A Skeptical View of the 9/11 Truth Movement

The 9/11 Truth Movement claims to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that destruction of the New York World Trade Center Twin Tower Buildings on 9/11/2001 was perpetrated by unknown elements inside our government, a so-called "inside job".  Their main argument is that the Twin Towers did not fall from the impact of airplanes alone, but were helped along by explosive charges placed in the buildings by government agents, days or weeks before the 9/11/2001 event. They have lined up more than a thousand building experts to sign a statement saying the cause of the collapse is problematic and requires further investigation.

When 9/11 truthers watch the video of the collapse of the Twin Towers, they see apparent evidence of explosives too numerous to mention here. However, none of that evidence holds up to reasonable scrutiny. They would have us believe that an invisible, inaudible,  ripple of remotely detonated charges, obscured by the descending cloud of debris, leads each building down, starting at the point of aircraft damage.

In addition to the lack of valid evidence, here are three reasons why the explosive charge theory is not a reasonable one.

(1) Planting the explosives would require the action of a dozen or so building demolition experts, working in an occupied building, yet undetected by anyone, knowing that they were a part of a plot to kill thousands of innocent people, and knowing that they themselves would likely have to be assassinated to maintain their silence.

(2) It is quite reasonable that the buildings fell solely from aircraft impact, because the buildings were never designed to withstand an impact by such large aircraft at such high speed with so much fuel aboard (contrary to truther claims). Fire from aircraft fuel was so intense that liquid aircraft aluminum can be seen flowing out of windows! Structural steel has only a fraction of its strength at those temperatures.

(3) Most importantly, consider the likely thought process of the 9/11 attackers in the planning stage. In order for the 9/11 event to qualify as a truly outrageous atrocity, it is not necessary that the buildings actually fall down the same day they are attacked. The buildings are ruined anyway, and enough people are killed by the aircraft strikes alone to call it a success. The 9/11 attackers would never have bothered with explosives because they would have incurred a far greater risk of their plot being discovered, for very little added "bang". Besides, they had a reasonable expectation that the buildings would fall from aircraft impact alone.

Be aware, I am not saying that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. It may well have been. I am saying there is yet no valid evidence. Truthers remind me of the people back in the 1980's who believed all the moon landings were faked, because they have much apparent evidence to support their theory, but they fail to examine that evidence critically for alternative explanations.