The most important thing to keep in mind about Flight 93 is that every scene that featured a terrorist and every scene on the plane beyond it's boarding is entirely speculative based off what people think happened. All they have from that is most likely audio from the cockpit and the phone calls from passengers/stewardesses. Also, only one or two of the terrorists in the movie featured red bandannas. I don't really know what they were supposed to mean. I thought the best parts of the movie were the scenes from NORAD and the various air traffic control centers. The accuracy of those scenes is obviously questionable. Take the movie for what it was. The simple message was there in that it was an incredible act of self-sacrifice for those people to take the plane back over. Even though it was pretty clear they were going to die at least the plane crashed in a deserted field and not the Capitol Building or White House. If you don't believe that, you still can't refute that no planes crashed into those buildings that day.

The most likely explanation for a cover-up, if there even is one, I believe is that the Bush administration had credible intelligence on what was going to happen yet allowed it to happen, making some precautions, but at the end of the day allowing a pretext for increased military operations in the Middle East. The conspiracy documentary that I have seen (titled Loose Change) does bring up some interesting things but is nowhere near conclusive. Furthermore, it's own credibility (with things like photoshop and digital altering) is questionable. To believe that independently acting members of al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11 is ignorant. I certainly do not believe the official story handed out by the government, but I do not believe it was a complete inside job. After taking a class on terrorism, I am fairly certain that the entire thing was al-Qaeda's doing. The only conspiracy aspect I lend any credibility to is perhaps the chance that the government had the intelligence to stop it but did not.

I don't think Al Qaeda would have had access to the WTC towers to plant demolitions in them. And a plane hitting the top of the WTC towers would not cause them to fall within hours and at free fall speed.

Horsepocky! This so called 'conspiracy theory' of yours about the towers not being able to collapse like they did without demolitions has already been explained away in other threads and by other experts in the field of demolitions and explosives. Give it a rest, would ya?

One of my friends lives a few blocks from the WTC center site.

She said that when the buildings fell, it looked like it was snowing.

I fail to see how such an intense heat could fail to melt steel, especially when everyone saw the planes hit, and saw the buildings collapse.

Oh... And guess what? The Pentagon released tapes of the planes hitting, so yet another one of your stupid theories has proven to be full of holes.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

The steel was rated at such a high level that the buildings should have burned for days, not hours. And when they did fall (which is unlikely in the first place) it wouldn't have been at free fall speed since the lower floors would have maintained integrity.

You buy this as pentagon evidence? One frame?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/

This link has two and a half minutes of footage and stills.

5 frames, one frame contains a partial image of what could be a plane. What sized plane? What airline was it from?

Why not release the hotel camera footage from across the street?

Watch. The. Video.

I did. It contains a video with 5 frames from the pentagon crash.

Fuselage, plane, and boom are clearly visible.

Whatever dude. If you'd rather have your crazy conspiracy theory, go for it.