Because the debunking excuses are so poor.
The debunking "excuses" are poor? Let's see:
Point 1: A Claim Regarding Osama Bin Laden
The Official Account
Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
The Best Evidence
The FBI did not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama bin Laden is wanted.
When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative publicity for the FBI, stated that the FBI had no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the 9/11 Commission promised to provide evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, they also failed.
So, the first of the best evidence is that the FBI did not connect the actual attacks to OBL, but to people in his organization?
Point 2: A Claim about the Destruction of the Twin Towers: Impact, Jet Fuel, and Fire Only
The Official Account
The Twin Towers were brought down by airplane impacts, jet fuel, and office fires.
The Best Evidence
Experience, based on physical observation and scientific knowledge, shows that office fires, even with the aid of jet fuel, could not have reached temperatures greater than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (1,000 degrees Celsius).
But multiple scientific reports show that metals in the Twin Towers melted. These metals included steel, iron, and molybdenum – which normally do not melt until they reach 2,700˚F (1482˚C), 2,800˚F (1538˚ C), and 4,753˚F (2,623˚C), respectively.
The second of the best evidence relies on "scientific" reports of metals melting, with no metallurgical analysis tying to what the metals were that melted, at what particular temperatures, and ignoring that several other conventional fires also had reports of melted metal?
Point 3: A Claim about the Destruction of the Twin Towers: Impact, Fire, and Gravity Only
The Official Account
The Twin Towers were destroyed by three and only three causes: the impacts of the airliners, the resulting fires, and gravity.
The Best Evidence
During the destruction of the Twin Towers, huge sections of the perimeter steel columns, weighing many tons, were ejected horizontally as far as 500 to 600 feet, as seen in multiple photographs and maps. These high-speed ejections of heavy structural members cannot be explained by the fires, the pull of gravity, or the airplane impacts (which had occurred about an hour earlier).
Human bone fragments approximately 1 cm long were found in abundance on the roof of the Deutsche Bank following the Towers’ destruction, which further points to the use of explosives. Pancaking or tamping of floors from above would tend to trap bodies, not hurl splintered bones over 500 feet horizontally.
The third best arguments rely on unproven hypotheses of ejected metal and pure speculation of what can cause bones to fragment and what can't?
Point 4: A Claim Excluding Explosions in the Twin Towers
The Official Account
NIST wrote as if no one – including members of the Fire Department of New York – gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers.
The Best Evidence
Over 100 of the roughly 500 members of the FDNY who were at the site that day reported what they described as explosions in the Twin Towers. Similar reports were given by journalists, police officers, and WTC employees.
The fourth best evidence relies on reports of explosions, when those explosions do not necessarily mean explosives, and there were no reports of the characteristic levels of sound associated with CD explosives?
Point 5: A Second Claim Excluding Explosions in the Twin Towers
The Official Account
On 9/11, the Twin Towers came down because of damage produced by the impact of the planes combined with fires ignited by the jet fuel. After burning for 101 and 56 minutes, respectively, the north and south towers came down rapidly but without the aid of explosives.
The Best Evidence
The Twin Towers were built to withstand the impacts of airliners having approximately the size and speed of those that struck them. And office fires, even if fed by jet fuel (which is essentially kerosene), could not have weakened the steel structure of these buildings sufficiently to collapse as suddenly as they did.
Only the top sections of these buildings were damaged by the impacts and the resulting fires, whereas their steel structures, much heavier towards the base, were like pyramids in terms of strength. So the official account, which ruled out explosives, cannot explain why these buildings completely collapsed.
The fifth best evidence ignores the effect of the weight of the top portions of each buildings vs. one floor of weakened supports?
Point 6: The Claim that WTC 7 Collapsed from Fire Alone
The Official Account
NIST originally suggested that WTC 7 was brought down by structural damage combined with a raging fire fed by diesel fuel. However, in its Final Report (of November 2008), NIST declared that neither diesel fuel nor structural damage played a role in this building’s collapse, and that this building, which was not struck by a plane, was brought down by fire alone.
The Best Evidence
Before or after 9/11, no steel-frame high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire. If fire were to cause such a building to collapse, the onset would be gradual, whereas the videos show that WTC 7, after being completely stable, suddenly came down in virtual free fall. This building’s straight-down, symmetrical collapse, with the roofline remaining essentially horizontal, shows that all 82 of WTC 7’s support columns had been eliminated by the time the top started down.
The sixth best evidence says just that something like this never happened before, it could not happen, and that there is no other explanation for what took out the support columns, like for example the mass of interior material collapsing to the ground in a giant heap?
Point 7: The Claim in NIST’s Draft Report that WTC 7 Did
Not Come Down at Free Fall Acceleration
The Official Account
Having denied for years that WTC 7 came down at free fall acceleration, NIST repeated this position in August 2008, when it issued a report on WTC 7 in the form of a Draft for Public Comment.
Shyam Sunder, the head of NIST’s WTC project, said – speaking within the framework of its claim that the building was brought down by fire – that free fall would have been physically impossible.
The Best Evidence
Scientific analysis by mathematician David Chandler shows that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for a period of about 2.25 seconds. NIST’s Draft for Public Comment had been challenged by Chandler and Dr. Steven Jones in a public review, and NIST then re-analyzed the fall of WTC 7.
