LOL @ \"naive\" I say anyone is naive that doesn\'t see enough holes in the offiical story to go \"hmmmm.\" No, anybody that claims to have \"the real truth\" about 9-11, probably doesn\'t, but there are some very strange coincidences.. LIKE the missing planes. The planes that hit the towers don\'t bother me. ASSUMING the fire was really hot enough to melt steel, it would also be hot enough to melt the aluminum shell of those jets. Besides which, I SAW the second plane with my own eyes, live, and the first plane later on. Have any of you seen the plane that allegedly crashed in PA? What about the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon? THAT was the wierd one to me. For one thing, hitting those light poles on the highway didn\'t mess up its trajectory enough to cause it to bounce off the lawn (which was untouched in the later photos), AND in every OTHER plane crash, when the nose hits something, it just crumples up. Same concept on our cars, if the crumple zone absorbs the impact, the people have a better chance of survival. Yet we\'re supposed to believe not ONLY did a passenger jet with an aluminum shell and crumple zones punch through, what, 3 layers of reinforced concrete, to completely disappear? But also in the process, that it left a perfectly round hole, with no damage above that hole where the stabilizer and rudder would have been, OR odder still, no damage to the left and right of that round hole, where two 6 ton engine SHOULD have hit that wall going at 500 MPH. That would have done SOME damage, and even if it didn\'t, that would mean there are 2 wings, and 2 engines outside the building. That\'s not what we saw.