Hey, I don't buy the "bumps on the plane" thing either. That, however, does not mean I regard all the other alternative theories as false. To find one or two bad apples in a barrel does not mean you throw out the whole barrel, does it?

If I were going to blow up those buildings in front of millions of   people after arranging to have some airplanes hit them as a visual distraction, would I try to make it look like nothing but the airplane hits brought them down? You bet I would. I'd arrange it that way.

That doesn't necessarily prove there was a controlled demolition, but neither does your observation of the explosion, gnu, prove that there wasn't.

I'd tend to go more by the statements of a lot of eyewitnesses on the day it happened if I were to go on anything. A lot of people say they heard secondary explosions in other parts of the building, and there are recordings of people referring to bombs going off in the building...firemen and professional people who would not be likely to be mistaken about that.

You will interpret these things according to how your mind is already made up about 911 if you are like most people. That's how the human mind works. It forms a conclusion, becomes emotionally attached to defending that conclusion from that point on, and carries on in a predictable fashion...seeking out evidence that supports its conclusion, denying or scoffing at evidence that doesn't, coming up with great lines of argument to support its position.

I already admit to being like that. Why don't you just admit it too? ;-) And that goes for all of you out there.