It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing:  the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government.  David Ray Griffin, Ph.D., author of The New Pearl Harbor : Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11.  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20060129&articleId=1846

Why weren't the hijacked airliners intercepted by jet fighters and shot down before they could fly into the WTC and Pentagon?  Standard procedures call for any airliner that loses radio contact or goes off course to be intercepted.  Four airliners were hijacked almost simultaneously, and it was obvious to air traffic controllers immediately.  The transponders on the airliners were turned off.  The hijackers were heard on the radio.  And the four deviated drastically from their assigned courses.  Was NORAD told?  If not, why not?  What did the air traffic controllers say, and to whom?  Why did the FBI impound the tapes of those conversations?  Why has the public never been told what was on them?  Why weren't the congressional investigators told?  The independent commission?  Who is hiding what, and why?  If it was just a matter of incompetence or somebody not doing their job, why hasn't anyone been fired or reprimanded?  If someone ordered the standdown, who? and why? and why haven't they been charged with treason?  Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Head of Advanced Space Programs for DOD, Lt.Col for United States Air Force (ret.)    http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/Secrecy.htm

  The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20 a.m, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06 a.m. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC , until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.  Michael Meacher, British member of Parliment and former environment minister   http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

  At 9 11, four planes for two hours were able to drive around, fly around even one hour in the direction going toward the west and then turn around and then comeback.  The military air force was not able to interdict them.  It's [un]imaginable.  Andreas Von Buelow, Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years. http://www.prisonplanet.com/021104vonbuelow.html

There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators...  According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level.   Oh, I almost forgot to mention: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver ...   The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner.  Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane." Nila Sagadevan, aeronautical engineer and pilot.     http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.  Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (the company that certified the steel in the WTC towers)    http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

  "I haven't looked at it very close, but I did go to Georgia Tech and I did learn some physics and I know enough physics to know that it is strictly impossible for those buildings to collapse in their own footprint, at free-fall speed except under controlled demolition.  Those buildings did not come down the way the 9-11 report says.  It is strictly impossible, in fact, it's a total, the account in the 911 report is a total contradiction to the laws of physics".          Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2006/02/post.html

  Any chain reaction theory would have to accommodate the fact that each of the towers unraveled completely in less than 15 seconds, which is close to the time of free fall from the top of the buildings if there had been no intervening solid structure. How could a mechanical process proceed through 100 floors with such speed? Rodger Herbst, bachelor of aeronautical and astronautical engineering and mechanical engineer http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org/rwtcpdf.pdf

The horizontal ejection of structural steel members for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, provide further evidence for the use of explosives - as well-explained in http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html.  (See also, Griffin , 2004, chapter 2.)  The observed plumes or "squibs" are far below the pulverization region and therefore deserving of particular attention.  They appear much like the plumes observed in http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm (e.g., the controlled demolition of the Southwark Towers ) ...  I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives/incendiaries.  I have presented ample evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is testable and falsifiable and yet has not been seriously considered in any of the studies funded by the US government.  Prof. Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University .   http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking...  Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above ...  Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion ...  I know there were explosives placed below the trade center.  I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up. ...  The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn't have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don't care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below ...  I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen.  William Rodriguez, WTC janitor who single-handedly rescued fifteen people.   http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6625

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling ...  The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.  George Nelson,  Colonel, USAF (ret.) http://physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

The fundamental difficulty is not really disbelief about the ability to keep conspiracy secrets but disbelief that U.S. government officials could really collaborate in attacking America and take all those innocent lives at the World Trade Center . This is naïve. First, government is the instrument of social compulsion. Organized force is what government does. The belief that soft-hearted people rise to the top in government is akin to the belief that softies were whipping masters on slave plantations.     Dr. Morgan Reynolds, professor emeritus at Texas A&M University , former chief economist at the Dept of Labor    http://nomoregames.net/

I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.  And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.   Larry Silverstein, owner (leaseholder) of the World Trade Center , speaking (apparently without thinking) on the 2002 PBS documentary “America Rebuilds” about the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, which was not struck by any aircraft and had only minimal fires burning in it.  At 3:18 in the video in this link: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm

I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?  This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year. NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”  Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”  Mark Jacobson:  “The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll”, New York Magazine (March 21, 2006), quoting Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Trade Center report:  http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html