Originally Posted by wayside

As an outsider watching you experts go at it a couple of things come to mind.

1. Was the U.S. government involved in 9/11 either as a passive bystander or an active participant?
2. Were the WTC towers felled by the aircraft that flew into them or by some pre-arranged demoltion techniqe?
3. Was the Pentagon hit by a missle or the named aircraft?
4. Did an aircraft crash in the fields of Pennylvania because the passengers revolted against their hijackers and forced it down or was it hit by a missle?
5. Were the aircraft that hit the WTC real or trickery?
6. Were the aircraft that hit the WTC remote controlled?

I think I could go on but this seems enough fodder for hours of arguments.

My basic question is what does number 1. on this list have anything to do with any other number? All of the other numbers could have been achieved without number 1. being true.

Now, what's being aked by some is to show scientific data for numbers 2 through 6 without referencing number 1 as number 1 would have nothing to do with factual evidence for numbers 2 through 6 inclusive. An example. A car hits goes out of control and plows into a house. The house is destroyed. Now, if I asked for proof that the car destroyed the house you could probably come up with all sorts of forensic evidence that would provide factual information that the car was the direct cause for the house's destruction. Now, if I asked if the driver was drunk whether he was or not has not causal effect on the facts concerning the destruction of the house. It is critical in determining culpability but it doesn't change any of the scientific data as to what caused the house to burn to the ground. If asked for the cause of the collapse of the house the experts would say, "the car plowed into some supporting timbers, weakening the structure and the ensuing fire cause its final collapse. Would the guy being drunk change that? I think not. What happens in this thread is that the two seperate and distinct elements of 9/11 are being co-mingled with the result being that the facts of both are being confused and distorted. If you want to prove that the WTC fell for reasons other than the two planes that hit them then set about it and leave the who was at the bottom of it for another discussion. The house fell because the car plowed into it...don't attempt to prove driving while impaired also...it weakens you case.