Regardless of who did it, I do not believe that 9/11 is the biggest issue facing the world at this time. What is happening at Lake Chad alone is threatening 9 million people's lives. Is it possible that 9/11 was also plotted with Al Gore in mind, as sort of a bipartisan tactic? What if Al Gore won the presidency? (Well, he did, but what if he really really won? lol) 9/11 would have also derailed whatever agenda Al Gore would have tried to follow. What if 9/11 is meant to be nothing more than a distraction from a much more serious threat? What if it was a total inside job, and the conspirators did not give two turds if they were caught, because all they really wanted was a few years of distraction so they could line their pockets and prepare for what is coming?

They're saying all ocean fish will be gone in 40 years. More than half of all oil producing nations are already past peak production. The dollar has lost 40% of its value in just a few years. GM is imploding. The drug companies and the banks are contributing more to our GDP than our entire manufacturing industry. In "An Inconvenient Truth" we saw a huge section of the antarctic ice sheet disappear in just a few months. That movie also highlighted the threat of a european ice age which could be caused by the shutdown of the north atlantic current. What if there is no solution to all of this, and so there is no risk involved in the government plotting something like 9/11? If they will plot something like Operation Northwoods just to contain Cuba, what would they do if the very real threats facing us are determined by them to be unpreventable? It looks like they just threw their hands up and said "hell with it, let's just do a false flag terror attack so we can buy ourselves some time to collect enough money to retire to some pacific island when everything goes to [censored]?" If that is what they did, then does it serve the greatest purpose to focus on exposing them, rather than focusing on preparing for what is coming?

Most people are seeing 2 possible alternative theories, but I am seeing three.

1. The most popular CD theory, where explosives were placed throughout the building and detonated by a series of precisely sequenced radio signals OR possibly pressure sensitive triggers or possibly some combination of both (RF arming mechanisms with motion/vibration-sensing triggers, etc).

2. Some type of sci-fi beam weapon (heh) was placed in the sub-basement of each tower. When activated, it scrambled the molecular structure of the steel and the concrete (and superheated all the water in the building), which rapidly weakened the entire structure to the point where it crumbled. The collapse would have naturally began at the building's lateral weak point--the impact site, AND the collapse would have appeared somewhat explosive due to the superheated water and its reaction with the concrete.

3. Some type of thermite-based explosive was detonated deep in the basements of the towers, causing all vertical support for the buildings to fail, which in turn caused the building to begin collapsing at its lateral weak point--the impact site.I believe this theory has the most supporting evidence, and the least amount of contradictory evidence. (both theories 1 and 2 have a great deal of contradictory evidence.) I think it is possible that the buildings could have totally crumbled from the top down, WITHOUT the use of any explosives above ground level, IF the support columns were ONLY cut near the bedrock.