WTC7 seems to be a classic controlled demolition. WTC 1 &2 destruction appears to have been enhanced by thermate (a variation of thermite) in addition.
Pentagon was not struck by a passenger aircraft. It was a drone or missle.
What would it take to convince you that 9/11 was an inside job? I'm just talking hypothetically, not real-world.
Is there any proof, any piece of evidence, any confession -- no matter how far-fetched or impossible -- which could, just hypothetically, convince you?
You might have responded "confession by high-level insiders". If only such a confession would convince you, think about this for a second:
If you helped to kill 3,000 of your own people, would you admit it?
That's why most criminal convictions take place in spite of the fact that the defendant strongly denies he committed the crime. But there's enough evidence from other witnesses or the crime scene that the judge or jury finds him guilty. Or maybe there is such strong evidence that the defendant had the motive to commit the crime -- because he would benefit handsomely from it -- that he's convicted.
You might say that 9/11 is different. If there was a conspiracy that big, someone would have spilled the beans by now. Right?
But that's not true. If -- just hypothetically -- 9/11 was an inside job, then it was carried out by a group of very disciplined military type folks who know how to carry out a military operation and keep their mouths shut. Moreover, a small group of people could have carried out 9/11.
And when you think of confessions, you're thinking of small-time criminals. High-level criminals like the Nazi leaders didn't really confess their crimes (some did at the Nurenberg trials, but not before).
So can you at least consider the possibility that 9/11 might -- just possibly -- be an inside job even if none of the actual perpetrators have yet confessed?
But That's NOT POSSIBLE
Of course, it's IMPOSSIBLE that anyone in our government would do that. We know that because we know that we're the good guys, right? And that our government tries its hardest to protect us.
Its like a defendant falsely accused of a crime. The jury should find him innocent, because he's a good guy, and his life, his actions have been those of a basically decent guy. Right?
It would be very different if the defendant had previously been found guilty of similar crimes. Obviously, in that case, it would be alot more like that the defendant did it this time, too.
A good example is evil nations who have terrorized their own people for political gain (this includes Muslim countries). If the leaders of one of those countries was accused of a terrorist act, we might think "hmmm . . . its possible they did it again". Right?