posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 07:38 AM
I've read the whole thing and I'll start by saying that I appreciate how much effort it is to make a thread like that. I also say that I believe
your sincerity of asking people to form their own opinion to a point. However, as you yourself said in one of your responses, each point could be
individually debated for eternity so asking someone to debunk everything point by point is quite unfair. For this same reason I'll only give two
1)official story promoters, not all but generally. and you specifically, say that NIST has a theory that is the best so far so until someone else
comes along with a better one I'm going to promote it. I always see conspiracy theorists responded to with "as you can see I've proven part of your
theory wrong and therefore the whole thing easily falls apart, so I'm going to go with the official story thank you." Yet even though this
conspiracy theorist has a solid argument against one point in the official story, because they can't debunk it all that must mean the whole thing is
true. They can't have it both ways. My biggest problem with that is FEMA who was there that day and who did the initial report says things that were
different than what appeared in the NIST report a few years later. Forget science for a second. They don't even agree on whether there was properly
identified building 7 steel to analyze and use for the collapse models. To me that alone is enough to at least ask for another investigation. This
isn't a point for controlled demolition. This is a point for incompetence in the investigation and a question of the validity of the information used
to form a conclusion. Settling for the official story just because you don't see evidence for controlled demolition isn't good reasoning. It
doesn't have to be one or the other.
2)people from both sides cite the damage to surrounding buildings as evidence. You yourself claim that "saying building 7 shouldn't have collapsed
because no other buildings did implies that all fires are the same which isn't true" is not a bad point. The statement itself is true I think. But
then to say that three buildings who had damage points at different locations, different amounts of fires, different types of damages, etc can fall
the same way quite a stretch too. I'd like to see evidence that all the other buildings with partial collapses appear from the outside to stay
perfectly in tact, then have all the partial collapse points give way at the exact same time in less than 20 seconds instead of gradually here and
there. Are these the exact same buildings? No. But neither are 7 and the two towers.
My last generality has to do with firemen clearing out and believing the building is about to fall/blow up/pick your wording. Both sides have used
this to prove their own arguments. My interpretation is that the fire department wasn't in on anything so them saying this is not evidence to me of
prior or insider knowledge of any kind. It very well could be a legitimate assessment of the situation as they saw it. This also doesn't prove to me
that the collapse as it happened was expected by them and a logical conclusion. If they had said "clear out, this building will fall very quickly,
straight down and have a complete and total collapse" I'd buy that. I'm going to guess that they expected to see partial collapses and sections of
the building fall or topple like they've seen at every other structural failure due to fire before this day.
Conclusion: I'm not fully sold on controlled demolition necessarily, but I've not seen enough to completely accept natural collapse.
reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin