"Following that commitment, which is a wholly emotional one, they interpret all further evidence that they are presented with strictly to suit their now sacred opinion no matter what. Ron's interpretation of the jets of smoke and debris coming out of a few concentrated spots on those buildings (as happens in a controlled demolition when charges have been set off) is a spectacular example of how that is done. Just work everything backward from your established conclusion."

Yes and no. Of course this is one of the tools that any policework would use, but you over simplify the process and ignore the probability of the theory being correct. Also, what did you see? The videos that I have seen of the "smoke" shows small wisps that grew large as the floors above came down. I don't know how many controlled demolitions you've watched, but the few I remember show large puffs rapidly emitted and then the top falling down. The videos I have seen do not show this. I sincerely would appreciate seeing the video you are referring to.

Again, I have not witnessed a large number of controlled demolitions, and those I have are well known. It is very possible that if there were controlled demolition in this case they could have taken steps to create a different look - but again it keeps coming back to "why bother?"

Putting the psycho-babble aside about what our egos will and will not accept, it still boils down to logic and reason. You can be objective and fair and impartial.    I would not bet my house against this, but the odds keep looking slimmer and slimmer that there was a conspiracy. It doesn't add up - unless you subscribe to Abott & Costello mathmatics.