In its Final Report, NIST provided a detailed analysis and graph that conceded that WTC 7 came down at free-fall acceleration for over 100 feet, or about 2.25 seconds, consistent with the findings of Chandler and Jones.
The seventh best example is 2.25 ( or is it 1.5) seconds of free-fallish (it was not a step function) acceleration of the OUTSIDE of the building, when CD isn't the only possible way that it could happen?
Point 8: The Claim in NIST’s Final Report that WTC 7 Came
Down in Free Fall Without Explosives
The Official Account
In its Final Report on WTC 7, issued in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged that WTC 7 had entered into free fall for more than two seconds. NIST continued to say, however, that WTC 7 was brought down by fire, with no aid from explosives.
The Best Evidence
Scientific analysis shows that a free-fall collapse of a steel-framed building could not be produced by fire, that is, without explosives (a fact that NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder acknowledged in his discussions of NIST’s Draft Report for Public Comment in August 2008).
See last point
Point 9: The Claim that the World Trade Center Dust
Contained no Thermitic Materials
The Official Account
Although NIST did not perform any tests to determine whether there were incendiaries (such as thermite) or explosives (such as RDX and nanothermite) in the WTC dust, it claimed that such materials were not present.
The Best Evidence
Unreacted nanothermitic material, “which can be tailored to behave as an incendiary (like ordinary thermite), or as an explosive,” was found in four independently collected samples of the WTC dust (as reported in a multi-author paper in a peer-reviewed journal).
The ninth best (why isn't this the first one) is that a not-so rigorously peer reviewed paper came to a conclusion that is still open to debate, and did not prove anywhere near enough material was present to be the cause of collapse even if it was what they claim it was.
Point 10: A Claim Regarding Hijacked Passenger Jets
The Official Account
The 9/11 Commission Report holds that four airplanes (American Airlines flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines flights 93 and 175) were hijacked on 9/11.
The Best Evidence
Pilots are trained to “squawk” the universal hijack code (7500) on a transponder if they receive evidence of an attempted hijacking, thereby notifying FAA controllers on the ground. But leading newspapers and the 9/11 Commission pointed out that FAA controllers were not notified.
A CNN story said that pilots are trained to send the hijack code “if possible.” But entering the code takes only two or three seconds, whereas it took hijackers, according to the official story, more than 30 seconds to break into the pilots’ cabin of Flight 93.
The fact that not one of the eight pilots performed this required action casts serious doubt on the hijacker story.
The tenth best example is that the pilots didn't set a squawk code while they were being murdered, by trained pilot hijackers?
Point 11: The Claim that Flight 93 Crashed Near Shanksville, Pennsylvania
The Official Account
The 9/11 Commission reported that United Flight 93, having been taken over by an al-Qaeda pilot, was flown at a high speed and steep angle into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
In response to claims that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, the US military and the FBI said that United 93 was not shot down.
The Best Evidence
Residents, the mayor, and journalists near Shanksville reported that no airliner was visible at the designated crash site; that contents were found as far as eight miles from the designated crash site; and that parts – including a thousand-pound engine piece – were found over a mile away.
The eleventh best argument is that no one saw a complete plane after it crashed into the ground, and uses an incorrect distance to one piece of debris.
Point 12: The Claim Regarding Hani Hanjour as Flight 77
Pilot
The Official Account
The 911 Commission Report holds that American Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was flown by al-Qaeda pilot Hani Hanjour into the Pentagon. After disengaging the autopilot, he executed a 330-degree downward spiral through 7000 feet in about three minutes, then flew into Wedge 1 of the Pentagon between the first and second floors at 530 mph.
The Best Evidence
Several former airliner pilots have stated that Hanjour could not possibly have maneuvered a large airliner through the trajectory allegedly taken by Flight 77 and then hit the Pentagon between the first and second floors without touching the lawn.
The twelfth best evidence relies on selected hearsay and opinion and ignores the data from the flight data recorder.
Point 13: The Claim About the Time of Dick Cheney’s Entry
into the White House Bunker
The Official Account
Vice President Dick Cheney took charge of the government’s response to the 9/11 attacks after he entered the PEOC (the Presidential Emergency Operations Center), a.k.a. “the bunker”.
The 9/11 Commission Report said that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until almost 10:00 AM, which was at least 20 minutes after the violent event at the Pentagon that killed more than 100 people.
The Best Evidence
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta told the 9/11 Commission that, after he joined Cheney and others in the bunker at approximately 9:20 AM, he listened to an ongoing conversation between Cheney and a young man, which took place when “the airplane was coming into the Pentagon.”
After the young man, having reported for the third time that the plane was coming closer, asked whether “the orders still stand,” Cheney emphatically said they did. The 9/11 Commission Report, by claiming that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until long after the Pentagon was damaged, implies that this exchange between Cheney and the young man – which can most naturally be understood as Cheney’s confirmation of a stand-down order – could not have occurred.
However, testimony that Cheney was in the PEOC by 9:20 was reported not only by Mineta but also by Richard Clarke and White House photographer David Bohrer. Cheney himself, speaking on “Meet the Press” five days after 9/11, reported that he had entered the PEOC before the Pentagon was damaged.
The 9/11 Commission’s attempt to bury the exchange between Cheney and the young man confirms the importance of Mineta’s report of this conversation.
I am not sure at all what the last point proves, and given what came before it, I don't think that even matters.
