Do you believe the official version of 9/11?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(phoebeisis @ Jun 19 2006, 12:15 PM) [snapback]273431[/snapback]</div>

"There isn't any credible evidence to suggest that the official version is wrong."

On the contrary, there is an enormous amount of evidence to suggest the official story is a complete fabrication. For example:
The lack of air defence response
The behaviour of Bush and Cheney
The resistance to any investigation of the worst crime in US history
Insider trading of airline stocks
The way evidence at the WTC site was immediately and illegally transported to China, preventing forensic testing of metal which could have confirmed use of explosives
The way the 9/11 attacks perfectly fulfilled the geo-political aims of the Project for a New American Century, which predicted that it would take "a new Pearl Harbor" for the US to achieve its geo-polical aims.

But to focus on just one thing: can you explain what caused the collapse of WTC7, which was never hit by a plane? Massive steel and concrete buildings do not suddenly collapse in free fall from small fires. No one has ever given me a remotely plausible explanation for this. Can you point me to an official and plausible expanation? If not, then there is no alternative but to assume it was pre-wired with explosives, and if so, who did that? If the government cannot explain such a basic fact as the collapse of a building, then it immediately calls into question every aspect of the official explanation.

 

I just note that so far, no one has addressed these questions in a factual way. Until I see some evidence, I must regard the official story as a wildly implausible conspiracy theory, and those who believe in it, delusional.

 

I think it is the nature of false flag operations (see words for today) committed by government secret services that it is nearly impossible to find absolute proof of wrong doing. For example, there is still no "proof" about the JFK murder or that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor. That is the very nature of secret or black operations. What we are left with is circumstantial evidence. But a large enough amount of circumstantial evidence can be enough to assign a probability of guilt, if not certainty. Sometimes a person can be found innocent for various reasons in spite of a mountain of evidence against him and the near certainly of guilt. (Remember the O.J. Simpson case? He is officially not guilty, but do you believe that? Is it not more logical to come to a conclusion based on the overwhelming balance of evidence?) Like David Griffin, I first believed 9/11 was due to blowback from people who had various reasons to hate the US. The more I read and thought about it, the more things did not make sense - the official explanation simply defied common sense. I think people should sometimes trust their common sense more. For example, you say that it would take a structural engineer to understand the collapse of WTC7. I disagree. Any ordinary person knows that buildings do not collapse at free fall speed from minor fires. Remember the high rise fire in Madrid? The entire tower burned intensely for much longer (I think over 24 hours) than the twin towers and it still did not collapse. If you were a structural engineer with doubts about WTC7, would you risk your whole career to make your doubts public? To sum up, there is no proof, but there is a lot of evidence, and the evidence in favour of some kind of black operation far outweighs, in my opinion, the evidence supporting the official theory. I do not get the impression that the 9/11 truth people are delusional or nutty in any way. On the contrary, they have taking great pains to assemble the evidence and come to logical conclusions.