9/11 Conspiracy:

9/11 CONSPIRACY:

In 1998 the US government was advised that it would be necessary to replace Afghanistan's Taliban government before an essential opipeline could be built:

"So there will be no pipeline until there is an internationally regionized government"
commdocs.house.gov...

There are precedents for this sort of armed robbery:

"Oil played its part in a 1953 coup in Iran - organised by the US and Britain. They managed to overthrow an elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed (the dictator) Shah Reza" - so we can see that regime change is about the control of natural resources - not about democracy or freedom.

And "in 1973 Washington drew up a plan to seize oilfields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi to counter an Arab oil embargo against the West. One recent study paper by an American military analyst even suggests that one day the United States and Europe might be in conflict over dwindling Middle East oil supplies." Wake up. This is happening now.
news.bbc.co.uk...


In September 2001 - days before 9/11 - the largest military 'exercise' of all time took place. Operation Saif Sareea II just happened to put the Afghanistan invasion force in place in time for 9/11. How convenient.
www.army.mod.uk...

"The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) on 26 October announced that it is to contribute 4,200 personnel currently involved in Exercise 'Saif Sareea II' in Oman to provide further support for US-led coalition operations in Afghanistan."
www.janes.com...

"There has been a great deal of speculation in recent weeks – much of it ill-judged and unhelpful – about diverting our forces taking part in Exercise Saif Sareea II to conduct operations in and around Afghanistan." How convenient. What an incredible coincidence:
www.operations.mod.uk...

When 9/11 enabled the invasion of Afghanistan, the US-led coalition installed Hamed Karzai as the country's leader. Hamed Karzai was previously a consultant for the US oil company Unocal - the company that planned to build the Afghanistan oil pipeline.
www.answers.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

So we know that there was an intention to invade Afghanistan for the oil pipeline. We know that troops were sent to the region days before 9/11.

So what about 9/11 itself? (Where to begin!?)
www.prisonplanet.com...

On 9/11 - just like the later explosions in London on 7/7 - there was an identical exercise being conducted by the government. On 9/11 there was an exercise dealing with aircraft colliding with buildings. On 7/7 there was an exercise dealing with bombings at the exact same train stations that were actually bombed that day.

The evidence is overwhelming. It is physically impossible for the aircraft collisions and resulting fires to have caused the complete, symetrical, high-speed collapse of the twin towers - let alone building 7, which collapsed shortly afterwards.

The really frightening thing is that there are indications the US & British regimes plan to invade Iran to complete the oil monopoly over the Afghanistan pipeline and the biggest and most accessible oilfields of the Middle East. Will this require another huge attack?

Look at the facts for yourself. A lot of people are making a lot of noise about this, using their own time and money. If you won't watch all of these then what are you afraid of? The truth?


[edit on 5-9-2006 by AchesonGroup]

Mod Edit: All Caps Title– Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/9/2006 by Umbrax]

September 11 Demolitions:

video.google.co.uk...

fpiarticle.blogspot.com...

fpidocument.blogspot.com...

fpiarticle.blogspot.com...

www.freepressinternational.com...

London - 7/7 Explosions:

www.prisonplanet.com...

www.julyseventh.co.uk...

www.prisonplanet.com...

A former MI5 anti-terrorism expert made this film:

officialconfusion.com...


Wake up. And tell everybody you can about this terrible crime. Because in spite of the huge and growing international cry of anger the corporate mass media is mysteriously silent. Wake the world for the anniversary of the 9-11 demolitions.

Almost forgot:

video.google.co.uk...

I don't see overwhelming evidence of anything but some conspiracy theorists interpretation of vidoes they have seen. Some one's ideas of what they see does not add up to overwhelming evidence.
Vance

Originally posted by vance
I don't see overwhelming evidence of anything
Vance

You haven't looked.
One would have to be blind or scared to not see the glaring inconsistancies and outright lies that have been handed down from the government regarding 911.
It is overwhelming, and as long as people remain willfully ignorant of the painful truth that is right in front of them then the elite will continue thier march towards a global police state.

Keep telling yourself all is well.
Keep calling those that search for the truth 'conspiracy theorists'
Keep living the charade, its easier than facing the truth.


[edit on 5-9-2006 by 11Bravo]

This is not a conspiracy theory.

