Hi, Patriot;
sorry I've been gone for awhile.

In the meantime I've asked several people what they think about the 9/11 theory, and all said it was an inside job.

This link here seems to be a pretty good source to read through and consider:

http://www.vic911truth.org/smokingguns.html

It may not convince you to change your mind but it might put a crack into your conviction.
What do you think?

#1: WTC 7 didn't collapse into it's own footprint and seriously damaged the buildings around it.

#2: Explosions do not equal explosives. There are many reports of explosions inside the buildings leading up to the collapse. If they had been used, high explosives would have been heard across most of Manhattan as they are extremely loud.

#3: You have well over 100 documented witnesses who saw a plane going into the Pentagon. Some, pilots from nearby Reagan International Airport, even identified the exact make of the aircraft. I'll take 100 witnesses including experts as well as all the other evidence over the opinions of people who weren't there claiming there wasn't enough evidence.

#4: First off, WTC 7 fell at ~13 seconds, not 6.6. Second, physics dictate a symmetrical collapse past the first part of the collapse as the structural members cannot support an asymmetrical collapse. Third, firefighter testimony proves that not only were there fires in WTC 7, but that they were "fully involved". That means massive fire from floor to ceiling. Fourth, the claim that all 57 columns would have to fail at once is not only erroneous but has been disproven through computer modeling and validated via the world engineering community.

#5: As the building collapsed, tremendous air pressure built up inside the towers ahead of the collapse. This can be proven through the testimony of the people who survived the north tower collapse. The wind was so violent it blew a fully laden fire fighter down several flights of stairs.

Funny how the site claims it was a controlled demolition and even links a controlled demolition site, yet the towers fell the exact opposite way they would have if it had been a controlled demolition. If it had been a controlled demolition they would have taken out the base and let the building collapse from the base upwards. Instead the towers initiated the collapse at the top and collapsed downwards.

#6: This is an opinion not based on fact of any kind. What the author missed is the scale of the collapse. We think of steel and concrete in our own scale; hard, tough and almost impossible to break up. When you look at the scale of the collapse where you have 100,000 initial tons of material (that's 200,000,000 pounds) hitting concrete and steel at an ever accelerating pace, it doesn't become hard at all to see how steel and concrete can fail. The building was designed to support this weight, not be able to withstand the impact from this weight.

#7: Material was moved over the edge of the towers because the towers provided resistance. The steel had to move SOMEWHERE. The fact the steel beat the rest of the tower down proves the building did not fall at free fall speeds. It does NOT prove explosives were used as an explosion strong enough to fling steel beams that far out would have easily eclipsed the sound of the collapse.

#8: The "chemical signature" of thermate is rust and aluminum. Not exactly rare. Also, no matter HOW much thermate was used, it would NOT account for the red hot metal found under the towers. That was caused by underground fires fed by the subway tunnels.

#9: NORAD radar screens are not the same as FAA radar screens. As for the claim the reaction was delayed, don't you think they would have thought about this scenario? That is why they are required to ask if this is a real world or excercise event. Thus the reaction would have been delayed all of what... five seconds? Also, as soon as there was a confirmed real hijacking, the training excercise was cancelled and all false radar signatures on NORAD radar screens were removed. It was a moot point anyway. NORAD radar screens were not what were used to track the planes. That was FAA radar.

#10: A statement made in a book that conspiracy truthers construe to mean they were planning an attack is not proof. Further, they don't claim they need an attack, just that an attack would accelerate things.

Hope this helps. Got any questions?

Yes, I have a question: What do you say to this?

I'm not going to waste yet another ten minutes going through yet another truther video. How about stating the question(s) you have from the video and we will discuss it?