Originally Posted by Zoilus
I have a feeling that nothing I tell you can make you believe it, but I'll tell you why I believe it:
Almost every inconsistency, seemingly suspicious occurrence, or alternate explanation raised by inside jobbers is something taken out of context, misreported, misinterpreted, or simply wrong, and has a perfectly innocuous explanation, completely falling apart under even the most basic scrutiny--controlled demolition, no plane at the Pentagon, no plane at Shanksville, no hijackers, NORAD stand down, etc.
Literally nothing that these people have raised has turned out to be worth investigating beyond what we are already investigating (such as the tower collapses) or already know (such as NORAD's activities and timeline).
The official version, on the other hand, is coherent and internally consistent, and stands up to serious, unbiased scrutiny. There are some unknowns in the details, but no more than you'd expect from any huge, complex event, and any red flags raised have been addressed to my satisfaction.
Bolstering my confidence in the major structure of the OV is the fact that it's not high-paid gov't lackeys that are primarily responsible for its shape and narrative. It's the crews on the ground and in the field who were most closely involved in the aftermath and/or affected by it, and whose who have the most specialized expertise in the many strands of investigation--these people are almost unanimous in their acceptance of the official version.
The people harboring deep doubts about the OV, on the other hand, are almost unanimously far-removed from first-hand experience and/or expertise related to the attacks, and base their doubts on their armchair analysis of videos, still photos, and quotes stripped of their context. And the logical outcomes of their doubts inevitably lead to absurdities and/or contradictions.
In my view, there's simply no contest.