you left out one small adverb which i believe to be very important in my statement.
scroll back, read again, maybe you can find it.
it answers your question.

I guess you don't want explain but expect others to, ok, have it your way. I'm not going to even try and guess.

I say the same about trusting the official version, when there is reasonable doubt. If you're prepared to believe that official sources never lie or hide the truth, then you need to wake up.
Show me the proof that traces of thermite were not found in the dust & ruins. And not from a government-sponsored expert.
It would need standard controlled-demolition knowledge, that's all.

I'm sure you would, I DO believe you on that one.

Which you once again have provided NO proof of.

And where did I say that "I believe that official sources never lie or hide the truth"?? I think you need to wake up.

As other members have rightfully said; That's up to you, as YOUR the one that is saying that "traces of thermite were found". So YOU need to PROVE that, not me. As you have already been told by other members; the burden of proof, falls to you to backup YOUR argument with PROOF. I'm not going to prove YOUR argument for you mate, sorry.

And you call that a rebuttal? Not a very good one at best.

Also, theory = theory NOT fact, THAT's all!

Going round in circles now, aren't we?

The notion that it was "thermite" basically comes from lack of knowledge of the state of the art of demolition ... which SOTA I do not profess to know, either. The challenge to "find it" is therefore used as an argument for The Official Story.™

And one must realize why The Official Story exists, and why efforts are made to sell it to the public. The people want to know, but they do not necessarily need to know, most-especially in a case like this. "Official Secrecy" is actually a very important part of public protection, as are cover-stories.

Given the enormity of what appears to be the actual truth, that cover-story sounds pretty good: "the engineers were all morons." (Especially in the case of the building that held the counter-terrorism response center: the damned thing was so weak that it just fell into its own footprint on its own!) Uh huh. Got it.

Show me the proof that thermite wasn't involved in the big bang!!! is just as ridiculous a comment.

One thing for sure: if the 3 buildings collapsed purely through the effects of burning jet fuel + office furniture + plastics, they shouldn't have passed any building safety regulations.

Well, it certainly seems like you are, now doesn't it?

So I take it, you still cannot prove it? Didn't think so...

Remember it was only YOU that said/suggested that there where "traces of thermite" found. Only your own argument, that YOU cannot backup with any proof.

I quoted your entire post for a very important reason. See, if someone reputable actually had verified rubble from any one of the three buildings that clearly showed not only thermite but any explosive, or for that matter any inescapable evidence whatsoever that tipped the odds making demolition more likely I have zero problem with coming around to that conclusion. I simply don't "have a dog in this race". I am not at all wedded to the idea that no American would even think of such a thing. I could even believe that they might believe they needed to destroy a few thousand to save millions, that somehow they had convinced themselves "it was for the greater good".

You, OTOH sundialsvcs, have admitted that not only did you come to your conclusion before any evidence was in excepting what you could see (and interpret) with your eyes, but that it was then and forevermore absolutely unassailable. Case closed. Your entire above quoted post states that nothing can sway you from your initial impression, not experts with high tech studies, not lack of evidence on the part of similarly convinced people... nothing .

Don't you see this effectively removes you from any possible conversation involving study let alone discovering the verifiable proof? Case closed means exactly that. You have zero interest in evidence but that of your own conviction. You are effectively hermetically sealed and voluntarily at that. I think that is very sad.

Indeed!

the adverb you so conveniently (convenient for your populistic simplifications) chose to overlook is "fully".

1) I was not "conveniently overlooking" anything.
2) I'm also not a mind reader.
3) Where does "populistic simplifications" come from? or should I not ask?

for example:
the notion of "taking sides" in an issue as complex as this, with so much confusing, contradicting information and lack of hard facts, is a populistic simplification.

but you've been practicing that a lot in various threads.
seems to be a common thing on the other side of the big pond.

(no doubt you'll ask now "where did i do that? show me, i'm from missouri!")...

"Sad" though you may consider it to be, I know what I saw on that day, and I very-instantly knew ... to my indescribable horror ... exactly what it meant.

Not only had airline security been compromised at least three times, but the foundational infrastructure and the counter-terrorism response plan of the City of New York as well. I could not conceive of it. I still can't. This was an act of War, but an act of war unlike any other that the world had ever seen. (Or, fortunately, has seen again. Yet?)

Of course I knew that an official cover story would come, and I more-or-less anticipated what it turned out to be. While I fully understand the necessity of promulgating such a story, along with as much expert testimony as may be required to sell it to the public, I am unmoved by it ... and so I will remain.

I do not know the truth. I do not understand the technology. And, in this particular case, I really don't want the truth to be known, because to do so would reveal far too much ancillary information that must be kept secret. Given that we are faced with an Enemy who not only had the capability to do this, but the psychopathic willingness to do so, and who did so, we know that we are dealing with no mere "terrorists," but something infinitely darker and more deadly. Secrecy is a potent weapon against them.