scooby said:
Forgetting the 'truth' for a minute, lets just talk about the official story - you see so much uncertainty when you look at the official explanation of that day. It makes me skeptical and I think as much of it should be removed as possible before I start deducing anything. Too many 'known unknowns' as they say.
I think you've perfectly summarised actually why the government position is in fact the most reliable one. If the government's explanation was on the nose certain about every aspect,
that's when you start smelling the BS. As in with the WMD intelligence!
What happened on 9/11 was that four planes were hijacked and crashed, three of them into buildings, two of them the largest skyscrapers in the world. The crashes all being deliberate and completely catastrophic, there are very few traces of the people who did it, or substantive evidence of precisely how they accomplished what they did. From lists of passengers you start with clues as to who they might have been, and this is confirmed from other evidence of their prior activities. Identifying the hijackers is actually one of the most impressive feats in the FBI's investigations of the day. But other than this, a great deal
has to remain speculation. The skyscrapers fell. The reason for that is something that has to be investigated, for future building safety. But you can only provide a "most likely" explanation. The fact that the official cause of the collapse has changed from one model to a different one is in fact good news for regarding
as much actual fact as possible having been discovered. Someone on another thread (Aphelion?) was questioning the fact that it seemed clear that WTC7 was going to collapse prior to it collapsing, and was asking for evidence one way or another. But this is a ridiculous expectation: WTC 7 was perfectly fine standing up prior to 9/11, and possibly would have stood for another century. Then 9/11 happened, and the skyscrapers fell, damaging other buildings in the vicinity, and starting fires in them. For some hours, then, WTC7 was in a precarious state, and
some people reported that it was likely to fall. Then it fell. In terms of hard evidence, all we can say (who weren't there) is that one day it wasn't going to fall, then something happened, and then it fell. It's ridiculous, however, to ask for evidence of how likely it was to fall
during the period it had been damaged, because we can't all go back in time and look at it. We can only rely on eyewitness testimony, and that can only talk about what seemed likely on the day.
Sure it is that nothing will be known for absolutely certain, and therein lies our surety that the government did not, in fact, murder 3000 of its own citizens in order to enter a botched war. (It
used the murder of 3000 citizens to do so, but that's a different matter).
