That makes a change! Perhaps the truth behind the 9/11 atrocity has just become too difficult to subvert?

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

...but there is only so many times alot of us want to have the same arguments over and over again.

By the way, on the whole, when people who do not buy the 'inside job' speculation post onto these sort of threads, the usual response is that 'the powers that be' must be getting nervous as their 'disinformation agents' are out in force. This along with claims of being 'gatekeepers', 'spooks' or merely 'sheeple' Yet when no one can be arsed to respond, you start asking where they are?

Suffice to say, if the 'architects for 9/11 truth' are of equal calibre to the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' I would not trust one even to build a garden shed. All this stuff about freefall collapse into the buildings footprint, the alleged massive pools of molten steel - have been argued about and refuted many times on this site and elsewhere. Is it worth even having the debate over and over again? Frankly, I have never seen any convincing evidence put forward by 9/11 truthers to substantiate their wild and often contradictory claims, but you obviously think there is convincing evidence and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

Skeptic says: "the alleged massive pools of molten steel - have been argued about and refuted many times on this site and elsewhere."

How can you 'refute' hard data?

How come those who cling to the official story have all forsaken their senses? How come even rudimentary police detective methods are not applied to the mountain of discrepancies?

Skeptic also says "Is it worth even having the debate over and over again?"

No, of course not. It is time to move towards indictment of those who are already identified as having been implicated. Starting with N.Rockefeller, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Giuliani, Tenet etc ad nauseum.
.

How can you refute hard data, you ask.

You have not presented any hard data for one thing. With respect to pools of molten metal, you have some eyewitness testimonies which apparently saw molten metal, but what metal it was remains unspecified - it could well have been aluminium from the planes, and office buildings and the numerous computers they house also contain alot of metal - you have to prove it was molten steel for your counter theory to carry any weight.

Whatever the alleged presence of thermite was on the steel beams, how do you know, 'for a fact' that this was not connected to the clearing up operation when the steel beams were cut up and removed. While we are at it, as far as I am aware, thermite does not explode, so why the emphasis on the alleged explosions heard by firemen, rescue workers etc.

More often than not your 'hard data' is nothing more than assumptions based on photographs and video footage. There is no hard evidence that the 'solid orange slag' being lifted out of the wrecakge by a crane in that over used photo is metal at all, it could have been fibre glass building insulation. Your case is built on assumption and more often than not, 'facts' which quickly become disputable if you make the effort at examing them in any detail. You can continue with your 'inside job' cult beliefs if you want, I still say you have no case.

Hi Skeptic,

I wondered if you had actually watched this movie? I haven't yet though I have just ordered it from the States. I ask because you seem very convinced that there's no good evidence that the official story is wrong.

I guess you could say I'm biased (being essentially a believer) but when I see the footage of those relatively small planes crashing into those massive towers and then the towers going completely into free-fall collapse within an hour or two, well to me it just looks suspicious as hell. I mean, these are gigantic steel and concrete towers, designed to withstand a multiplicity of such impacts surely? I'm not a structural engineer, for sure, though I worked in construction for years. To me I don't buy it that so terrific an inferno could have been generated by the planes impact to bring down steel like that. I sure can't see any such fire on any of the films. To me the whole thing just looks dodgy as anything. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of brits with any construction experience at all would say the same. I mean, surely you have to admit it really does look suspect? I'm open-minded and happy to hear any good ideas you have that say it was fire, or whatever.

With respect

Nick Sandberg