i believe you have summed it up quite well
but the real knawing question is simply answered by
your own

SIMPLE VISUAL OBSERVATION

and interpretation
ie: tell your self what you are seeing
don't ask others for
common sense

"He said that explosions took out most of the WTC 7 lobby"

Giant pieces of shit falling from high speeds from the collapsing towers taking out big chunks of WTC7 could easily be mistaken for explosions.

"First responder Kevin McPadden’s account of the WTC7 demolition countdown sequence)"

McPadden has been conclusively demonstrated to be a liar on this matter. In one speech to truthers, he expressly said that he couldn't hear a count down. In another interview, he expressly said that he could hear a countdown. One of those times was obviously a lie.

"First responder Bartmer’s report of explosions at WTC 7"

Explosions heard in a building housing 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel that's been on fire for seven hours is not at all unusual. Does anyone really believe that the only thing that could possibly explode in a burning office building housing tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel is cutter explosives?

"Closer footage of the infamous “Get back – the building is about to explode”"

Not an unusual declaration when one considers the building has been burning for seven hours and housed 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel. If you knew that a building was on fire for seven hours and it housed 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, would you seriously not worry about it exploding? And the idea that firefighters and reporters would be given a heads up as to an alleged conspiracy is ridiculous. ("Be sure not to tell anyone about our elaborate criminal conspiracy, except reporters and fire fighters")

"The Italian mini doc called “Seven Is Exploding”"

See above

"Demolition expert Danny Jowenko on the WTC 7 collapse"

Contradicted by other demolition experts, and based solely on his visual impressions. Truthers also conveniently ignore Jowenko's opinion that the Twin Towers were definitely not controlled demolitions. If you accept him as an authority on 7, why not on the other towers?

"The most well known video of 911 sound and video secondary bomb evidence for the entire Trade Center Complex. "

Again, occasional explosions in a building on fire for hours housing tens of thousands of gallon of diesel fuel is not surprising. However, if it was a controlled demolition with explosives, you'd clearly be able to hear the explosives going off in rapid systematic fashion right before and during the collapse. No audio video footage of the collapse, even from a few blocks away when the explosions would have been audible for miles, has ever been shown to show that. It was not a controlled demolition since there was no systematic series of audible explosions at the time of collapse.

"Disposal and destruction of forensic evidence -steel beams etc.- in violation of law. Overseen by Giuliani) "

A million tons of debris is not going to be left on the ground indefinitely if you want the city to get back to work. We're not talking a couple bullet casings disposed of.

"The infamous “Pull It” uttered by WTC complex owner Larry Silverstein."

Probably the most blatant case of outright lying by truthers, who falsely claimed that "pull it" was controlled demolition jargon meaning to demolish a building with explosives, a claim they completely made up out of whole cloth. They have been asked repeatedly to cite a single professional controlled demo source to back up that claim and they have never been able to, and the claim has been soundly denied by at least ten professional demo companies.

"Silverstein refusing to answer direct questions concerning “Pull It” and the “chain of command.”)"

Eventually he did, and said that "pull it" meant what firefighters mean by it, to pull back operations. See above as to the relevance of the expression

"Explosions throughout the day"

Explosions in a burning building filled with diesel fuel? Whoda thunk it?

"Professor Steven Jone’s visual analysis of WTC 7 collapse"

That's not evidence. Jones has repeatedly been demonstrated to be a hack, a fraud and a liar

"Firefighter and civilian reports of explosions"

See above about explosions

"Freefall physics and WTC 7"

Probably the second biggest lie by truthers. Not a single one of the collapsed buildings free fell. Even Architects and Engineers for Truth acknowledges that.

If that's the best you got, then clearly any additional investigation would be a waste of time and money.

Here's some questions that I've posed to truthers that I have had a hell of a time getting answered. Since so many truthers are here, perhaps I can finally find someone to answer any of them. Take them one at a time if you'd like.

1. David Griffin claimed that "pull" or "Pull it" is controlled demo jargon meaning to take a building down with explosives. Can anyone cite a single controlled demo authority that defines the expression as demolishing a building by explosives? If not, then why do truthers continue to repeat that fabrication?

2. Regarding building 7, is it anyone's contention that there could not possibly be any other kinds of explosions than cutter (controlled demo) explosions in an office building burning for seven hours and containing tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuels, as well as other things in office buildings that can explode when on fire? If there are alternate sources for explosions (say, i don't know - diesel fuel tanks or other fuel operated machines maybe?), then why should anyone assume those explosions are cutter explosions?

3. Since every controlled demolition recorded with audio is accompanied by the sound of a series of rapid , clearly audible explosions immediately prior to and beginning the collapse, apart from hearsay references to folks hearing explosions, can anyone link a single audio recording of the collapse of any WTC building where you could clearly hear the rat a tat sounds of explosives going off immediately before or as the building was collapsing?

