Oh. I actually read it as "Get rid of most of the proof" anyway. My bad, but also yes, I still agree. ;)

pff i feel realved :) The problem with thing on internet they can be controlled if im gonna talk about if im gonna do a terrorist act and say im gonna buy things on ebay, before i know it I get a knock on my door so why isnt that also with information? An example i heard that a kid used his fathers information to play the lottery and won the jackpot and he boosted with that on the net few days later they came to claim the price because was underaged and underaged may not gamble.

I agree in your assessment in general, but these specific refutations only apply to the specific idea that the World Trade Centre (Or at least part of it) was brought down, floor-by-floor by controlled demolitions.

Refuting that single idea does not, however, eliminate the possibility that 9/11 was an "inside job" in any way, shape or form. That is the idea that I am addressing when I state that both parties are as bad as each other.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the "controlled demolitions thing", and I'm not going to go on record as saying I believe that 9/11 was an "inside job".

I'm just saying that short of a full confession from Dick Cheney (joking), that the full truth will never be known. I'm also saying that the official explanation is clearly full of holes, and even if the U.S. Government of the day was telling the full truth (It's always possible, I suppose...), then it's their own incompetence and corruption that has led to so many people doubting the official line on this one.

Yes, I understand that, and the fact is, we can test and theorise what happened at certain points in the timeline, and make "educated guesses" because of past experience and further testing, but the FULL story of what REALLY happened will at best only be a theory - with holes, as you mentioned.
THAT'S what these "Truthers" rely on, then distort, twist and manufacture around the holes to make what they're claiming sound "plausible" to the uneducated (in that specific discipline) layman. Any competent research will swiftly shoot their stories down though, while reinforcing or at worst, casting small doubt, on the "official" explanations. But then you've got the double-edged sword of actually pandering the attention they so clearly want to them :\
Showing the (uneducated in that specific discipline) laymen where the "Truthers" are misunderstanding, are wrong, or are plain just lying, shows they *maybe* wrong about the other claims, and that they should do their own research, not just blindly accept the words of unknown, unqualified, web-tards with access to photo- (various free apps online) and video- editing (free! from Microsoft!) and a microphone.

But it's easier to not think for yourself ;)

It's like wrestling with a pig, you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it.

Well, at least the thread isn't about one of the planes actually being a missile. That's... actually, this thread is still hurting my head from how completely ridiculous the "truther movement" is.

You can watch the wtc 7 demolition for yourself, no one tells you what you have to think

But it's not a demolition. The videos clearly show that. There's no explosions. There's no ejecta.
There's only the pressure wave ahead of the collapsing floor(s). IF you actually see anything different, you're one of a few that are completely dissociated with reality, let alone the experts on demolitions, structural mechanics and other assorted disciplines.

Please, show us a video of the collapse that's showing a clear use of demolition explosives and their effects!
There's literally thousands to choose from. ONE must have caught it.

I have checked your website you recommended and here is what they said about wtc 7 and i quote:

This new video explains how the building caught fire and may have weakened the building well before the initiation of the collapse.

This is their conclusive evidence ?
You call this a good analysis ?
And if you call anyone he is an evil conspiracy theorist and liar is that not in itself ad-hominem ?

No wonder they destroyed the evidence fast and sold it to asian smelters. Because then you could proof it without a doubt. Alone the destruction of the evidence should make it clear....

You're still ignoring the hundreds of tonnes of rubble from the collapsing tower that smashed a good 25% of WTC7s lower floor's insides out, severely weakening the structure's strength. Pictures and videos of which are available in good supply. Fire was just icing on the cake, much to the same effect as in the two towers - weakening the supports to the point they "sagged" and pulled in the rest on top.

You have to examine the whole, not just one extremely narrow, and often distorted, viewpoint. That is what you're not doing (nor are these "Truthers" - but they ARE the ones providing the narrow view, and distortions, if not outright fabrications of what you're supposedly looking at in their cropped, edited, and out-of-context pictures and videos.)

So go forth, and examine the whole!

Where are these videos that show the smashing of the floors of wtc 7 i have not seen them?
The only thing i observed was the demolition of wtc 7 from many different viewpoints where you can clearly see how the cutting of the inner steel columns happen using high tech explosives. It is just the same as you can see in many many controlled demolitions.

If this is all true what you said then i open a fire demolition inc for the destruction of steel structure buildings. I just lay some fire in some etages and then wait some hours and then the building collapes perfect symmetrically into it's own footprint and almost everything gets pulverized; awesome or ?

May I see your papers from any demolition course/training, which would validate the bolded thext?

Why should i realease a paper now ?
Watch the videos to wtc 7 and judge yourself.
It is NIST who must provide a convincing argument of the collapse but they can't,

They did. Your out on a deserted island right now with your views.

To show us that your claims are based on some knowledge and experience instead of rumors, hearsay and assumptions.

No. Since you (and all the conspiration theorists) claim that NIST lies, it is up to you to come with the proof.