"...but we should all at least be in agreement that what did NOT happen was the "official story"."
Absolutely agreed. It's awfully hard to find the real story when the "evidences" against the "official story" are just plain stupid. Discredits the entire search.
One of the best tools I've found for debunking the official story is to use the NIST and other reports.
Physics knowledge is enough, from various angles, to show the collapses as captured are not physically possible without extra energy input (ie; explosives).
What I'm saying is that there is viable evidence of malfeasance on 9/11. We shouldn't be focusing on "fire doesn't melt steel" and "45 degree angle cuts." That sort of obviously refutable "evidence" just makes the people trying to expose the viable evidence look like lunatics.
Which I'm sure absolutely elates the people responsible.
It's really a matter of trauma induced cognitive dissonance. People have a mental block from being able to see any of that evidence, that really isn't refutable when you know what you're looking at.
"...but we should all at least be in agreement that what did NOT happen was the "official story"."
Absolutely agreed. It's awfully hard to find the real story when the "evidences" against the "official story" are just plain stupid. Discredits the entire search.
How do you mean?
One of the best tools I've found for debunking the official story is to use the NIST and other reports.
Physics knowledge is enough, from various angles, to show the collapses as captured are not physically possible without extra energy input (ie; explosives).
What I'm saying is that there is viable evidence of malfeasance on 9/11. We shouldn't be focusing on "fire doesn't melt steel" and "45 degree angle cuts." That sort of obviously refutable "evidence" just makes the people trying to expose the viable evidence look like lunatics.
Which I'm sure absolutely elates the people responsible.
It's really a matter of trauma induced cognitive dissonance. People have a mental block from being able to see any of that evidence, that really isn't refutable when you know what you're looking at.
That said, I agree, thanks for clarifying.