Reply #3

Certainly the questions in the OP don't rebut the logical possibility that the towers were somehow brought down by explosives, or whatever.

That said, your analogy doesn't seem to work as you want it to work. I'm not aware of anyone (although somewhere there must be someone) who contests the conclusion -- supported by many lines of evidence -- that Hiroshima was attacked with a nuclear bomb. That is, in fact, "the official story." If you wanted to argue that Hiroshima was not attacked with a nuclear bomb, it would behoove you to offer an alternative explanation that makes at least as much sense, preferably more.

The fact that you can't offer a good technical explanation of the Hiroshima bomb is off point. If no one could offer a good technical explanation, then we would have a real problem.

In the case of 9/11, a lot of us see a consensus account of how the towers collapsed that, frankly, makes sense -- challenged by a lot of people who argue, unpersuasively to us, that it doesn't make sense, and whose alternatives seem to make less sense.



So, anyone who accepts that the United States bombed Hiroshima just accepts "anything authority gives"? Or is it possible that some people have considered the evidence?

If you can imagine someone who actually disagrees with you, perhaps you can imagine how your personal attack sounds.