If 9/11 was a inside job, How many people were involved?

First off, I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if I repeat what someone may already have suggested.

For those of you supporting the official version of events, let me ask you to consider the following:

Let's assume - just for argument's sake - the incidents that took place on 9/11 were as per the official version. So...

• The timing of all 'war games', whilst auspicious from the hijacker's perspective, were coincidental and completely unrelated to the events of 9/11
  
• Flight 11 was hijacked as described, and was flown into the WTC.
  
• Flight 175 was hijacked as described, and was flown into the WTC.
  
• WTC1 & 2 collapsed as a result of impact damage and subsequent fires, which weakened the structure to the point of initiating a global collapse. It was not brought down in a controlled manner.
  
• WTC7 sustained major structural damage from the collapse of WTC1. Fires broke out, further weakening the building, leading to its global collapse. It was not brought down in a controlled manner.
  
• Flight 77 was hijacked as described, and was flown into the Pentagon.
  
• Flight 93 was hijacked as described, and crashed in Shanksville.

Now, I would argue that even if the above were true, 9/11 could still have been a self-inflicted wound.

Further, if the above were true, the number of 'insiders' would be extraordinarily small.

Many contributors have listed various 'false flag' attacks in order to demonstrate compartmentalisation etc. Let me add two more (and, I believe, relevant) examples - one a 'false flag' attack, the other, a great example of governments using foreign agents to do its bidding.

Look up Operation Gladio and The Strategy of Tension

Look up Operation Cyclone

You have, in these two operations, all the elements you need to plan and execute a 9/11-style attack using foreign agents. It would require just a handful of 'insiders'.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm

They also understand what you deny since it's a fact inconvenient to your conspiracy theory: both WTC 1 and 2 succumbed to the combined effect of unfought, major fires in the damaged areas of both towers.

1. What major fires? After the jet fuel burned off all you had was some small isolated fires as reported by firemen who made it to the 78th floor of the south tower. Not the inferno of burning jet fuel as stated by the official story.

We all know that the fires burned out of control until the collapse of each tower. It is well documented in photos and videos.

But I am not surprised you would bring up the debunked myth of "some small isolated fires as reported by firemen who made it to the 78th floor of the south tower."

Let's review the facts: the firemen in question reached the 78th floor where they indeed reported "small, isolated fires."

Now, I want you to tell us here exactly what happened to those firemen soon after that transmission. Then I want you to tell us exactly which floors the fires were burning on in WTC 2.

If you are unable or unwilling to do so, please tell the readers here.

Proceed, Ultima1. Present the evidence.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm

is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,

So the 9/11 commission was supposed to complete a full account of the terrorist attacks. I guess building 7 was not a part of the WTC complex and was not damaged by the terrorist attacks as we were told?

Obviously, if you agree with the 9/11 Commission that it was a terrorist attack; and if you agree that NIST is assigned to investigate the results of the terrorist attack on WTC 1, 2 and 7, then it is not hard to understand why no duplication of effort was needed. The 9/11 Commission is clear in what it's purpose was; you should not be so confused if you had read it as you claim.

The 9/11 commission report also had NIST do most of the reports for them but it did not agree with a lot of material NIST reported.

So you agree that the 9/11 Commission understood that NIST was responsible for reported on the effects of the terrorist attacks on WTC 1,2, and 7.

And you also realize that NIST has not yet finished it's investigation of WTC 7, so no comment is possible on it.

I have not evaded any question. I can and have provided facts and evidence against the official story. You just do not want to accept them.

I accept that you now agree with me.

Originally posted by seanm

And you also realize that NIST has not yet finished it's investigation of WTC 7, so no comment is possible on it.

I thought that had a final report in 2005, when they were supposed to but they keep changing it. Funny how 6 years and they cannot figure out what casued building 7 to collapse.

Maybe its has something to do with the fact that they did not recover any of the steel from building 7 to test.

wtc.nist.gov...

Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by DarkFlame

Originally posted by seanm
Your display of classic 9/11 denial should be helpful to everyone here and illustrate why you're all stuck in the exact same spot you were six years ago with nothing to show for your efforts.

Perhaps it is people like yourself that confuse and belittle those who refuse to believe the government is what's keeping progress from happening.