Aviation fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel especially when there's a lack of oxygen which was proved by the black colour of the smoke.

The twin towers and building 7 are the only buildings in HISTORY to have collapsed as a result of fire. All on the same day. All following perfectly symetrical demolition-style collapses.

Their descent can me measured even by an amateur using a stopwatch. They were virtually in freefall which proves that the huge steel supports ALL THE WAY up and down the building and ALL THE WAY around, in every section, failed at the same time or in immediate sequence. Only explosives could do this as any expert will tell you.

Moreover, you can clearly see huge fountains of thermite gushing from several places on the giant towers. Infrared imagery afterwards showed hotspots the exact temperature of reacting thermite days after the collapse. That's thousands of degrees hotter than aviation fuel can burn even in perfect conditions.

Think about it. Watch the films. They weren't made for fun.

But don't worry, the independent enquiries will sort the truth from the deceptions - won't they?

No, sadly not. Because the US government blocked an independent 9/11 investigation.

An investigation by a government cannot be fair if the government itself is suspected by a significant number of people. But there will never be an independent inquiry:

www.911inquiry.org...
www.justicefor911.org...

Well at least there was a proper inquiry into 7/7 .... wasn't there?

"Reid rejects 7 July inquiry calls ... The government's decision has angered many survivors and victims' families... Most families, as far as I'm aware, have been calling for a public inquiry"

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 7-9-2006 by AchesonGroup]

Thermite again?!? Good god, someone please shoot me.

First nobody claimed the steel melted, it was weakened, a pretty huge difference.

The twin towers and building 7 are the only buildings in history to have collapsed as a result of BEING STURCK BY A AIRPLANE, and by a fire. In the case of WTC 7 I see you too have ignored the pictures of the side of the building you CTers don't mention. You know the side with all the structural damage caused by a skyscraper falling right next to it. You're exactly right about the fires, so you can't compare WTC to that damned building in Indonesia, or whereever it was that burned for 18 or whatever hours, considering an Airliner didn't crash into it. Wow, were getting far arn't we. Why do you guys keep forgetting about that airplane hitting the tower. Do you claim it had no effect on weakening the building?

Freefall blah blah blah. Pancake blah blah. Since any EXPLOSIVES expert will tell me that only explosives can cause that damage. List some, with their credentials and background. So that I can see for myself, if these experts are really experts, or another person on the net seeking attention. If this is all it will take to change mine, or others peoples minds it shouldn't be any problem for you to do. I imagine it will take some digging, but if it enlightens others of the truth, than it's worth it. Don't duck and dodge on this one.

Huge fountains of therminte ehh? Where? Any links to pics or vids of these fountains? When I say video, I mean clip, I'm not sorting through an hour of pseudoscience, or half baked theories about mini-nukes, holograms, ect. If the thermal imageing is proof that the govt's behind it, and thermite was used, then why in the holy hell would the make the images public? So they could get caught in the act by people on the internet afterwards? Come on.

Huge fountains of thermite, my god, when will it stop. Next we'll hear about how the gov't blew up the leeves in NOLA useing thermite and mininukes.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by WithoutEqual]

Yes, thermite again. You can clearly see it. Watch the films. You haven't watched them.

Numerous buildings have been hit by aircraft. The Empire State Building just for one obvious example was hit by an aircraft and there was a huge fire. Even if a building were to collapse a perfectly symetrical collapse at a constant speed is physically impossible because the nature and scale of damage varies throught the structure.

The twin towers were designed to withstand aircraft collision and fire. Building 7 was a hardened building for government agencies. It was a bunker! Nothing hit it! But again we have the magic symetrical collapse. None of the other buildings in the area did this, in fact no other building in history has ever done this except for these three buildings. Many buildings have been hit by aircraft or had much WORSE fires. In many examples - including Empire State Building - there was aircraft collision followed by much more severe combustion. No magic symetrical demolition collapse. It's still there.

There are numerous experts in engineering and demolition in the films - along with credentials and background. Watch them. What are you afraid of?

