside the column itself and cut at a 45-degree downward angle to leave this kind of evidence. Why so little residue on the upper column and a higher amount on the lower column at a distance farther away from the operator? :0) No sir. What you are looking at is a column taken down using a 45-degree shaped charge that begins burning on the ‘outside’ to leave most of the residue and leave a smaller proportion on the ‘inside,’ because the inside is exposed only after the burn is complete.

The second problem for the ‘torch’ theory is all of the debris scattered around the immediate environment that must be removed by laborers before the skilled demolition crew even enters the scene.  These 45-degree cuts are very dangerous, because the load can shift and kill somebody and no demolition supervisor is going to allow any 45-degree cuts in any demolition operation; because you waste time and valuable gas resources. The next problem is that you have these 45-degree angle cuts in locations where no man can even reach (pic = at top of pic), as if any demo supervisor is going to send a member of his crew way up a ladder in the middle of the debris pile to make a 45-degree cut. :0) Then you have the problem of all the “Severed Column Ends” poking out of the debris pile with debris piled on top that no steel worker has even touched.

The third problem is found in the massive “Saved” columns (pic) that also have identical 45-degree cutter charge cuts and the telltale signs of ‘stress’ that could only be applied during the actual controlled demolition process. Think about this very carefully and you will realize that any deliberate served connection on anything this large would require the load be held by a crane, which would not allow for the serious bend in these columns.



See the problem? :0) Line up the upper column section with the lower stub columns and you realize that a tremendous load was placed upon these steel members that bent the upper column one way ‘and’ moved the lower stub columns in the opposite direction. The upper columns moved to your left and the lower stub columns moved to your right to lean all in the same direction, as the demo supervisor ‘walked’ this column line in a predetermined direction. The columns and beams on the upper floors blow first, so these basement columns are blown last, so these upper sections slide off to strike the concrete pads and break the back of the column line running up the entire 47 stories; which must be timed perfectly part of a well-planned controlled demolition. If these lower basement column connections fire off even one second too early, then the impact on the concrete pad does nothing to break the upper connections and the building can fall in the opposite direction that the demolition supervisor has planned. Therefore, the 45-degree angle cuts represent just one CD signature that is accompanied by the evidence of great stress from the shifting loads that can only be applied to these steel members ‘during’ a CD Collapse.

There is no need to sever ‘all’ the columns on the same column line using 45-degree shaped charges, because the load is sent in the right direction early in the timed sequence and adjacent columns are pulled in the appropriate direction. Note how the stub column in the lower part of that last picture is cut at a 90-degree angle, but the stub column is leaning in the same direction. The difference is that the other two columns are primary load bearing supports that run up the entire building to the roof, but the 90-degree angled column is a secondary support used to break beams on the floors above that immediate location. And finally, there is simply no way to ‘break/sever’ the thousands of gigantic girders, beams, columns and bar joists in WTC-7 using building fires or Jetliner debris or building debris or anything but a well developed Controlled Demolition Plan that is executed by people with years and years of experience in this field. This NIST Report is a sham based upon Loyal Bushie LIES with no basis in reality whatsoever.

GL,

Terral

[Neco]

While we're waiting for NISTs wtc 7 report, I think everyone should be aware that the movement has been doing it's own investigation and are attempting to work together with the NIST investigation.

To Sum up the Movements Investigation:
While we were breaking fund raising records for Ron Paul during the "Boston Tea Party" Richard Gage of www.ae911truth.org presented our case to the NIST team itself to be entered into the investigation,...one thing he said was this...
   Appendix C of FEMA's BPAT Report (attached to this email) documents steel samples showing rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting. A liquid eutectic mixture, including sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
This is the FEMA BPAT report he refers to, and quotes from. Folks, this document looks like it supports thermite could be at  the WTC. It doesn't name it, but seems to describe it.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

Then he says....
             NIST left all of this crucial forensic evidence out of its report. Why?
Now it's in the investigation!

While we were making history with Ron Paul, and Richard Gage was forcing the Government to acknowledge it's own findings, Prof Steven Jones on Dec 15 2007 was giving this presentation in Boston.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&hl=en

Now that's a team effort!

This presentation by S Jones is a must see! By far the most informative, and interesting presentation he has ever made. In this presentation he reports that he has found thermite evidence in the dust of the WTC, and is inviting other scientists to confirm his results!

And for those that wonder about the validity of the samples he tests from there is a part where he introduces two people who no doubt will be willing to go to court. They tell the story of just 1 sample collected.

This is a very strong case. NIST is going to have to say something about what Jones is presenting.

I cannot thank you enough for posting this here.

He scientifically proves that thermite was used in the demolition of the towers.

What a huge weight lifted off of my shoulders.

Before, I always had the thought in the back of my mind of "What if the highjackers really did demolish the building?  What if I am wrong?"

This is the nail in the coffin.  Again, I can't say how excited I am about this lecture. 

[Neco]

P.S.

This video should easily be a sticky of its own if it already isn't.

[Xtorted]

Well, I respectfully disagree. I don't believe that the truth movement can continuously point out the lack of detail and the lack of evidence in the 'official reports' (e.g., NIST) and then when pressed for our own details simply expect others to not care when we are lacking detail. Unfortunately, the burden is on us. To be clear, I'm not saying that the whole thing goes away without proof for this photo; there is SO much evidence that when combined makes a very strong case. I'm just saying that the argument would be even stronger if this photo could be cleared up.

I saw this and had to comment.

First of all, when discussing 9/11 I run into this strawman argument all the time.  When 'debunkers' have been faced with the obvious truth that the official story is a lie, they try to say 'okay, then what DID happen?'

Its very, very hard to come up with a working theory of what happened and then prove it.  Why?  There hasn't been a REAL investigation.  Its not fair to demand that we come up with the answer to what really happened when all we can go off of is some pictures and the lies presented before us.

All that really matters in my mind is that we've been lied to.  What actually happened has yet to be determined.  I've had MUCH more success with getting people on board with backing a new investigation and being skeptical of the government in general than by saying '9/11 was an inside job this is what happened'.

Once this gets investigated I think we all know what will be found out, and people that are ready to accept that will naturally progress to that realization.