I think the 9/11 Commission is considered the official report. You can buy it from most internet bookstores. The other official reports are FEMA (first) and NIST (10.000 pages, last). There are other "investigations" as well, like the Silverstein/Weidlinger report and one more... I don't remember the name of it, but it was conducted by gov't contractors I believe... civil engineers something something. Google it.

can anyone point me to the original report of 911?

Who did it and how they did it is never been proven to me and it's definitly strange to exclude other posibilities.

yes i know that, that is not exactly what i'm saying. Ofcourse it's the columns, that's why i said steel stucture. But it happened on one height or floor i would think. Maybe 3 floors, but that's not that importent for the explanation. However what i do not know is if this is actually possible just by force in this matter, and that is interesting. I would expect just wrecked and crumpled steel, anyway not molten for weeks.

abdula: The WTC floors did NOT support any of the bldgs structure. The Tower's extensive core and perimeter columns constituted their load-bearing capacity -- floor collapse in and of itself would not cause the entire superstructure to lose almost its entire load-carrying ability so that the upper structure would accelerate to near free-fall speed. Eyewitness reports of massive explosions together with evidence of sol-gel nano-thermite residue should have been examined if only to rule them out.

imtheusertoo: Wha???? The 'facts' that were ignored by the 911 commission were on-site witness statements of explosions. Your facetious idiocy in mixing in nonsense shows you are a blowhard moron: QED. Whether the facts of witnessed explosions have a reasonable explanation as due to something other than CD was never examined. Why? THAT'S the important question, along with why the FBI, CIA & other gov. agencies systematically covered-up & obscured info contradicting the official explanation.

You know jack shit. Over 800 architects and engineers believe it was a controlled demolition. But you don't exclude explosives. Hmm you can't have it both ways.

Sadly the 911 Commission did NOT do America JUSTICE!

Mr MacQueen, the commission also didnt seriously consider alternate hypothesis, like Martians with secret weapons, or the attack was faked by the media using special effects, or may be it was the Canadians like your self who attacked us. Once you ignore facts, the possibilities are virtually endless.

Because of the huge mass it's not strange at all that they came down ALMOST vertically. But i think it's strange that the hijackers would hit the buildings both at that same particular height were the buildings would come down straight. Critical in 911 i think is who exactly ordered the hijackers if it were hijackers.

If one of the planes would have hit one of the towers lower, you could have seen it more clearly. If the damage would have occured at i.e. floor 20, you would see floors 20 to 0 and floors 20 to maybe 40 being crushed first and floors 40 and above on top of that or a bit to the sides.

What i think happened was (and i have to say think but i'm pretty sure) that once the steel structure failed on the floors wich were damaged, the weight of the floors above crushed the single floor below. I think that friction caused the floors above to collapse upon that, because the speeds are different. I think it creates an area where energy is huge, and going down it doesn't lose energy as it's 'feeded' with floors below.

I don't believe the twin towers came down by controlled demolition. However wtc7 could be another story and also i wouldn't exclude explosives in the basement of the twin towers. The way the twin towers came down was a bit strange for most viewers, but not really to me. I've a very technical background and i think i know a bit what i'm talking about. The top of the south tower did not come straight down, it rotated more the 20 degrees.

uncledevo: Did you notice, too, the box column that is cut at 45 degree angle is blackened and appears to have molten debri on its face BELOW the cut? Look closely at the large box column at 2:15.

Well, the reason why a building like the wtc center never has fallen like that before is simply because a large passager jet not normally fly into them. Controlled demolitions by explosives are less effective but of course you can not use passanger jets in controlled demolitions.Duh!

you want to keep a cover up you tell the least people as possible so you dont tell the fire or police dept thats why so many died there is alot of things that dont add up thats why we are questioning what we have been told, but fema where running training drills in NY at the time...??

In those buildings people were so busy in their own rat race that you could have carried 1000 dead bodies to the top floor and you wouldn't be noticed by anyone.

coalcoalcoal, Dude you need to put down the crack pipe and read a book. Seriously, "why would those fireman go inside at the firs place". That is what you typed. I can only conclude that your basic knowledge of the world around you is very limited.

if it was staged its real smart to tip off fire fighters that its gonna happen that would look real nice all the firefighters and cops standing outside the building waiting for it to collapse

Nice lucid analysis.Clearly, the controlled demolitions took years to set up.If jet fuel did it, the buildings would have toppled over--broken in half at the weak points.