Yes these videos DO clearly show the massive thermite reaction fountains gushing from the towers. You haven't seen the films so you have no business commenting on them yet. Several thermite reactions are clearly shown erupting from the towers and compared to footage of thermite reactions. When you consider the size of the buildings we're talking about many tons of thermite going off - and there are clear signs of explosives going off too - not to mention hundreds of eyewitness testimonies. Watch the films before you comment with no knowledge whatsoever.

Since you clearly haven's studied the evidence - or the films - here is one with the thermite reaction demonstration. It's the very first link in the list! You haven't even watched the first one!) But watch them all. All the way through:

video.google.co.uk...

It's amazing that people still say things like this. They claim to have made up their mind but their own statements prove they have not reviewed any of the evidence except for the official propaganda.

"List some, with their credentials and background"
- watch the films. It's all there!

"If this is all it will take to change mine, or others peoples minds it shouldn't be any problem for you to do"
- Yes that's right. It's easy. Watch the films.

"Huge fountains of therminte ehh? Where? Any links to pics or vids of these fountains?"
- Watch the video.

"When I say video, I mean clip, I'm not sorting through an hour"
- OK so you refuse to be exposed to the evidence. That's scary but it's fine. On the first video you can scroll through. There's a good example of the thermite clearly demonstrated almost exactly half way through the film. (It's around 40-45% of the way though.) You can scroll to it in a second.

But why won't you watch ALL the evidence?

[edit on 7-9-2006 by AchesonGroup]

Oh you're here to promote a film, and to look like a jerk for assuming YOU KNOW what research people have done. I've seen that film, as well as many others thank you. As far as you promoting the films you come on here, paste some links with very little detail, and when challenged, you revert to the links and videos. It's ovbious to me you're here to promote, not enlighten. Not really any of my business, but considering I'm pretty 'middle of the road' and not on either side of the political spectrum, I can spot someone with an 'axe to grind' in literally no time.

By the way, you ovbiously have no idea of what credentials and backgrounds means. I want detail, very simple. I do the same thing when I pick a doctor, you know, so I have proof he/she is competient.

Scott Stevens has a pretty good background. As far as being considered a meteorology expert, he falls short. Just cause he's a meteorologst doesn't mean crime families in Japan attacked us with a hurricane, catch my drift? He has videos too. Links as well. Come to think of it, so does the gov't! Does that mean their theory is truth as well?!?



Edited to add- Come to think of it the Titanic was 'unsinkable'. Does that mean that Bush and Cheney had a conspiracy to attack that ship on it's madien voyage? Halliburton? A CIA trained Ice Burg? What I'm getting at is, so what, they built them to withstand airplanes and fires, yay. Reseach the Kansas City Hyatt incident, which to me shows 'crap happens'. Meaning, structural designs fail all the time, by people who are experts and said "it'll work" but didn't failed, and here we are. Also look into the Charles-de-Gaulle Airport Terminal Collapse. They said it'll work, but it didn't.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by WithoutEqual]

I don't care about the films, any of them. Like the people who made them I care about the truth. They were all made by different people with one thing in common - a care for the truth.

I know what research you've done - or in your case not done - because you made it clear that you have no knowledge of the evidence whatsoever with your statements:

If you had reviewed all the evidence and watched the films they why did you say, ""Huge fountains of therminte ehh? Where? Any links to pics or vids of these fountains?" - the very first link shows you a very good video of these fountains together with other thermite reactions to compare with!

You also said, "List some, with their credentials and background. So that I can see for myself, if these experts are really experts" - proving not only that you're in no way familiar with the evidence of the hundreds of experts from numerous fields who have come forward - but also that you have not seen the films as claimed - because their names, credentials and even interviews with some of them are in the films.

What has Scott Stevens got to do with this? We are talking about experts in engineering, building construction, building safety and building demolition. Experts with top qualifications and lifetimes of experience. Watch the films.

You need to review the evidence before you form a considered opinion. You need to know both sides of the story, not just the official war propaganda.

Your titanic example is a wildly irrelevant. If the titanic had been the only ship in history ever to sink after a collision then I would be suspicious. But there was nothing unusual about it. Many buildings have been hit by planes and suffered serious fires but only three in the whole of history have collapsed as a result and they were all on 9/11. Furthermore, many buildings have indeed collapsed for various other reasons but the only ones to collapse symetrically are those taken down with carefully-placed explosive charges - well, those and the twin towers and building seven. Think about it.

