Editor's note: originally published on http://www.stuff.co.nz/ a usually conservative paper in New Zealand.

Since the dawn of the YouTube age in 2005, the site has been used to share information and raise some pretty serious debate - along with the hordes of cute kittens and BMX mishaps.

One of the biggest topics for debate is the events on 9/11 and, specifically, questions over whether the buildings were taken down by a controlled demolition.

YouTube has been an excellent tool for those who are looking deeper into what was arguably the biggest event this century, because most of the footage shot on 9/11 ended up on YouTube.

This past weekend, as you probably know, was the ninth anniversary and still, nine years later, I'm not sure we have been given the whole picture.

There are many out there who dismiss alternative theories on what happened that day without really asking themselves why they are doing it.

If those people were to actually sit down and spend 20 minutes of their life watching a few of the theory videos and actually listening to the explanations, I think it would be hard for them to not question the official version of events, at least to some extent.

Many professionals, from engineers to quantum physicists, have looked over the footage from that day, presumably sourced from YouTube, and have slowly but surely developed a bunch of videos, papers and other resources explaining the controlled demolition theory.

On Saturday, a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth held a press conference outside the WTC site to raise awareness of this theory, and to also remind people that three, not two, skyscrapers went down that day. There was little media coverage.

Many are still asking why there hasn't been a proper, independent inquiry to date. You would think that such a huge event would justify a huge investigation, right?

If the US government truly had nothing to hide, there would have been a full, unbiased and truly independent investigation long ago. The silence is deafening.

There was a government-commissioned report, which released its findings in 2004. Conspicuously absent was any mention of how the buildings actually fell down.

The official story says the planes' burning jet fuel was so hot that the steel in the buildings lost its structural integrity and the floors collapsed on top of each other, floors stacking on top of each other in a pancake-like effect.

The controlled demolition theory, however, raises the following points:

1. A little-known third building, Building 7, was also levelled, despite not being hit by anything at all.

2. No reinforced steel structure had ever, before 9/11, collapsed due to fire.

3. Thermite dust (a high-power military grade explosive) has been found in the debris.

4. Footage shows explosions following the collapsing building downwards, with several rogue charges going off many floors below.

5. Debris was thrown sideways with such force to be inconsistent with the downward momentum of a "pancake" effect.

6. The buildings, because of their height, were designed to withstand being hit by a jet airliner.

7. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt construction-grade steel, but several witnesses described seeing molten steel.

8. The buildings fell at almost free fall speed - not possible for the "pancake effect" theory, as the resistance of the remaining (unburnt) steel would be too great.