The testimony only contradicts the assertion that the planes never underwent a hijacking, not controlled demolitions. The latter actually has been substantiated quite well by BYU physics professor Steven Jones who found demolitions (thermate) traces in WTC samples.

They sure do. Like how did the towers collapse like a controlled demolition.

BTW, you are a doo-doo head too.

Or why there were pools of molten metal found at ground zero.

Yeah well you're a stupid face....stupid face!

.......or how tower 7 collapsed like a controlled demolition and it wasn't even hit by an airplane.

There weren't.

Leslie Robertson

No, it was hit by debris falling from the other towers, then it burned for 8 hours, unchecked. Ever seen a building burn for over 8 hours, fueled by diesel fuel, that WOULDN'T collapse?

Yes, a steel framed building has never collapsed before from just fire - especially in the manner of a controlled demolition.

A steel frame building that had 1/4 of one side of it's first 10 floors basically 'scooped' out? One, also, that wasn't built like a standard steel frame building, but whose first 10 floors had nothing holding them up but floor trusses?

Honestly, you guys should check out this sight.

911Myths

Here's what they say:

The web is full of sites covering various conspiracy theories. Many seem well-researched, and appear to have plenty of detailed documentation to prove their claims. But are they really true?

We don’t know, but one good way to start is by checking a few claims for yourself. We tried that with a number of 9/11 sites, with surprising results. Many of the “facts” we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. Relevant information was often ignored. And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research.

Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.

But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.

My position is the same. I still have my doubts, but it does seem next to impossible for all this to be a conspiracy without someone spilling the beans. I'm still on the fence. Hopefully history will eventually put this one to rest.