L.J. Silver, you like to play the intellectual superiority card because you have purported 'qualifications' that the rest of us, and qualified structural engineers on the internet apparently don't, yet I have to question the claim that you are as clever as you think you are. ( More on your logical fallacy here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html )
For example: "Here's a thought, perhaps the building that is entrusted to keep the nation with the worlds largest economy safe would like to keep it's security to itself?"
Why? In case someone flies a plane into it? It's already been done and no knowledge of the Pentagon's internal security was required. Besides, there were plenty of cameras facing OUTWARDS on the roof of the pentagon that would have shown the approaching (alleged) plane. Those cameras would not show any of the 'internal' parts of the pentagon only the surrounding parts of the city. Does a paranoid and secretive 'government' have the right to 'keep it's 'security' to itself' over and above it's responsibility and accountability to it's citizens? Does it have the 'right' to keep evidence hidden that might not support the premise that they have used to launch a war on innocent countries killing hundreds of thousand of innocent men, women and children? I guess if that country was some kind of police state they would but in an alleged free society there should be no such secrets kept from it's population. Always beware of people who are hiding things.
( And for all Oblamas empty talk about 'transparency' I see they've locked up another whistleblower today. His crime? He blew the whistle on U.S. government torture. Can't be havin' the slaves know what their masters are up to I guess.)
Another example of your poor logic:
"If yur house were broken into, would you show photos of your valuables, alarm system et al? No, of course you wouldn't. "
Why not? It's not like the thieves didn't get past it already, and consequently my valuables would no longer be there. But if my house was ripped off and I went to enact vengeance on the person who I claimed did the crime then yes, I should have to show people the proof of my claim. Or do you think it's OK to accuse people without having to show proof?
Anyway, the point is that it's very hard to assess a WHOLE event or situation with only a limited skill set. A person who seeks the truth will look at any and all evidence from laymen and experts alike as well as using their own eyes and common sense. Then, in the absence of absolute proof one way or the other the honest person would have add up all the evidence, not just parts of it, and make the best conclusion at the time while leaving the door open for further evidence to be presented in the future.
