It gives me absolutely zero comfort to know that this so called debunking has done nothing to confirm the official story.
Congratulations, you've realized something about debunking that most people, including most debunkers here, never quite get straight. Debunking has nothing to do with confirming any particular story.
Debunking is finding fault with the evidence offered in support of a story. Completely successful debunking -- that is, demonstrating that there is no valid evidence in favor of a story, as is the case here with 9/11 inside job theories -- means there is no reason to believe that story.
Naturally, if there's no reason to believe a particular story, it makes sense to turn instead to other explanations of the event that do have evidence supporting them. But that's irrelevant as far as debunking is concerned. If it were a total mystery how 9/11 happened, the 9/11 conspiracy theories would still be debunked. For instance, controlled demolition via explosives and/or incendiaries would still suck as a theory for why the towers collapsed, even if their collapses had not been immediately preceded by airplane impacts and large intense fires. The possibility would be considered and quickly rejected due to the lack of observed blast shocks, no overpressure waves, no shrapnel, no evidence of explosive or incendiary distortion of the column ends, no remains of demolition apparatus, and collapse dynamics inconsistent with pre-weakening of the structure except at the collapse initiation zones. Suspicion would probably fall (as it has in other cases of accidental structural failure) on design and construction errors, flaws in material quality, extensive corrosion or fatiguing of members or fasteners, brittle fracture or other mechanical damage from usage or modification, and overloading. (Perhaps that's why NIST investigated many of those possibilities, despite the obvious evidence of collision damage and fire also having occurred! For example, if NIST had found evidence of substandard steel, or of chronic leaks having caused extensive corrosion, the narrative would have been quite different: rather than "the towers were doomed once the collisions took place," we'd all be seeing the big picture of the tower collapses as "substandard materials/practices made the towers more vulnerable than they should have been."
Not everything presented or discussed here is limited to debunking alone. Evidence in favor of the consensus narrative has emerged from research under discussion here including work by Gregory Urich, Crazy Chainsaw, and Frank Greening. Other such work published by journalists, scientists, engineers, and prosecutors in their respective milieux have also been discussed. But if you're looking for "debunking that confirms the official story," that's a contradiction in terms. Sorry if you were led to think otherwise.
Respectfully,
Myriad
