I don't see an argument anywhere in that post, Rude Boi MC - do you have one or is namecalling all there is? If I don't know what I'm talking about, show us why you think that. And for my part, I'll assume that you're serious about all this. No, first you examine the victim and the scene to determine if a crime even took place. This is a big part of the problem with conspiracy theory - you start with an assumption about the crime and jump straight to the suspects. But oops.... the crime didn't happen the way you wanted it to, so your suspects are, well, suspect. So again, make an argument as to why you think the WTC was felled by explosives. And by "why", I don't mean the motive, I mean what evidence is there that it was felled by explosives. Again, if I can make a suggestion, my favorite bit of evidence is the speed at which it collapsed. Would you like to discuss that piece of evidence? If so, lay out a case for what that piece of evidence shows.

Esperanto, one of the problems with conspiracy theory sites is they copy and paste each other's material. As a result, there really isn't any confirmation, just regurgitation. For example, that August 9, 2002 news release from the FAA is probably talking about intercepts from September of 2001 to June of 2002, but since none of the conspiracy theory sites have/link a copy of the news release, we can't check to be sure. Heck, its even possible it was made up by one of the conspiracy theory sites and the others just keep regurgitating it because they want to believe it.

Regarding Payne Stewart's plane, the ACCIDENT REPORT is available online, so there is no need for 3rd party accounts. A careful read shows it was, indeed, an hour and 19 minutes, not just 19 minutes for the intercept. A careless conspiracy theorist missed the fact that the plane moved from the eastern to the central time zone.

Also, the intercepting planes were not part of a combat unit, they were part of a flight-test unit. So it took an hour and 19 minutes for the intercept, and then only from unarmed planes because they were the closest at the time (already airborne on a training/test flight). Makes the difficulty of an armed intercept on 9/11 a lot clearer, doesn't it? Um, you find it curious that Guiliani didn't set up headquarters in a burning building? And he was right: the buildings did withstand the impact!