Independent, credible source?
How about your own eyes?
Are you really saying these aren't plane debris?
Including 4 eight foot diameter and 15 foot length titanium rotor assemblies (melting point 2600º C/4712º F)
Melting point ≠ structural strength.
and 4 'black boxes' specifically designed to survive extremely high-energy impact?
And a high energy impact from a crash landing is the same as the live load of a falling building landing on top of the plane? Nonsense.
Do you seriously realize how stupid you sound?
And how about the other 4 eight foot titanium rotors and 4 'black boxes' that went down in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon without having "been pulverized by hundreds of thousands of tonnes of falling steel". Where are those?
The black boxes? Found. Even 911research admits that both of those recorders were claimed to be found. They only dispute whether or not they were plants. As to the turbines, they are NOT build to survive impacts, and as such would be unrecognizable in a debris field. Under normal operation, their only job is to be driven by hot gasses. That's a completely different set of engineering specs.
Now you are lying because there is not one frame of the first plane that hit the towers.
Try again, liar:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ys41jnL2Elk#t=11
And the footage of the second plane was doctored.
Doctored... as it was being broadcast live. Hillarious.
No burning skyscraper anywhere ever collapsed as a result of fire. Not even after 72 hours of blazing fury. On 9/11 not one, not two, but three skyscrapers did, however. Of which one wasn't even hit by a plane and had 'only' non-disastrous fires burning on part of 2 floors. All on the same day.
What a coincidence.
None of the previous buildings had a high energy impact of a plane smashing into them, blowing off fire retardant designed to protect the main structural members from weakening in that way — the fire retardant was on those members because if they weren't there the building would
collapse quickly from fire. Also, none of the previous buildings had a skyscraper rain flaming debris on top of it, and none
occurred where the where the water system was so compromised.
Also, there were no fires in a pure steel-framed construction building before. The twin towers were some of the oldest buildings in the world to use pure steel-framed construction, because it was the development of steel-framed construction that enabled them to be built in the first place. If they had used steel-reinforced concrete (an excellent, and impact-resistent fire-retardant by the way — every example put forward by your ilk seem to point to buildings that are steel-reinforced concrete), the twin towers would have been too heavy to build.