What doesn't add-up for me

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. "None of us have any evidence for anything!"

I don't get it. If that's your attitude, in what sense do you even have an opinion about any aspect of 9/11?

You've made websites to try to debunk the non believers even.
You have convinced no one that I have seen but yet you and others are always here. Always one or the other, is here to defend the official story and discredit any dissent.

Actually, before I came here, I had never even heard of AE911Truth. A lot of what I know about the holes in their arguments comes from Bolo. Crucially, I didn't especially have to trust him (although I think I did assume for the sake of argument that the slide show he was critiquing really was one of Gage's slide shows). I thought some of his points were debatable. Overall, however, I thought it was a good critique.

I can't tell whether you have ever had the experience of working through the points in a 9/11 argument (on any side) to see which ones hold water, and how much. It's different. If you want to learn the truth, it's not good enough to know that you have been lied to.

As for the stuff about "the official story," it's untrue and unhelpful. It was Cheney's "official story" that he had express authorization from Bush to order a shoot-down, but (as far as I know) no one here took Cheney's word for it. The military's "official story" about the NORAD response was riddled with self-serving errors, which John Farmer in due course filleted; that didn't bother anyone here. Clearly we don't know the whole story of what the CIA and FBI were doing before 9/11, and I don't see anyone here insisting that we do.

I do see a lot of us saying that we don't believe for a minute that the towers were brought down with explosives, or cunningly planted non-explosives, or some combination of explosives and non-explosives. That isn't an off-the-cuff opinion; we've been wading through the supposed evidence of controlled demolition for years.