Comment: I first got introduced to the

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I'd still like to hear your answer (see in situ)

I first got introduced to the

I first got introduced to the 9/11 conspiracy theory almost 7 years ago through a documentary called Loose Change which itself was a sub-part of Zeitgeist.

I was blown away. I was convinced.

After all, it is physically impossible for steel to melt from kerosene fires.

It is impossible that WTC 7 collapses without a plain hitting it.

It is impossible that jet engines vapourize on impact at the Pentagon.

It is impossible that primitive Arabs plan all this.

I showed it to literally all my friends. They had no answers either. Who could argue with truth and physics after all?

Then I showed it to my dad. He was smart and open-minded so I was sure that he would see the truth. Sometimes he looked interested in the documentary, sometimes looked bored. At the end of it he said that it was interesting but lacked context.

I asked him what he meant by that.

He replied that other factor had to be considered like:

Were the buildings used for comparison constructed the same way?

Could kerosene fires weaken steel and if so to what degree?

The plane could not have been vapourized by heat but could it have been pulverized by the impact on a thick, reinforced concrete wall?

You can imagine how annoyed I was. These were little points that the documentary makers would already have considered before putting the video out there. It was nit picking at best and at worst wilful ignorance on my dad's part.

Okay, I decided to clear these up. My college had just started and I began asking my teachers there questions. They did not involve the whole conspiracy, only bits and pieces. Few had any ready answers but said they'd look them up, or they referred me to book, or asked me to come by later.

Only one professor took a genuine interest and he said that buildings like the WTCs were designed with a lot of redundancy so that some failures could be tolerated, but in this case due to the fire, the weakened steel couldn't take the load and there was a universal, instantaneous collapse.

Now I shifted my focus to the anti-truther blogs (something I had steadfastly avoided till this point). I was aghast at not only the ignorance but the outright deception that truthers were engaged in.

Larry Silverstein's "Pull It"
The BBC reporter
The molten steel
The stock trading
The nano-thermite, thermite, thermite (take your pick)
The 'small office fires' of WTC 7 (lol)

I finally turned to Dr. Jones. He was, after all, a scientist. Even though I had been around smart people and knew that they are as prone to bias, lying, mistakes and obduracy as anyone else, Dr. Jones was deified in the 9/11 truth community. How could he be wrong?

He turned out to be a clown and his research was a joke, treated as such by the scientific community. I even went to 9/11 debunking the debunkers videos but realized that they were clutching at straws and that the movement didn't have a leg to stand upon. I realized they were playing the 'god of the gaps' game. You don't know everything that means I am right." That was the end of my love affair for this conspiracy theory.

Osama Bin Laden was CIA
So was it him or the govt. or him through the govt.? I thought you said he denied doing it.

Molten steel was flowing from the building
Or could it have been aluminium? You know, the thing the plane was made out of.

People heard loud noises like explosions.
You don't say (rolls eyes)

The information truthers have doesn't fit a logical narrative.

So no, I don't have too many doubts left.

Hope this answers your question.