David Watts' reasoning looks very similar to that of the creationists.
This is how Richard Dawkins puts it:
Let's use the analogy of a detective coming to the scene of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler's defense lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler's pantry. "There's a gap in the video record! We don't know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client."
In vain, the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage toward the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? But no. Triumphantly the defense lawyer plays his ace. "We don't know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before."
http://www.newsweek.com/excerpt-richard-dawkinss-new-book-evolution-79345
That is my point. I (we) do not have to explain any of that. No explanation is required from our side.
The
overwhelming evidence favors the presence of 19 terrorists crashing 4 planes against WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon, and a field, respectively. On the other side there is
zero evidence of detonators, explosive cuts, missiles, etc.
Demanding an explanation for every little anomaly is utterly unreasonable. Even more so when the burden of proof is so heavily tilted towards those who claim inside job, despite your "point" which I could only explain as wishful thinking at its finest.
And about the topic, I've already made the point that the faster-than-free-fall collapse of WTC7 makes the case for simultaneous removal of supporting columns invalid, further shifting the burden of proof to the truther side (as if it wasn't tilted enough that way already).