As I've already said, the Empire State building and many other buildings have suffered aircraft collisions causing massive fires. No other ones have collapsed and even when a building does collapse for any reason it only collapses symetrically and in freefall under the influence of explosives.

Aircraft collisions aside, there are hundreds of examples of huge and far more devastating fires in large buildings, in many cases destroying the whole building. But fire has never caused collapse before. No aircraft hit building 7 it was just the fire and yet it collapsed just like the only other two buildings in history to do so without demolition charges - the twin towers.

I find it deeply disturbing that so many people are so easily fooled into forming opinions based on state propaganda. If we'd lived in Nazi Germany most of us would have believed the Communist movement started the Reichstag fire. 9/11 is no different.

I'll only say this one more time because it's getting silly:

Watch the films.

Thankyou.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by AchesonGroup]

I don't care about the films. Like the people who made them I care about the truth. They were all made by different people with one thing in common - a care for the truth.

So now you don't care about the films? Make up your mind.

I know what research you've done because you made it clear that you have no knowledge of the evidence whatsoever.

You're proving more and more, minute by minute that you're not worth my time.

If you had watched the films they why did you say, ""Huge fountains of therminte ehh? Where? Any links to pics or vids of these fountains?" - when the very first link shows you a very good video of these fountains together with other thermite reactions to compare with.

Reason I said that is cause guess what kiddo. THAT'S NOT THERMITE, hence why I asked WHERE IS IT? Cause that's not it.

You also said, "List some, with their credentials and background. So that I can see for myself, if these experts are really experts" - proving not only that you're in no way familiar with the hundreds of experts who have come forward - but also that you have not seen the films as claimed - because their names, credentials and even interviews with some of them are in the films.

Nothing any different than what the gov't, it's theory, and it's experts have to offer. That's the point you folks keep missing. Not only that, but the CTer's PR sucks. You're the proof of that big boy. PR=PUBLIC RELATIONS look it up.

What has Scott Stevens got to do with this? We are talking about experts in engineering, building construction, building safety and building demolition. Experts with top qualifications and lifetimes of experience.

Point is-One persons expert is another persons idiot. Try again.

You need to review the evidence before you form a considered opinion. You need to know both sides of the story, not just the official war propaganda. I'll only say this one more time because it's getting silly:

No, these far out 9-11 theories are getting silly, and propaganda in and of themselves. Here's another thing you don't seem to get, the CTers have as much credibility as the gov't, and the CTers theories have just as many holes, as the gov't theories. If you reviewed the evidence put forth from both sides you would have figured that out already. No wonder your 'movement' is so freaking splintered.

There's nothing far-out about suspicions concerning an event that is unique in history and debunked by hundreds of experts.

No other building in history has collapsed - let alone symetrically - as a result of fire or aircraft collision or both.

When buildings do collapse, unless they are rigged with explosives, they collapse asymetrically. That's why demolition experts spend days rigging buildings with carefully-placed charges. When buildings collapse without charges they fall all over the place and usually on one side, where there is the most damage.

You still haven't watched the films. There's plenty of well-documented and video-recorded examples of other buildings that have been hit and/or burned without collapsing.

No other buildings in history have done this except for the 9/11 buildings. (With the obvious exception of all the other buildings that were taken down with explosives - they behaved in precisely the same way.)

You love your country and that's admirable. But when it blinds you to the possibility that your government might kill people then it's also extremely dangerous.

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

physics911.net...

S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven

These experts know a lot more about the subject than us so we should listen:

Derrick Grimmer
Ames, IA, USA
PhD: Washington University
Physics

David Shayler
Eastbourne, Great Britain
Hon MA Lit. & Linguistics
MI5 former anti-terrorism officer

David Heller
Berkeley, CA
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture
Architect and Builder

Lieut. Col. USAF (ret.)
Jerry Longspaugh
Fort Worth, TX, USA
MSc: Brooklyn Polytechnic
Aerospace Engineer

George F. Nelson
Huntsville, AL, USA
FAA A&P Licence
US Airforce Colonel (ret.)
Ralph W. Omholt
Kirkland, WA, USA
AAPP University of Alaska
Professional Airline Pilot

