gnikniht sdrawkcab
There are a lot of arguments debunking 9/11 truth. What these arguments share, from the childishly insistent and poorly informed to the highly respected popular publications and official studies is their tendency to provide a theoretically possible alternative for the collapse, then present that as truth. Since the approach from an official standpoint was never to find the most likely explanation, but rather an explanation which supported the already presented official version of events, there is nothing resembling the scientific process at work here. Instead of looking at the evidence at hand and determining the most likely cause, they find possible causes, no matter how implausible. Once a possibility has been suggested, it is accepted as truth, despite being simply a theory, and not having supporting evidence.
Nothing one could say is going to make fire melt steel, or change the fact that even if you come up with complex arguments for what COULD have happened, that doesn't mean that it DID happen. The only way you can find what did happen is to look at the evidence with no preconceived result and determine the most likely cause. Additionally, if someone really wanted to scientifically prove that planes knocked down the towers, they would have to establish that as a hypothesis, then do everything to disprove it, which of course is the opposite of the approach actually taken.
Furthermore, these complex, conflicting, often irrational accounts of what could have happened to cause the towers to collapse alway fail to take building 7 into account. Jet fuel can't melt steel, but if you want to frame an argument wherein a complex combination of factors including impact of the plane, abundance of jet fuel, and temperature variances create a theoretically possible collapse of the nature we witnessed you can. It doesn't change the fact that there's no actual evidence this happened, and that coming up with a possible scenario does not make it reality, but you can certainly come up with some semi reasonable and often overly creative alternatives describing what occurred that day.
While you could explain it any number of ways, including far out theories about alien microwaves from space, when you apply Occam's razor to the available explanations while carefully considering the evidence, I believe it will always be controlled demolition that is the most likely answer. When you remove whatever bias and predisposition towards a particular outcome you have, the explanation which most closely resembles the events is the controlled demolition theory. No other explanation begins to adequately explain how 3 buildings, one of which suffered NO plane crash, had NO jet fuel fires, and lost none of it's fire coating could have collapsed in such a uniform manner. (There's no evidence that the twin towers lost any fire coating either, but the theoretical possibility that the plane could have knocked all the asbestos off the steel infrastructure, which was determined by blasting a foot wide piece of asbestos from 2 feet away with a shotgun, has become accepted as truth)
All the theories in the world about planes knocking off asbestos, magic traveling jet fuel, temperature variances causing accelerated weakening of the steel, or exothermic reactions causing increases of temperature in access of 1000 degrees Celsius will not change the fact that none of this happened to Building 7. Building 7 suffered no impact from a plane, contained no magic jet fuel, did not lose it's fire coating, had isolated fires on one side of the building on floors 7, 11, and 12, and even had the fire raged throughout, it again, would not have been even remotely sufficiently hot to melt or even weaken steel.
Nonetheless however, building 7, which has none of the theoretical factors used as "proof" that the twin towers fell as a natural consequence of the damage they suffered, did fall, and collapsed straight into its own footprint. The only argument for how this happened is that the collapse was a result of fire, despite Larry Silverstein saying the building was pulled, and more importantly despite the VERY important and often completely ignored fact that normal fire can't melt steel. All of the arguments used to make this seem plausible for the twin towers do not apply to Building 7.
Which is why, you will almost certainly never hear anyone trying to make you believe this was the work of evil brown men from the desert bring it up.
Even they can only suspend disbelief so much.
Nothing one could say is going to make fire melt steel, or change the fact that even if you come up with complex arguments for what COULD have happened, that doesn't mean that it DID happen. The only way you can find what did happen is to look at the evidence with no preconceived result and determine the most likely cause. Additionally, if someone really wanted to scientifically prove that planes knocked down the towers, they would have to establish that as a hypothesis, then do everything to disprove it, which of course is the opposite of the approach actually taken.
Furthermore, these complex, conflicting, often irrational accounts of what could have happened to cause the towers to collapse alway fail to take building 7 into account. Jet fuel can't melt steel, but if you want to frame an argument wherein a complex combination of factors including impact of the plane, abundance of jet fuel, and temperature variances create a theoretically possible collapse of the nature we witnessed you can. It doesn't change the fact that there's no actual evidence this happened, and that coming up with a possible scenario does not make it reality, but you can certainly come up with some semi reasonable and often overly creative alternatives describing what occurred that day.
While you could explain it any number of ways, including far out theories about alien microwaves from space, when you apply Occam's razor to the available explanations while carefully considering the evidence, I believe it will always be controlled demolition that is the most likely answer. When you remove whatever bias and predisposition towards a particular outcome you have, the explanation which most closely resembles the events is the controlled demolition theory. No other explanation begins to adequately explain how 3 buildings, one of which suffered NO plane crash, had NO jet fuel fires, and lost none of it's fire coating could have collapsed in such a uniform manner. (There's no evidence that the twin towers lost any fire coating either, but the theoretical possibility that the plane could have knocked all the asbestos off the steel infrastructure, which was determined by blasting a foot wide piece of asbestos from 2 feet away with a shotgun, has become accepted as truth)
All the theories in the world about planes knocking off asbestos, magic traveling jet fuel, temperature variances causing accelerated weakening of the steel, or exothermic reactions causing increases of temperature in access of 1000 degrees Celsius will not change the fact that none of this happened to Building 7. Building 7 suffered no impact from a plane, contained no magic jet fuel, did not lose it's fire coating, had isolated fires on one side of the building on floors 7, 11, and 12, and even had the fire raged throughout, it again, would not have been even remotely sufficiently hot to melt or even weaken steel.
Nonetheless however, building 7, which has none of the theoretical factors used as "proof" that the twin towers fell as a natural consequence of the damage they suffered, did fall, and collapsed straight into its own footprint. The only argument for how this happened is that the collapse was a result of fire, despite Larry Silverstein saying the building was pulled, and more importantly despite the VERY important and often completely ignored fact that normal fire can't melt steel. All of the arguments used to make this seem plausible for the twin towers do not apply to Building 7.
Which is why, you will almost certainly never hear anyone trying to make you believe this was the work of evil brown men from the desert bring it up.
Even they can only suspend disbelief so much.