matt

8 out of the 10 are looking ok to me

cuivie

Which two points do you think are not ok? I'm interested in your opinion.

EllenPaosEgo

Also not the person you were responding to but I heard you are taking input. My main issue is that the 4th points link just gives me a 404 not found error.

EllenPaosEgo

Thank you good sir, this is exactly what I was looking for.

cuivie

You're welcome.

nokilli

I'm not who you're replying to but since you're asking for opinions...

7 out of 10 look good to me. The ones I have a problem with are:

1) The FEMA metallurgy report. He says, "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event." Well, yeah, the towers falling are going to generate forces I can't even begin to imagine and so we're going to see unusual things in the debris. I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just saying it's not very convincing given the unprecedented nature of the event.

7) British university study confirms that 9/11 “Conspiracy Theorists” are the sane ones.

Psychology can never be used as a basis for anything like this. I don't dispute anything they're saying, indeed I agree with it, I'm just saying that you need to look at the title of your submission again. This just doesn't fit here.

10) This.

Again, interesting, but not something that belongs in a list of "legit reasons why 9/11 was an inside job".

But each of the three would make excellent submissions to the subverse on their own IMHO. Thanks for the good read.

cuivie

Thanks for your opinion. I do completely agree, those three points are not what can be considered analytic proof. On the other hand, we now all know (hopefully) that it actually was an inside job. For me there's no need for further evidence, even though there's tons of it.

Anyway, if you think you can extract something useful from the article for a single submission - go ahead, maybe some interesting discussions arise.