Peter J. Kirsch
Western Cape, South Africa
MD: University of Witwatersrand
Forensic Pathology
Karen Kwiatkowski
Mt. Jackson, VA

A. K. Dewdney
London, Canada
PhD: U of Waterloo
Mathematics

Russ Wittenberg
Carefree, AZ
BBA U. of Miami FL
US Airforce Capt. (ret)
Captain for PAA & UAL
USC @ Santa Barbara
US Naval Intelligence

Jesse Hemingway
Al Cahon, CA, USA
BBA National University
(frmr.) USN Operations Specialist
Phil Jayhan
Chicago, IL, USA

Robert Ballan
Norwood, NY, USA
MSc & JD: Clarkson College
Chemistry & Law

Kevin Barrett
Lone Rock WI, USA PhD U of Wisconsin
Islamic Studies

Walter Davis
Kent, OH, USA
PhD: U of Connecticut
Kinesiology

Annie Higgins
Gainesville, FL
PhD University of Chicago
Arabic Language & Literature

Timothy P. Howell
Upsala, Sweden
PhD: U. of Edinburgh
Computer Science
Don Trent (Four Arrows) Jacobs
Sequim, WA
Ed. D. Boise State University
Professor, Fielding Graduate U

Steven E. Jones
Provo, Utah
PhD: Vanderbilt University
Physicist, Brigham Young U.
PhD Catholic University

Brad Mayeaux
Kenner, LA, USA
Electr. &Tech. Inst. of New Orleans
Cellphone Engineer

Morgan Reynolds
Arkansas, USA PhD: U of Wisconsin
former Chief Economist,
United States Department of Labor

Kevin Ryan
Bloomington, IN, USA
BSc Indiana University
Chemistry
ASQ Certified Quality Engineer

Nila Sagadevan
Laguna Hills, CA, USA
HBS U. of Edinburgh.
Aeronautical Engineer and Qualified Pilot

Bernard Windham
Tallahassee, FL, USA
MS Florida State
MS Louisiana State
Statistician

Karin Brothers
Toronto, Canada
MS Georgia State
Instructional Design Systems Engineer

John DiNardo
Towaco, NJ, USA
BA: Kean University
Science Education
Donald Eckhoff
Morgan Hill CA, USA

Drexel Institute of Technology
Engineer & manufacturer
Kenyon Gibson
London, England

(There's a lot more experts. I couldn't fit them in.)

physics911.net...


[edit on 7-9-2006 by AchesonGroup]

As we know, one by one the 9/11 hijackers pulverised and incinerated in their planes, then pulverised again by the collapse of the twin towers, have started to turn up alive and well:

“Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well … Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September … He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.”

news.bbc.co.uk...

It was a very sloppy cover-up. They didn't even bother to make holes in the Pentagon where the huge, compact, very dense, very heavy engines would have hit at enormous speed. In fact these would have been far more likely to make holes than the fusilage.

And that major problem is just the tip of the iceberg:

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Thermite again?!? Good god, someone please shoot me.

Aluminothermics...

Educate yourself here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have voted AchesonGroup for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

nice work, don't be letting the nay-sayers get you down. Don't worry about explosives in the buildings. All the facts speak for them selves. ie war games pre-invasion plans / oil pipelines, are in the public domain.

Thanks for your support. Millions of people and thousands of experts all over the world are screaming for truth and justice.

It is extremely disturbing that the corporate media refuses to report this extremely serious matter.

Could it just be that the payroll journalists don't want to jeopardise the cosy relationships they have with the politicians, landing them them all the juicy (and often anonymous) "leaks" and exclusives? This is how state propaganda works in the West. "An un-named official has claimed that President Bush is very serious about catching the evildoers who hate freedom. The whitehouse refuses to deny this claim." would be a typical example and would make headlines all over the world.

Is that all there is to it? Or is it something far more sinister?

Whilst I don't have any issues with your claims in the initial post, do you really think jounalists or the media in general are more interested in political 'leaks' and other titbits of info they get handed, over what could be the biggest headline story ever told?

I agree. It's pretty strange. But the fact is that nothing about the biggest news story of all time is in the mainstream media.

All these experts queueing up to demand the truth but there is an eery silence.

Why? You'd have to ask the media organisations or their owners. I can't help you there.

