[Rockingham]

My problem with these kinds of presentations is that they do not offer a clear thesis with an organized body of evidence and argument in support of it. Instead, the authors profess credentials and expertise and deliver a mass of material and insist that it proves something or other amounting to nothing more than seemingly ominous questions and suspicions.

You may be a retired engineer, but I am a retired lawyer with a late in life career shift to professional political research. I know BS and BS artists all too well. For many years, my living depended on detecting lies and ferreting out and proving the truth.

Lack of clarity is a sign that someone is running a con or is a fool. On provocative and troubling subjects, both abound.

When reinforced concrete fails under overwhelming stress, it breaks up into dust, concrete fragments, and twisted rebar. Aside from the size of the WTC and the horror of the 9/11 attack, no one has shown me anything in the failure of the WTC that contradicts physics, engineering, and common sense.

[GregNH]

One would think that a lawyer would look at the "evidence" before coming to a conclusion.