I have been reading JREF forums 9/11 section for roughly 8 years. None of these points in the video have been debunked. I don't know why you gave me a page that doesn't discuss any of the points in the video. Can you explain?
And then to your questions:
"1) what WOULD convince you of the official story given every last peice of nonsense cts raise has been utterly denbunked/gone over online ...what would u need to see?
you understand theories like gravity etc still have unawnsered questions right?"
Some claims made early by people have definitely been debunked. That doesn't mean everything has. For example the issues raised in the video above, and several other key factors. The issues raised by A&E911 truth have NOT been debunked. People have tried to discredit the people bringing up the issues, and a lot of people call that "debunking" but just disagreeing and offering a baseless explanation is not debunking. We can all skeptically say "I don't think that's right" and call it debunking, and of course people who want consider something debunked they will cling to this claim of being debunked. I've been going to JREF for years to get perspective from both sides of the issue. Some people even still think that the Popular Mechanics "debunking" was actually correct in a lot of issues, even though their debunkings have largely been thoroughly debunked.
"2) is there a reason the worlds academics have fallen for such a sham en masse ........or why has not one counter engineering/scientific peer reviewed counter been released? if its 'basic physics' why not put up or shut up"
You are one of those people who think that if an issue is raised about something, every "academic" of the world is immediately alerted about it and they will all go and study the issue and form educated opinions and that their silence about the issue actually means they are siding with you. I see that a lot when debating this issue, people ASSUMING consensus for their side, from the academia that is silent.
Here's the only scholar consensus I have found about the subject...
The largest expert consensus about the subject (either side of the fence) is
this one.
The people who have looked into it have not "fallen for the sham", they are very much aware of it and speaking as loudly as possible against it, risking their own careers and public image. And you can imagine how many decide to not risk those, even though they might acknowledge it's not an adequate investigation.
"truthers" have published peer reviewed papers. NIST reports are NOT peer reviewed papers.
Do you understand how difficult it is to challenge the "status quo" about this? Here is a
new article about the resistance that they face when trying to challenge Bazants ridiculous crush down-crush up paper in Europe. And
here is the paper in question.
What I would suggest to you is, do the same as I am doing. Go to the "truther" websites like ae911truth.org and educate yourself on the evidence they claim they have, and then look that up on JREF or other "debunking" sites. Then when you find a "debunk", check if there is a debunk for that as well. If you truly want to say that you are objectively forming an opinion on something, you have to look at both sides. I have no respect for those who watch loose change and start ranting about how it was an inside job based on what some guy says on a youtube video. I have no respect for people who only google "debunking xxx" to each claim they come across and then take that debunking as gospel, no matter how weak and speculative it is as long as it supports their view.
"3) Have you ever sat down and reflected on 'just asking questions' about the other theory? how many were involved? the whats and hows of implementation? the various logic gaps like why fly planes into something you would blow up anyway? etc etc
isnt there far far more questions to be raised about the idea its 'the goverment/NWO"
Yes I have, constantly. And I'm not saying "it was government" or "it was NWO". I don't know who, I have my suspicions based on their role and level of influence. For example GWB is not on my list of actually knowledgeable partners in crime.
I don't understand why you find an issue with the "why fly planes into something you would blow up anyway". If they just randomly blew them up, they could not justify wars, they could not sell taking away citizens rights by "added security". The only way it works to anyones advantage is if it can be blamed on an acceptable enemy that you can rally everyone against.
I find it most logical that they found out in advance that there was a plot to attack in U.S soil, and they aided it secretly all the way and added their own "grand finale" for added gain. A lot of circumstancial evidence points in that direction (Sibel Edmonds whistleblowing, Able danger being stonewalled, Vigilant guardian etc etc).
Naturally I have weighed both options, I was in the "official story" bandwagon to begin with, until it became apparent that they were not even going to produce a collapse scenario for the towers, just collapse initiation hypothesis. Once I saw the evidence for molten steel, I knew something was terribly wrong. I've worked enough with steel to know what can and what can't melt it. Open air hydrocarbon fire can't do it, not in an hour, not in a day, not in a week, not in a year, not in a decade. You can expose it to an open hydrocarbon fire forever, you will not melt it. You need an energy source that can reach the temperatures required, or it does not happen.
And when all the attempts to explain the collapses kept changing and failing, I took a look at the option that I did not want to believe in. Unfortunately, it works. It explains the collapses, it explains the evidence. That is something that cannot be said about the NIST reports or Bazants work. I wanted them to work, but they don't.
So we are in a situation where we have one known mechanism that can explain all the evidence, but it has horrible implications that are difficult to accept. Then we have a much easier to accept culprit, a blanket explanation and narrative that is readily available like fast food, but fails scientific scrutiny almost at surface level.
Honest person using scientific method has to discard the impossible hypothesis, and embrace the hypothesis that actually can be tested and proven. Controlled demolitions can and will bring down steel superstructures. Office fires do not. If they did, it could be adequately tested and proven.
It's all about scientific integrity, not going with "what your heart says".
Here's a good illustration on the impossible walk-off and the erroneous NIST report on WTC-7
