A common white lie told to explain the collapse of the towers is that steel becomes weak when it gets very hot.

The usual format of the white lie is:

A) Yes, the buildings collapsed from failed structure.

B) Steel gets weak when it gets hot, and fire can make it so.

C) The buildings may have just lost structural strength and collapsed.

What is rarely mentioned is the anecdotal evidence, and video evidence widely available, that shows:

A) The fires were billowing thick smoke, indicating incomplete combustion, which indicates lower buring temperatures, rather than higher.

B) Ground Zero workers reported finding a "foundry" under the vast debris pile, some even reported "pools of molten steel". Steel loses strength when too hot, but not even the most brazen denier would claim that an office fire could melt steel.

C) The "foundry" was found weeks later.

D) Photographic evidence is available that shows I-Beams sheered off at angles, with solidified residue at the sheer points, that visually looks like it was once molten, and has "dripped".

E) Radio transmission records of firefighters in the towers on the day, during the event, moments prior to the collapse, reveal that they believed the fires to be controllable. This adds further weight to the theory that the fires were in fact not intense, and that therefore something else must be responsible for the collapse.

F) The pre-collapse damage to the lobby is not explained by any collapse theory, as it happened almost instantaneously (with the aircraft strike), and the theory of elevators exploding due to expanding combusting jet fuel is particularly flimsy. A conspiratorial theory that suggests pre-planned structural collapse, fits tidily with a lobby level pre-planned explosive scenario.

G) Building Seven collapsed along with the Twin Towers. These collapses cannot be called part of the same event, and cannot be truly called different events either. Their similarities however, suggest a program rather than chaos. Their collapses were related to one extent or another, and their similarities indicate a program of events moreso than they indicate a chain reaction or chaos. 

H) The real questions to ask are historical and political ones. Who benefited? What happened to the USS Liberty? What happened to the USS Cole? What can we learn from Operation Mongoose, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Gladio, Operation Mass Appeal, Operation Amalgam Virgo, and Operation Northwoods and Operation Hades?

What can we infer from the notion that the above operations are just the ones we know about?

I) Where is Osama Bin Laden?

J) Who killed John O'Neill?

K) Why Afghanistan? Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi?! Bin Laden was a Saudi! Why invade a country with soldiers if your aim is to punish a network numbering hundreds, not thousands?

J) Why Iraq?

L) Why was the US Patriot Act announced as a reaction to the events of 9/11, and yet actually in preperation for months prior? Why does it evicerate the civil liberties US citizens, whose freedoms are supposed to be the very things threatened by Al-Quaeda? Back in Vietnam the motto was to win hearts and minds by bringing freedom, rather than restricting it! Are we just being told what we need to hear in order to fool us?

M) How on earth did Hani Hanjour hit the pentagon with Flight 77 and leave the lawn untouched? 

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/