atheists and "conspiracy" theories

[simplexity]

@Bgood
Wow..., I don't think you understood one word I said. It wasn't the fire which melted the inner column. It was pure heat(more like an explosion from within the building is a better way to describe it) from the impact:jet fuel+heat+kinetic energy = very bad day.

What evidence do you have that would stand up in even an "unbiased" as you would say, court of law?

I have WAY too much evidence, you'll look it up yourself.

This doesn't explain WTC7. And what is the difference between 'pure heat' and fire? Isn't the heat caused from the fire.

You also say:

It was pure heat(more like an explosion from within the building is a better way to describe it) Oh... like an explosive. I get it.

Yes, a fast burning fire = explosive. Same thing
Fire is not heat.
Fire releases heat and other chemical products.
My wording was off, yes.
Most fires are slow burning and produce relatively small amounts of heat, unlike this one which had enough heat to melt the metal in the center columns of both buildings, apparently.
As for WTC7 I'm not sure how it collapsed straight down as it did but making up other explanations for something you simply don't know is not good enough. I do admit it is a little strange.
I have looked up a lot of this "evidence" and although it is somewhat compelling most if not all of it is assumption and conjecture and not enough for me to believe either way.
I still think the original story is at least mostly true although I do have to admit some things are "off".