The Seattle Times published several in their latest edition, with some extremely dubious claims.
For example, structural steel cannot be melted by an open kerosene fire (or your engine block would melt before you pulled out of the garage).
First time we've heard that analogy!
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) confirmed jet-fuel fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel. Yet, molten metal was found at the base of WTC Buildings 1, 2 and 7 weeks after 9/11, further suggesting explosives.
The BBC on Sept. 23, 2001, reported that four of the alleged 19 hijackers are alive, yet these same names were included in the 9/11 commission report. David Ray Griffin's "9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" provides a thorough examination.
For the 10,001st time, the hijackers are not alive.
Other factors influence my feeling on the matter more than that. For instance, why were interceptor jets not sent to intercept for such a long time, and why were so many of them away on that particular day doing exercises simulating what actually happened? Why were many warnings from intelligence agencies discounted prior to the actual incident?
Just because some kid in a black tee shirt tells you something doesn't mean you should believe it.
The NIST report, on the collapse of the twin towers, has been criticized by the engineering community for, among other things, reaching conclusions unsupported by the data it collected; not calculating the maximum loads the towers could take; and not even simulating the collapse of the towers. None of the official studies proved the official story; they merely assumed it to be true. All the 9/11 truth community wants are studies that answer the questions of legitimate concern.
Now the engineering community is on board the Kook Express? No, as we have discussed endlessly here, one of the major problems the 9-11 Deniers have is that they can't get any structural engineers on board.