For those just visiting or new to 911blogger, CB brooklyn thinks no planes hit the towers. Or so he says. The last series is a lame attempt to make people think that all we do is look at fake photoshopped pictures.

_

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers

the collapse of the spire is something which has been discussed quite frequently in the past on discussion boards.. as has the bright after glow seen in the footage you added..

we have pretty well seen that any subjects like these will always be points of contention as they are driven by perception and interpretation.. key examples can be found at the pentagon, or in controlled demolition.. both of these topics are actively faught against by 'conspiracy smasher' types, because they require the viewer to decide who is right and who is wrong - because they are open to personal interpretation by those who don't know enough to know who really is right or wrong.. unlike most of the non-physical evidence which is unarguable fact.. (although i'm not saying we shouldn't focus on physical evidence)

i think the JFK magic bullet theory is the prime example of this.. that is pretty much the only thing anyone knows about the JFK conspiracy, and the arguements on the subject still go on today, meanwhile the real meat and potatoes sits on a shelf.

i guess at the end of the day the question is do we focus on things that require individual speculation or on unarguable facts?