Right I meant more so things supporting the theory of it being an elaborately planned false flag rather than spotting inconsistencies in certain events. I suspect I could write up an equally long "scientific and supported by experts" list of contentious points supporting the moon hoax or JFK assassination.
Things like this:
Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
Is more so what I was looking for. How did all these people have foreknowledge? I would say if this could be strongly proven it would be a much stronger argument that all the other points combined, as it is direct evidence to what the alternate theory is suggesting. Internal communications, people who were in on it speaking out about it (legitimately and concisely, not just out of context quotes), some huge red flags like pictures of large trucks moving into parking garages when they normally wouldn't be and those garages subsequently becoming shut off to the public, etc.
I think if these points exist it would make the case so much stronger. And like I said before if this was a large scale coordination by the US government I would think it's likely there would be small mistakes or leaks which would release parts of this information, especially if the group botched the public execution of this plan so terribly that you can clearly see through it without any evidence other than viewing the event. I think we can agree that if this was an inside job it was carried out very far from perfectly, so it would be very surprising if the backend stuff was flawless.
Also do you think "the people" (I'm not sure what to call them, the US govt?) couldn't have benefited from the situation if it was just the planes/terrorists who brought down the buildings? Even if this was a terrorist attack they had the same opportunity to make the same reaction/benefit as they did so I'm not sure where this advantage is coming from. Maybe having prior knowledge allowed them to position themselves better? But that just means they would have benefited more than without prior knowledge, obviously we can't tell which case it is. Point is I don't think we can say oh these guys won so it points towards them being in on it, when it seems to me they would have won (to a lesser extent, although how can we determine if this is the lesser extent or maximum extent?) if they weren't on it too.
Oh btw like I always mention I think the building anomalies should be investigated and a full commission done on this so we get a clearer picture of what happened. I'm not saying it definitely wasn't an inside job I'm just curious how you come to such a strong belief on what seems to me to be circumstantial and controversial evidence.
Edit: Sorry didn't see your edit with the quotes etc,
Rather than attacking me as an individual or aiming for character assassination or shooting the messenger, I would prefer you to attack my points on their own merits.
Was this directed at me or the guy who said you had brain cancer? Sorry if I come off condescending or something, I'm really trying to look into this further as an unbiasedly as possible. I've done some googling around and it's a little hard to trawl through the all of it to work out what's legitimate or not so was just hoping you could throw me a few starting points (not including the demolition science stuff, I feel we've been over that well enough), no need to put out a full defence on my account.
Double Edit If it wasn't clear I was seriously asking those questions, not trying to get a response so I could counter it (except for the part about people profiting therefore suggesting they're orchestrating it). It seems these debates here go in circles around whether it being a control demolition or not, then jumping to who did it without anything solid connecting them to it (although sure, if it was clear it was a control demolition than US govt would be prime suspect). So I was just exploring the avenue of direct ties with the people you're suggesting, which would surpass a lot of this endless back and forth.