I don't think it was any organization, I think it was basically one person, the person in charge of the dozen or so drills that morning (you can look these up and see who it was). Al-Qaeda didn't claim responsibility, the video evidence was fraudulent and the classified intelligence data supporting this was just made up by this person, who had a very high security clearance. He could put anything he wanted into the intelligence reports, the intelligence system presumes good faith. The motive was probably completely crazy, you're talking about one person, this is a nutcase in a position of power, not a sensible plan.

The government can't do such a thing, sure, I agree, but one psychopathic person in charge of micromanaging a bunch military drills can. The drills of that day could be used to stage the attack in a rather straightforward way, by only changing a few details. The plan the media gives for the 19 hijackers wouldn't do anything without the drills anyway.

But put all that aside. My answer didn't say the crackpot theory was that 9/11 was done by terrorists. That's not crackpot, that's just wrong.

The crackpot theory is that the planes could have brought down the towers and building 7 by impact and fire. No matter what you believe about the organization of the attack, this part, that the buildings came down by fire, is just crackpot nonsense. It is completely obvious that it is crackpot nonsense for building 7, which came down in free fall speed for 2.5 seconds, and not far from freefall afterwards. There is no non-crackpot way that a building can fall this way without demolition, and that doesn't require a physics degree, or even any experience with buildings. It's blindingly obvious, and also true.

This doesn't definitely imply a conspiracy or complicity in the attacks themselves, the way I see it, because the demolition system could have been set up in 1993 for all I know, in case there was another attack of the form of the 1993 bombing. Maybe it was supposed to act as an emergency demolition if there was a terrorist attack, and a risk of the buildings toppling over lower Manhattan.

If it was done for this ostensible purpose, it could be implemented, used, and covered up, without anyone considering that they are doing anything wrong, they wouldn't be covering up an inside job, in their mind, they would be just covering up a necessary, but unfortunate, public safety feature, which perhaps might have been used too hastily by officials on that day, but you can forgive their lapse of judgement in the heat of the moment. And of course it needs to be covered up, can you imagine the lawsuits from the relatives?

The NIST scientists might be patting themselves on the back now, saying "Gosh, aren't we patriotic citizens for covering this up!" I have no idea what they are thinking.

From my perspective, because this is possible, you can't establish that 9/11 was planned from the inside on the evidence of the demolitions alone. In order to say this, personally, I needed evidence specifically that this attack was done from the inside, and done without an impossible conspiracy. The inexplicable drills of the day provide this evidence to my satisfaction, and after you review them, and consider the drills required to stage such an attack, hopefully to your satisfaction too.

But these drills, or an inside plot, are not part of my answer. My answer is about the crackpot idea that three buildings fell down like that from fire.