Because pretty much everything the truthers say is bunk.
Different groups pick on different concepts, most of which can be debunked. One group debunks tenets of another group, and vice-versa, so you end up with 90% of the 9/11 bunk being debunked by people in the 9/11 movements.
The core things on which they more-or-less agree are pretty vague: the building looked weird when they fell, it's amazing that the terrorist's plan worked so well, building 7 looked superficially like a controlled demolition.
The problem then is there is no real alternative narrative that they propose. What do they think actually happened? They can't say. Oddly the more reasonable the basis of the theory, the less specific it gets. They are unified mostly by a distrust in the official story, and what they see as holes in that story. But any attempt to proceed beyond that leads nowhere.
Clearly there is also a lot of disinformation/obfuscation floating about. This makes it hard to get to the truth. You're happy to say that most of what the truthers say is 'bunk'. But what about the official report? Have you read it and do you think it adequately reflects the truth of what happened?
The core things on which they more-or-less agree are pretty vague: the building(s)
looked weird when they fell, it's amazing that the terrorist's plan worked so well, building 7 looked superficially like a controlled demolition. I could say: the core things upon which you agree with some of the other contributors to this site are also pretty vague (mainly it's that you're all 'debunkers' together) - because you all go out of your way not to get into a disagreement with each other, even when it's obvious you don't hold the same views. You remain silent instead. I can give plenty of examples, but won't bother as it's apparent to anyone who actually reads any amount of this.
The buildings looked weird when they fell? Only (in the cases of wtc1 and wtc2) if you call complete, almost instantaneous dissociation of the material structure of the buildings and their contents weird - then yes, it's weird - unique is another word that comes to mind. How exactly did those vertical core steels - 4inches thick at the bottom and three feet by one in cross section - become severed? What force acting upon those vertical steels as a result of the official narrative's 'progressive collapse theory' caused them to be sheared? What kind of 'progressive' collapse ejects matter and pulverizes everything, reducing 110 floors of 4inch thick steel reinforced concrete, miles of carpet, office furniture, computers, wiring, plasterboard, people, to dust and sheared steel columns? I challenge anyone to take a piece of carpet, plasterboard, forty-year-old steel reinforced concrete, office chair or desk etc. and try to pulverize it to dust - use whatever means at your disposal - drop it from a great height, get a sledgehammer and spend a few hours on it, crush it in a vice - whatever you can think of. Good luck. You say the buildings looked weird when they fell - I say they looked just as weird when they had fallen - there was nothing left but dust and sheared steel columns - where did all the contents and structure go? One doesn't need to be inundated with massive amounts of 'evidence' - one only needs to use eyes and common sense to understand that the official 'narrative' is wholly inadequate in describing the reality of what happened. That would seem like a good starting point for any discussion on what really did happen. ...
it's amazing that the terrorist's plan worked so well...I'd be tempted to say 'incredible' rather than 'amazing'. It's even more incredible that at least six of them survived their 'suicide' mission, as subsequently reported by much of even the 'mainstream' media. Some feat that. However, the official narrative remains doggedly in place. A mere detail? I'd say that if you're going to nail such a heinous crime on someone, you better be sure you've got it right. Such things should be decided by serious deliberation and evidence gathering, alongside a presumption of innocence until proof is provided. In this case there was a presumption of guilt that was almost instant - Sherlock Holmes would have been proud of such swift and sure deduction
...building 7 looked superficially like a controlled demolition. I'd say, WTC7 looked
exactly like a controlled demolition. Complete, catastrophic and simultaneous failure of this structure resulting in total destruction.
Further, on the structural part of the argument and that planes crashing into these buildings would have had the effect that ensued, for anyone interested in an experiment, it might be worth fashioning yourself a baseball bat from steel and concrete and a model aircraft from aluminium. You could even do this to scale if you're any good at model making. When done, hang the plane from a piece of string so it is static and at a good hitting height; now clobber the plane with the steel and concrete bat. Note the results. Now we need to repeat the experiment to see what will happen....but hang on, you say: the aircraft flew into the building, the building didn't hit the aircraft! So how can your experiment be valid? Well, thanks to Isaac Newton, we know that it doesn't matter which way around we do this experiment - the forces acting on each component in the experiment are the same -
exactly the same. If you drive your car at 30mph and a bug flies at your windscreen at 40mph and the bug hits the windscreen, which exerts more force on the other component, the bug or the windscreen? The answer is neither - they are the same forces acting on both. You can change the speeds to whatever you want, even 0mph, and the answer is always the same - the force exerted on both components is the same. The question now is which item was designed to withstand that force, and the bug always loses out in this duel for it was not designed for such pressures. Going back to your repeat experiment - if you're going to need to remake one of your models after the first experiment, which one do you think is more likely to have been destroyed completely in the first - the steel and concrete bat or the aluminium plane?
