I don’t think the 9/11 commission did a thorough job and I don’t think Loose Change et al are scientifically tested so I can’t point to a particular theory or source and say that they got it right.
I think that the guy’s reasoning — that if any evidence of US complicity in bringing down the towers were presented publicly, the person/people responsible would be murdered — is baseless and wrong. The first mistake is the assumption that just because compelling evidence were to exist that makes a power structure (US government) look bad therefore people will adopt it as fact. The critics of the US government’s propaganda campaign for the invasion of Iraq are proof that a relatively large number of people trying to spread a message that happens to be provable can fail to convince a majority of public opinion.
Tangent: when I hear georgebush say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 I wonder what goes through the head of people who believed him when he said the opposite. Do they remember what he said before? Are they embarrassed to confront the fact that georgebush is a liar? or that they believed a liar?
Anyone who puts stock in a politician is asking for disappointment. Politicians lie and obscure whenever possible. This happens naturally and constantly when they open their mouth. They are far less concerned about being factually accurate and logical than with presenting something in a way that supports someone’s agenda. Politicians are not scientists or philosophers or criticial thinkers. Politicians are a form of PR rep. PR, marketing and advertising serve to persuade people to do something or to think something. There is not necessarily any factual argument involved. Facts are often the enemy and are avoided.