Impressive, considering the final report isn’t even out yet.

Well, you convinced me. If you say it “looks” like a CD, I guess it must have been.

Here’s a clue ace, in order to evaluate “empirical” evidence, you have to have some expertise to do it properly. Just saying what it “looks like” doesn’t cut it.

One principle emphasized by Galileo was to base arguments based on empirical evidence, rather than authority.

Have you ever looked at the collapse of WTC 7 yourself, or do you rely on experts to tell you what happened?

Here, see for yourself: http://www.WTC7.net

Well, it looks just like a controlled demolition to me.

Aha! But it can’t be a controlled demolition, otherwise 9/11 would be a conspiracy. We all know our government would never have crooked officials involved in a conspiracy.

So we can parade experts onto TV who say “Nope, its not a controlled demolition, and I’m an expert.”

Funny thing is, NIST has been investigating WTC 7 and still can’t come up with a plausible explantion of how a few office fires could take down a gigantic steel building. I’ve read the NIST reports on WTC 7 and they have outlined most of the known evidence for debris damage and fire damage.

The idea that an office fire, plus a little debris damage, took down WTC 7 is basically a crackpot theory not supported by evidence.

Given that NIST has a lot a good scientists on their team, expert them to switch over to controlled demolition at some point. Either that, or expect them to finish their report about the time the JFK files are released.

I looked at the posts on that website and didn’t see anybody listed there who said that the “know that 911 is an inside job”. Admittedly I may have missed them, could you point out the specific “officials”?

” as for alex jones, yes he sounds crazy, but unfortunately, he is way more legit than the history channel”

And you base that statement on what, exactly? How am I to take someone as serious when he doesn’t even know the specifics about Galileo?