"The logic you and others appear to be using is that anyone who challenges the official whitewash must, by definition, not be credible, and so whatever they say must also not be credible, regardless of what they say, or how true it is. I know that's a logical fallacy of some kind."

LOL

So you choose to read and accept the "witnesses" that you feel are credible, and it is okay to dismiss others as part of an "official whitewash". How conveninent that is!

The problem is NONE of us are experts in this. I have no experience with building demolition, and neither does Carol. We each choose to read and accept what we are predisposed to believe. Victims of propaganda.

What NO ONE has come up with is a convincing motive. Every crime has a motive, and there have been no LOGICAL motives. Sure, the idea that a crime of this sort would justify a war is one THEORY, but the complex plan - and the potential for a HUGE backfire would have negated this operation in any portion of the planning stage. The outcome would have been the same if a plane simply crashed the building - our emotions wanted revenge. No one benefited by the buildings collapsing, regardless of the urban legends that try to say people gained financially. There is no proof of that.

The biggest problem is - this red herring tears our attention away from the true facts - we have a moron in the White House, our "defense" was terrible, we botched any chance to prevent this - and we are in just as bad a position today. The real criminals are allowed to get away while our attention is diverted.