4. Regarding Kevin McPadden, in an earlier talk to truthers he said he couldn't hear what was being said on the radio but it was "pulled" and "most likely a countdown", whereas later he claims that he could clearly hear a countdown. So which version do you accept and why, since obviously the other version was a lie? Either he could hear the countdown or he couldn't.

Check out here at 1:13 on

www.youtube.com/watch

5. Truthers like citing fire fighter comments about the building about to collapse and the BBC reporter erroneously reporting that 7 had come down before it actually did. Is it your belief that a massive criminal conspiracy was hatched and the conspirators actually gave reporters and fire fighters (many of whom died on 9/11) a heads up about it? How does that make any sense?


6. Truthers have cited polls of molten metal found weeks after the collapse as evidence of a controlled demolition. Can anyone cite a single case of either thermite use or a controlled demolition leaving polls of molten metal for weeks?

7. Can anyone find any controlled demolitions of buildings that collapsed from the top down, like the Twin Towers?

8. Steven Jones claims that he's found trace elements of thermate in dust samples. Thermite is made of aluminum dust and iron oxide (rust). Thermate adds sulfur and possibly other chemicals. Is anyone maintaining that the only possible sources of aluminum rust or sulphur in a steel structured office building hit by an aluminum bodied aircraft is thermate, particularly when gypsum, one of the most common substances in office buildings contains sulfur?

9. Below is a frame by frame analysis from a truther website demonstrating that even WTC 7 didn't free fall.

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/ana...eed.html

Why do truthers still maintain that any of the WTC buildings free fell when visual evidence clearly demonstrates that none of them did, which is even acknowledged by Architects and engineers for Truth?

10. Here's a fire fighter pointing out that WTC 7 was leaning and the structural integrity of it was so weak that it looked like it was going to collapse.

www.youtube.com/watch

In light of the above, can anyone cite any previous controlled demolitions that were leaning and looked like they were about to collapse BEFORE the cutter explosions went off?

11. William Rodriguez's reports of basement explosions has been cited as evidence of a controlled demolition, as opposed to the prevailing opinion that the explosion was from a massive amount of jet fuel falling down the shaft of freight elevator 50.. The explosions were cited by Rodriguez as occurring within seconds of the plane crash over an hour and a half before the collapse. Can anyone cite any previous examples of controlled demolitions where cutter explosions went off over an hour and a half before the actual collapse?

12. Controlled demo expert Danny Jowenko has been cited in support of a controlled demolition of building 7. Yet Jowenko also has said that he thinks the Twin Towers were definitely not taken down by controlled demolition. If his expertise is support for his opinion on building 7, then why isn't it also support for his opinion that the Twin Towers didn't collapse by controlled demolition? And if they accepting his opinion because of his expertise why do they reject the opinions of other controlled demo experts like at Implosionworld who reject a controlled demolition of any building? Other than cheery picking expert opinions.

13. Puffs seen coming out of WTC 7 and the Twin Towers as they are collapsing are cited as evidence of cutter explosions, as opposed to dust and air escaping the building as the floors pancaked on one another, as well as other breaks in the building resulting from the collapse. Yet all the photos and videos show the puffs happening AFTER the buildings have already started to collapse. Can anyone either cite either video or photos of such visible puffs happening right BEFORE the collapses began, rather than after they already began? Otherwise, can anyone cite previous examples of controlled demolitions where the explosions only happen after the building has already started to collapse?

14. Truthers have claimed that the collapses were implosions, where the buildings collapsed into themselves, and that's evidence of a controlled demolition. Architects and Engineers for Truth have also cite evidence of large amounts of material ejecting far from the the towers as evidence of explosives. So which is it? Were they implosions where the collapsing material fell in on itself, or explosions where a lot of material ejected outwards? And how does contradictory evidence pointing in opposite directions both support the same theory?

15. It is claimed that 9/11 was planned to justify a war on Iraq. If the government manufactured 9/11, then they planted phony stories of Arab hijackers. But the government didn't identify any of the hijackers as Iraqi. If the government created 9/11 to justify war on Iraq, wouldn't they have claimed that at least one or more of the hijackers was Iraqi?

16. If the government could effectively orchestrate this elaborate, massive conspiracy on American soil to justify war in Iraq, then why couldn't they have, under cover of war, planted a few chem weapons in Iraq thousands of miles away to vindicate the invasion?

That's a start

September 11 and other false flag operations are covered in this documentary:

Zeitgeist, The Movie - Remastered / Final Edition video.google.com/videoplay

Zeitgeist: Addendum video.google.com/videoplay