The amateur physics and engineering debate on 9-11 DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
The debate on the physical mechanics is tailor-made to be disputed by Popular Mechanics.
In the world of PUBLIC RELATIONS, who has more authority and believability? PM? NIST? Or a handful of rogue scientists with flaky ideas and crowd of whacko conspiracy theorists who like to yell at public officials?
ok, even Schoenman told a 9-11 Truth audience that it was not bad to have a couple points on the physical evidence proving the impossibility or implausibility of the official scenario, because they have relied on "magic physics" in the past. That's a given. The larger context is the political agenda.
Even some gung-ho Iraq War Veterans I met could not deny that the extended period of no response, such that not a single flight was intercepted, was difficult to explain. I think this was in part because their egos represented military competence, not military fuckups. I also think that it was simply because this defies common sense. Of course, this would have meant calling the entire "North American Military Protection Systems Conglomeration What Have You" weak, incompetent, etc., despite billing the American people for between $12 and $19 TRILLION dollars that the Pentagon spent after World War Two to create it. The Veterans were not prepared to argue for the "fuckup theory" of the military command as being responsible for 90 minutes of no-intercept.
(And no, I didnt burrow into someone else's dumbass Payne Stewart example, if I mentioned it at all. While true, that story "jumped the shark" a long time ago. We KNOW the military has the response capability to stop a couple airliners. We won World War 2, we've advanced a little since 1945.)
But trying to reconstruct the strikes and explosions from a paucity of evidence, and insisting on fringe radical theories that our own experts cannot agree on, to push for more-radical conclusions than are required to make a point, is completely idiotic.
All we need to do is establish a bottom line, not a complete scientific explanation from top to bottom. All we need is a few big obvious lies exposed. The best ones come from mainstream sources, not from "Truther" sites or movies, with as little ornamentation or additions as possible. It is not necessary to argue that the sky is blue.
I don't suspect that Jim Hoffman's common sense science is flawed, though there may be minor flaws in it, I don't suspect he's a shill, because I understand his stuff and it's straightforward. I DO suspect that ALL the super-complicated science is an intentional honey-trap designed to compete with the simplicity and common sense, as well as the other fringe oddball stuff that super-analyzes highly pixellated images of the planes --- which Eric Salter described as trying to recreate Michelangelo's David with bricks. Some of that is as whacky as those Tabloid News people who photographed an image of SATAN in the plumes of smoke. "You just have to look at it more closely."
George Carlin We Like War (shorter version)
WHAT DOES MATTER
These BIG ITEMS are the history and involvement of US military-intelligence and government officials with the alleged terrorist groups --- actually, sponsorship of these groups -- and the multiple roles that terrorism plays in both foreign and domestic policy in the US.
These BIG ITEMS include the history of the rise of a secret national intelligence police state behind the scenes in the USA, what President Harry Truman called an "American Gestapo", but much deeper and larger than that.
The fact that MOST of these BIG ITEMS are not even really secrets. They're open secrets, in a sense. Some of them are partial-secrets to the American public, but the tips of the icebergs (so to speak) have long been plainly visible -- like a huge background behind the Iran-Contra scandal. Much of our history quickly becomes "forgotten events". Down the memory hole, as they say. Like once-known involvement of US officials and business with the Nazi regime, even sponsorship of the Nazi regime. Sponsorship of Saddam Hussein goes back to the late 1950's. Sponsorship of Al-Qaeda in the late 1970's (secretly at first).
Even sponsorship of "American dictators" like Bill Clinton and George Bush. The fact that the Right wrote stuff about Clinton's dictatorial moves, and some of the Left and Right compares Bush to Hitler.
There are direct ties from Nazis and ex-Nazis and other old fascist groups to Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush, as well as the CIA and other Intelligence, and the lesser-known people in orbit around these "official leaders". Support for an ex-Nazi front group like WACL by leading American organizations like the Heritage Foundation, which also backed the Islamic Jihadists who formed what we call Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Carter's sponsorship to the White House by the Tri-Lateral Commission, with it's leading members having ties to Nazis and to Al-Qaeda. Sponsorship of so-called LEFT wing organizations (peace, justice, human rights) by organizations like the Ford Foundation, with heavy ties to CIA. Involvement of Intelligence groups in illicit arms trading and narcotics trading. The fact that a CIA director, asking for an accounting of covert CIA airlines and other companies was told that this was impossible --- too many off-books programs to even account for.
Similar links to Israeli groups, and the fact that Israel's Mossad Intelligence was created with help of a CIA agent, Angleton, in 1951.
There is actually so much on this type of historical and geo-political information that it is nearly impossible to discuss it without glossing over most of it or really going off on a tangent. And I am far from being an expert on these matters.
Most of this is detailed in "underground" sources, such as websites and foreign newspapers, some with very well-documented links and footnotes. Most of these HAS been covered to some extent in mainstream American newspapers, but severely minimized in proportion to irrelevant events and celebrity gossip, as well as the reporting of "official statements" with much notice of discrepancies.