When I first started gathering info on 9/11 for my own analysis to see which side of the fence I should go on I though "hey, theres that loose change thing, they are pretty famous in the news for the conspiracy theorists" But after looking on the forum I found one odd thing: your using the molten metal as evidence that the US did the attacks, this is Ironic as the molten metal is further proof that it WASN'T a conspiracy, I have heard people talking about how the planes themselves would create enough joules of energy to melt the metal, and they are right, but what they left out is that as the trade centers collapsed they would have created even more heat, further weakening the structure, making it fall faster and generating even more heat. A controlled demolition would need a lot of RDX or C-4 to get the job done, and most likely wouldn't have melted anything until the building started to collapse.
Furthermore the building would not have collapsed from a controlled explosive of that size, as the buildings were built to withstand an incoming jet liner crash, however since the planes were filled with fuel they burned like napalm and heated up the steel which weakened it structurally allowing the buildings to fall.

You're saying that the kinetic energy of the plane impacts would have melted any significant metal, and the gravitational energy of the collapses too? There's not nearly enough energy in those to get the rubble pile that hot.

But there was lots of flammable material in those towers to burn for weeks.

And you're right, explosives don't melt metal, they blast through it.

This is the biggest yes/no debate.

Actually there's more than enough to melt significant amounts of metal, at the very least the aluminum from the plane... which begs the question how did the survivors survive the aluminum poisoning. if it vaporized? JK it wouldn't have gotten THAT hot. but certainly would not be easily recognizable.