Let me ask you, what would constitute "definative evidence"?
Frankly, there is not one singular piece of evidence that as a standalone piece of evidence would count as something definitive.
What becomes definitive for me is when you take the whole set of data points if you get enough dots together it starts to paint a picture.
Ultimately, if you looked at all the evidence (per-screened for accuracy, because there is some stuff that is not truly supportable) and the least you could accept is that the official reports are flawed, and at least that the government was aware of the attacks and did nothing to stop it, and also that al-quaida is a US asset.
The reason I am asking is to be able to review the theory at the same standard as someone who is providing an alternative answer.
Here is where I am coming from. For now lets set aside the "official version". What evidence is provided to support "controlled demolition"?
Ok, well, given how this "theory" is going to be individual to the evidence that a person has considered, and pieces together from the outside without required access.
Now, since the investigators had a higher level of access to information, and being sanctioned by the government (more than a year later), top secret access, etc... It's expected that they be held to a higher standard.
Why should I believe what was presented in the OP? Put aside the official version. Lets say the OP is the final "official" version of what happened. Do you see any missing pieces in the theory? Do they answers all your questions?
That's the problem is that it would take well over the 12k character limit to go over all the evidence and to make a proper case concerning what had to have happened above and beyond the official accounts.
Yes, we know you and others don't like the "official version".
and no, you don't always have to come back to say well the offical version was wrong here, or didn't mention x,y and z. That is just a way to deflect the weakness in a theory. It is way past time for the alternate theories to stand on thier own merits.
Yes, well, as I said, it's very difficult to offer a complete and thorough explanation for every minute detail... Simply because this is an outside investigation based on all publicly available and reported facts.
My approach to be the most thorough would be to start with the official reports and then to offer corrections where appropriate... In this way you are not simply blanket dismissing the official reports. ( though with the extent of the problems of the official reports, we could just blanket dismiss them and not be overboard)
