What can we make of the following, which was "last updated" on 12/15/2010?  Ruppert, Robinowitz, Gold, Hoffman, Ashley, Hill, Judge... strands of a web...

Demolition Theories not needed to prove complicity once the fact that 9/11 was allowed to happen was established (which was documented within a few weeks of the events), everything beyond that is merely detail.   related pages: pull it quote - bait WTC Building 7 faulty design: the overlooked scandal

Much of the energy in the "9/11 truth movement"
has long since passed over pointing out the seemingly mundane issue of
official foreknowledge of the attacks and is now focused on claims the
towers (and WTC 7) were deliberately blown up, plane crashes were faked, and even more obscure and extreme claims. But the political implications of "merely" allowing the attacks to happen
is not much different than the controlled demolition claims. Arguing
over the precise technical support given to 9/11 by the national
security state is similar to debating the number of bullets fired at
President Kennedy -- perhaps it may be interesting (or morbid) to a tiny
minority, but irrelevant for understanding the Big Picture. Even if it
is true that uninterruptable autopilots were used to "hijack the
hijackers" with remote control (to ensure the planes hit their targets,
and not the Indian Point nuclear power station, which Flight 11 flew
over, and also not Rumsfeld's office in the opposite side of the
Pentagon that was hit), that would not change the situation -- the
covert government wanted, needed, enabled the 9/11 attacks. Regardless
of the precise manner that 9/11 was facilitated, the "security theater"
(to use security consultant Bruce Schneier's term) at the airports is a
distraction from accountability for allowing the attacks to proceed
despite ample warnings from US allies, FBI agents and military intelligence.

I have a legal case that will convict Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,
George W. Bush, General Myers, right now in court based upon evidence
that is not scientific in nature, I don't need to go there, that is
a red herring when we focus on the crime that has been committed against
this country. We've already proven who did it, the how doesn't have
to be fully fleshed out. ...
These discussions of what possibly induced that [collapse of
the towers] is a major psychological operations campaign designed to
keep the American people from looking at the evidence of guilt.
-- Michael Ruppert, February 14, 2005, interview on KZYX, "The
Party’s Over"

The case of 9/11, now being tried in our metaphorical court of the
corporate media and public perception, leaves no doubt as to who could
produce more expert witness testimony or present them in the most impressive
manner. ... It is something else to analyze the temperature at which
steel is weakened and determining whether or not an unproven amount
of burning jet fuel, in unspecified concentrations and unknown locations
could have weakened steel supports in the World Trade Center to the
point where an unspecified amount of weight might cause them to buckle.
-- Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon: the Decline of the American
Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, pp. 13-14

The position of oilempire.us is that the
towers were intentionally demolished by the Bush administration, but the
method of destruction was allowing (and possibly steering) Flight 11
and Flight 175 to crash into the buildings. The sober and fantastical
claims for explosives, thermite, and even exotic unconventional weapons
are not supported by peer reviewed, independently verifiable
investigations and are an enormous distraction from solid evidence. The core of the case for complicity has nothing to do with the collapses.

It is likely, but unprovable with public domain
evidence, that remote control
technology that can be built into Boeing planes was used to "hijack
the hijackers."

It is reasonable to assume the impacts of the planes
plus the blast furnace type fires were sufficient to ensure the collapse
of the towers. It is fortunate they remained standing long enough
for those below the impact zones to escape.

The official complicity to let it happen and provide
technical assistance resulted in demolition, but not in the scenario that
much of the "truth movement" postulates.

The evidence for suppression of numerous warnings,
interference with investigations of the flight schools before 9/11 and
the multiple exercises on 9/11 is more than
enough for an impeachment and conviction for
aiding and abetting. Further details are like arguing whether
the Reichstag in Germany was burned
with gasoline or kerosene -- while the camps for dissidents are being
completed for use. As with the Kennedy assassinations, the real issues
are WHY 9/11 was allowed to happen, not the fine details of how it was
technically accomplished. We are as unlikely to know the precise mechanisms
behind 9/11 as the identity of the shooters of John F. Kennedy and Robert
F. Kennedy, but why these crimes were committed
is much less obscure, and a more fruitful path for serious investigation
that could lead to positive social changes.

If there is any truth to the demolition theories,
it is unlikely to be found in the loudest promotions of these claims (Loose
Change, Scholars for 9/11 Truth), which is why the media
strategy is to focus on these alleged investigators and not those
who highlight much better evidence that
is not easily attacked.

One parallel between investigating 9/11 and the JFK
assassination is both scandals suffer from the problem of independent
investigators focusing solely on the minutiae instead of the big
picture. Why these crimes were carried out - and covered up by the media
and political establishments - is more important than the technical
details of how the violence was perpetrated.

The third skyscraper that collapsed - Building 7 - was hit by substantial debris from the collapsing towers, had more significant
fires than reported by most 9/11 "truth" websites and videos,
and the firefighters had concluded hours before its collapse that it was
going to fall down, too.

The three collapses do look like controlled demolitions, but that is
not proof that they were -- and there is an increasing volume of easily
debunked nonsense promoting demolition theories in websites and videos. There are good claims for demolition, good
claims against it, and silly hoaxes for it
that are easily debunked. Whatever the truths for or against demolition
theories, they are not needed to show complicity in 9/11.

As Carl Sagan famously said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. So far, there are not any verifiable, unshakeable proofs for
demolition (even the best claims are inferential). Meanwhile, there is
well documented evidence that shows abundant warnings from close US allies that were very specific to time, plane, means.

Some of the gaps not explained by any demolition theories:

• no analyses of the damage to the structures from the impact of the
  planes, which caused considerable damage. (Some who were in the towers
  thought the building was going to fall over when it happened.) The claim
  that fire alone caused the collapses is not the official story, even
  if many claim that it is.
• there was a noticeable bulge in the buildings just before collapse
  seems to refute the demolition theories -- although photos on websites
  are not of sufficient resolution to prove or disprove this aspect.
• how could potential explosives survive the impacts and infernos? How
  could they have been detonated at the same locations as the impact zones
  while surviving the fires (in the North Tower, for more than an hour
  and a half). While black boxes used in aircraft data recorders can survive
  the shock and heat of plane crashes (and they were found from all four
  9/11 planes), their integrity is merely to ensure data recorded before
  the crash remains retrievable, they do not continue to function after
  extreme force and heat.

The only "physical evidence" investigation making a serious
effort to carefully evaluate "physical evidence" is wtc7.net / 911review.com / 911research.com.
Most of the other web based efforts focused on demolition still promote
the hoax that Flight 77 did not hit the (nearly empty part of the) Pentagon
and therefore are not careful in their efforts (even if they are sincere,
which some of them are). Some pro-demolition efforts fail to mention the
word NORAD in their efforts, which suggests there
might be a deliberate effort to misdirect the truth movement.

http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html