When I think about what might be the truth in a complex series of events, I don't go down to single bits of facts or theories for at least two reasons. The main reason is of course that I do not understand enough to be able to judge for myself who is right with one particular argument. The next reason is that I do not expect every detail to be correct or each theory why something happened to be the best theory even in what I think is the most reasonable story line. I try to look at the whole picture and what makes most sense of it.

As a scientist, I would expect you to use the scientific method. I would expect you to first ask the question - "what happened on 9/11 and in the days leading up to 9/11", and then I would expect you to ask all questions that would help you arrive at an answer. As a scientist, I would not expect you to determine, before any inquiry took place, what you believed happened, and then only pursue those lines of inquiry that supported your belief. But this has been the nature of what passes for official investigation so far.