But I agree it's very strange.

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
First nobody claimed the steel melted, it was weakened, a pretty huge difference.

A lot structural engineers claimed the steel was melted right after 9/11.

From there, it's been back-tracking to less and less severe circumstances that somehow brought the three skyscrapers down so quickly.

You know the side with all the structural damage caused by a skyscraper falling right next to it.

There are no such images of severe structural damage from WTC1's collapse. There are images of damage to the Southwest corner of the building, but that's it, and there were no important structural components within that small portion of the building.

A simple way to debunk that would be to provide me with a photo showing damage other than the SW corner. Anyone can do this if they think they have such an image (and no -- the one from "Debunking 9/11" cannot be the mythical gouge unless it also happened to be where the SW corner damage was. Count the columns on that face and you'll see what I mean. ).

Why do you guys keep forgetting about that airplane hitting the tower. Do you claim it had no effect on weakening the building?

It had very little effect, even according to government figures.

I'll simplify this to be brief:

Less than 15% of the columns were severed in the impacted regions of either building. The perimeter columns were 500% redundant, and the core columns were 225% redundant (safety factor ratings of 5 and 2.25 respectively).

Do the math. That's how much damage the impacts caused.

Everything else is being chalked up to fire here, and perimeter buckling due to truss failures, due to fire.

First, how many skyscrapers have lost >75% or even >60% of their total load-bearing capacity (ie what was remaining after the impacts) on a given floor due to fire alone? None.

Second, where is any evidence of >4/5 perimeter buckling or an equivalent on any given floor, as per NIST's theory? It does not exist.

It's not hard stuff. What is hard, is overcoming personal insecurities over whether or not this information is accurate when major media is dominated by the same power-hungry corporations and financial institutions that are behind atrocities such as 9/11 and the wars that followed. Institutions like Scholars for 9/11 Truth bring you science and credible information. Institutions like CNN and FOX bring you propoganda. And both sets are good at what they do.

There's nothing far-out about suspicions concerning an event that is unique in history and debunked by hundreds of experts.

Talk of thermite, mini-nukes ect. Is far out. The only thing you have to back the ‘thermite’ theory besides your little video, is a ‘sample’ studied by Dr. Steven Jones. One look at that Dr Jones thread proves how blatently weak this argument really is.

No other building in history has collapsed - let alone symetrically - as a result of fire or aircraft collision or both.

Yeah I’ll give you that, but there’s still a problem. You’re using the Empire State Building and comparing it to WTC. You’re also comparing a B-25 Mitchell to a freaking 767. Can we say apples and oranges? Not to mention 2 very different fuels. That’s take a look at some specs shall we?

B-25 Source Wiki
• Length: 52 ft 11 in (16.1 m)
• Wingspan: 67 ft 6 in (20.6 m)
• Height: 17 ft 7 in (4.8 m)
• Wing area: 610 ft² (57 m²)
• Empty weight: 21,120 lb (9,580 kg)
• Loaded weight: 33,510 lb (15,200 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 41,800 lb (19,000 kg)
• Powerplant: 2× Wright R-2600 "Cyclone" radials, 1,850 hp (1,380 kW) each
• Maximum speed: 275 mph (239 knots, 442 km/h)
• Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 knots, 370 km/h)
Fuel total capacity of 670 US gallons

Boeing 767 Source-Boeing.com
Length 48.5 m (159 ft 2 in)
Wingspan 47.6 m (156 ft 1 in)
Height 52ft (15.8m)
Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 530 mph (851 kph)
Engines maximum thrust Pratt & Whitney PW4062 63,300 lb (281.6 kN) GE CF6-80C2B7F
62,100 lb (276.2 kN)
Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 l)

So, I notice that the B-25 only carried 670 gal of fuel compared to the 767 at 23,980 gal. That’s one hell of a difference, see what I mean? Apples and Oranges. That’s like saying that if you rammed a Chevy Beretta into a building, it’d have the same effect as a 16 wheeler fuel truck. Your comparison couldn’t suck any worse to be totally honest.

When buildings do collapse, unless they are rigged with explosives, they collapse asymetrically. That's why demolition experts spend days rigging buildings with carefully-placed charges. When buildings collapse without charges they fall all over the place and usually on one side, where there is the most damage.