More Ron Bashing

[Tiberius]

What evidence is there that Osama Bin Laden carried out 911 attacks? None. What you might call evidence, is actually high tech propaganda.

Osama admitted to carrying out the attacks and planning more back in 2004: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binl...29-04.html

how Al Queida pulled off this intricate plan ALONE, without any inside help.

If you think 9/11 was an intricate plan, you really are deluding yourself. The security at airports was lax, and flying a Boeing 747 is easier than you think if your aim is to crash it in the first place. All hijackers had to do was take control of the cockpit (easy enough since they had weapons and the cockpits were unlocked) and point the plane at a building. The government was completely unprepared, since in the past, hijackings had resulted in the plane landing and demands being made.

Why all the secrecy and classified documents?

There isn't that much secrecy; most of the data is freely available online.

If 911 was not an inside job, then is the official story (which the government has supplied and paid for) the truth?

The government paid for an independent investigation. Other independent investigations have come up with exactly the same answers.

Like the molten steel found in the basements, the debunkers admit that it was there but they won't admit to it being a product of THERMITE.

It's also a product of steel melting due to the intense heat caused by jet fuel fires. The buildings collapsed; it wouldn't surprise me if molten steel near the top of the building was found in the basement afterwards.

JET FUEL takes down 3 buildings???

Now this one always makes me laugh. Conspiracy theorists seem to forget that planes (i.e. actual physical objects) hit the buildings, taking out support structures, before the fires began to burn. Jet fuel helped speed up the collapse, but the building was already weakened by the impact. Building 7 was hit by debris, again weakening its structure.

So coincidental that no other buildings fell, only the ones with billion dollar insurance policies that were given just weeks prior.

The insurance policy covered buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5. Only buildings 1 and 2 out of that list fell. The policy was taken out in July, more than a few weeks prior to the incident. It was taken out because Larry Silverstein had just acquired the buildings, nothing more.

Why did only WTC 7 fall due to "structural damage", but no other buildings in the vicinity of the twin towers fell? HHHmmm..what is your lame response to that?

Building 7 was hit by debris; this has been clearly demonstrated in videos. The fires burned in it afterwards, and the fire department made the call to abandon all hopes of saving the building since everyone had been evacuated. Hence, the fires were left to burn and the building collapsed.