" Goodman still sees her job as what it's always been, to lie and deceive,"

This comment unfortunately vitiates a valid point. Nobody really knows what happened on 911. Everyone on this thread is pissing in the wind.

But the Guest who attacks Amy Goodman has attacked the argument that is presented.

My eyes tell me that in looking at the towers collapsing, the jet fuel wasn't potent enough to cause this because it was spent outside after the plane hit.

My eyes tell me that this matches every building demolition that I have seen.

My logic tells me that the people and the physical material reduced to a powdery pulp could not come from spent jet fuel in an aircraft collision. Other planes have hit other buildings before without this outcome.

I also refuse to accept unequivocally that this was an inside job but since there has been a lack of decent evidence to substantiate the case either way, the question still remains open despite the opinions and conjectures of unknowlegeable people on this thread.

A legitimate investigation needs to be done but is not politically advantageous to Bush.
We won't see it for a while. So the thread should read, "911 could or could not be inside job".

Without evidence that is conclusive, and with attacks on individuals, the question is still up in the air. (So to speak).