I call on the great pwnage skillz of Sharwood, come to this thread almighty and show this lost one the light of reason.
Awesome, I'm a god now. I've claimed such for years, but only two girlfriend's in throes of passion have admitted such. And they changed their minds later.
Sadly, I can't unleash my Obi-Wan Kenpwnage on this thread with any degree of awesomeness, as I simply don't know enough about what he's saying. The Moon Landing Hoax I knew enough about to repeatedly rape all such arguments in violent and painful fashion - the Kpwnbi Bryant, if you will -, but I have never heard of this 'documentary' or this particular 'theory.'
The only one of these claims I've heard of is the steel melting one, and that's easily explained. The steel didn't bloody melt, it collapsed. The impact destroyed much of the structure - including steel girders - of the WTC, forcing the remaining steel to carry far greater weight than it was originally designed to do. As such it gave way. Like a deck of cards collapsing when you mess with the top, the undamaged part of the building was unable to hold the weight of the top third of it collapsing on top of it, causing it to collapse also. The only steel that melted was immediately surrounding the impact zone, and the initial heat wave of an exploding plane tends to be hotter than the resulting fires, making that more than logical.
As for Building 7, I actually woke up just in time to see that collapse that morning. I have seen an apartment block collapse due to improper structural strengthening of a subway tunnel being constructed beneath it, in person. Fortunately people heard the building groaning and got out, and no-one was killed. A few minor injuries, that's all. It collapsed in the same way.
You see, the reason for the collapse of Building 7 was the concussion caused by both the explosions of the aeroplane impacts and the collapse of the Towers. Building 7's bottom floors were damaged by said concussions, especially coming consequetively in such a short period. Now, if the top floors had been damaged it probably would have survived, it was actually more suited to do so than either tower. However, the bottom floors obviously had to carry all the weight of the floors above them - in fact, Building 7 had to carry far more weight than the damaged part of the WTC had to. Naturally, in its damaged state it could not hold this weight, and it fell.
A controlled demolition would similarly have taken out the bottom floors, causing an identical collapse. Of course, there were no visible explosions, ruling out any such demolition. I know this for a fact, as I was watching it occur LIVE. All implosions involve visible explosions from the angle at which I was viewing it.
Also, I've yet to hear of any employer - except potentially the US government, which would obviously not want people discussing this while the investigation was still ongoing - who has forbade their employees from discussing the collapse of the towers. Unless Osama is telling his people not to talk under torture, which he probably is.
Regarding the existence of an "Illuminati," I'll give the same answer I gave in the sheer awesomeness of the "Moon Landing Hoax" thread, my personal favourite thread in internet history: pulling off such a conspiracy would be ten thousand times more impressive than if we actually went to the moon. If the Illuminati exists and has as much power as you claim, then they're so frigging powerful that they don't need to resort to this crap. Woody60707 was right when he said as much earlier.
Also, in case you haven't noticed, the removing of civil liberties and turning of nations into police states was proceeding with great gusto prior to 9/11 in many countries - my own included - but in others, most notably Indonesia, the reverse was true. Surely the Illuminati could have co-opted Indonesia's fledgling democracy? Besides, nations don't need to do anything this drastic to justify the creation of a police state. I suggest you read the transcripts of Hermann Goering's speeches at the Nuremberg trials. He had somewhat firsthand experience, and was also correct.
Bin Laden looks different in all the videos because he's a different age. Also, he colours his hair when he can. Besides, most of the videos are old ones that his people are only now releasing. There's a fairly good chance Osama himself is already dead - he was in bad health
before 9/11 -, and Al-Qaeda is maintaining the myth that he's still alive because it's good for recruitment. Wouldn't be the first time. Israel and Palestine have both done the same thing, and fairly recently.
Osama's height is always the same, but some videos show him from different angles and framed differently. Besides, altering a person's hieght in camera isn't difficult. Look at old wrestling interviews involving Andre the Giant. he was 6"9', but looked 18inches taller than the 6"1' Vince McMahon. The reason? McMahon was sitting down, Andre was standing, and the camera didn't show anything below Andre's waist.
Thermite charges are
very noticeable. If they were used there would be a LOT of evidence. You really think none of those firefighters or police had ever done demolition work, or military service? Or are they all in the Illuminati?
Your understanding of economics is completely flawed. Worldwide trade actually
fell after 9/11, for the first time in about 30 years or more. It's still recovering. Also, the nation already possesses a very globalised marketplace. Polarising the world as the War on Terror has done actually damages this. It strengthens regimes such as Iran while hurting nations like the US. War may be good for business, but it's also good for creating political instability. The odds of an Islamic revolution in Egypt are increasing everyday, the Illuminati certainly don't want that. It would be more than a little bad for commerce havig a fundamentalist regime in control of the Suez Canal.
That's it for now, I'm sure you'll come up with something else for me to debunk later though.
So they then claim a cruise missile did that! 
