Reply #85: "people that want to know more than what is fed to us by our media"

[OnTheOtherHand]

In my experience, most of the people in the 9/11 Truth camp seem to want to know exactly what is fed to them by their media; the only catch is that they use alternative media. It is rare to see any criticism of AE911Truth from the "truther" side, except from people who embrace even-more-alternative media. It does happen, but not as often as one might hope. Folks like William Seger seem a lot more interested in actually figuring out what happened.

If you sincerely believe that everyone who "seriously researches" the JFK assassination ends up agreeing with you, you may need to get out more.

How did building #7 collapse by its self?

There's an entire report that addresses that question. Short version from the FAQ: "The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building." An important lesson, obviously, is to design buildings that can withstand thermal expansion.

Of course, you can rationalize that you don't actually have to address any of the content of that report, because obviously all the experts who worked on it were in on the plot. And you can rationalize that the vast majority of people who are qualified to see the lies in that report are either too lazy or too complicit to point them out. But as a matter of physical logic, NIST's collapse sequence actually makes sense, especially in light of the evidence that the building was considered likely to collapse, and the lack of evidence for alternative hypotheses. And if the report is as obviously wrong as you seem to think, it's hard to imagine how so many people could be so lazy or complicit.

Incidentally, it's also hard to understand the thinking of the hypothetical demolition conspirators: if it's true (I don't think it is) that the collapse of WTC 7 is the most obvious controlled demolition of the day, then why did They do such a bad job of it? Why not stop at two?