I accept the evidence and that you refuse to admit the evidence of what happened on 9/11 does not come from the government. I also have to remind you that the burden of proof is on those who don't believe the evidence.

I find this thread on a whole to be confusing and disorganized, and it's rather annoying.

Do you choose to neglect the fact that Osama himself clearly said he was not behind the 9/11 attacks on September 12th, 2007

I accept that you will ignore that evidence which is inconvenient to you:

Also with regard to the order of battle, there is much to say… [Al-Qurashi expands upon the numerical inferiority of Islamic forces in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Somalia]. Thus, it appears that there are precedents for world powers and large countries being defeated by [small] units of Mujahideen over the past two decades, despite the great difference between the two sides. Therefore, the doubts cast by this coward [cleric] are shattered."

Taking Credit for September 11
"Some may object [to this analysis], claiming that all those wars involved encounters between homogenous nations and invading armies – and therefore they cannot serve as examples for Al-Qa'ida, which fights outside its land, sometimes in a hostile environment."

"I will respond to this counter-claim: First of all, Al-Qa'ida fights alongside the Taliban, who are locals. Second, Al-Qa'ida's Mujahideen have proven from the outset that they rise above the traditional [internal] conflicts…"

"Al-Qa'ida takes pride in that, on September 11, it destroyed the elements of America's strategic defense, which the former U.S.S.R. and every other hostile state could not harm. These elements are: early warning, preventive strike, and the principle of deterrence.[9]"

"Early warning: With the September 11 attacks, Al-Qa'ida entered the annals of successful surprise attacks, which are few in history – for example, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the surprise Nazi attack on the U.S.S.R. in 1941, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the crossing of the Zionist Bar-Lev Line in 1973. Moreover: In the pain it caused, [Al-Qa'ida] surpassed these surprise attacks, because it put every individual in American society on [constant] alert for every possibility, whether emotionally or practically. This has an extremely high economic and psychological price, particularly in a society that has not been affected by war since the American Civil War. If the USS Cole incident could happen to the American army, which is assumed to be in perfect preparedness, then preparing an entire society for 'terrorist' attacks appears hard to achieve."

"Preventive strike: This element was also shaken on September 11. This element is subordinate to the first… Even assuming that there had been early warning, it is very difficult to launch a successful preventive strike at an organization that maneuvers and moves quickly, and has no permanent bases."

"Deterrence: This principle is based on the assumption that there are two sides [fighting] that seek to survive and defend their interests – but it is completely eliminated when dealing with people who don't care about living but thirst for martyrdom. While the principle of deterrence works well [in warfare] between countries, it does not work at all for an organization with no permanent bases and with no capital in Western banks, that does not rely on aid from particular countries. As a result, it is completely independent in its decisions, and it seeks conflict from the outset. How can such people, who strive for death more than anything else, be deterred?"

"In addition to the destruction of these three elements, Al-Qa'ida has dealt Americans the most severe blow ever to their morale: One of the Western strategies[10] determined that the best means of bringing about a psychological defeat is to attack a place where the enemy feels safe and secure. This is exactly what the Mujahideen did in New York."

February 9, 2002.

memri.org...

Originally posted by mcguyvermanolo
The best answer I can interject for you here is as not astounding as some debunkers would hope.
The US Military is a trained group with a definitive chain of command. They drill and drill until all the bugs are worked out and no errors or time is wasted. I'm sure you're familiar with the term "military precision".

So , exactly where did that go on 9/11?

Norad had practiced for the three years preceding the attack , intercepting commercial jetliners used as missiles. Despite the barrage of lies we heard from the WH repeated on the MSMedia.

Here's the Evil Beauty of it.....
On 9/11, fourteen separate military drills and exercises were scheduled to go off as practiced. But suddenly they went " LIVE ". Only a handful of people knew what was really happening, and that was all that was required. Think of the confusion.
Please read , " 9/11 Synthetic Terror/ Made in America" by Webster Tarpley.

Flights 93 and 77 were probably the Global Hawks the USAF cannot account for.
Global Hawks are made of mostly Cellulose with metal landing gear and a 3 ft. in Dia. Rolls-Royce jet engine like the one found at the Pentagon.

The flights that hit the Towers were very possibly remote flown aircraft*. Probably E-10's, Military versions of 757's. ( Seven of the so-called Hi-Jackers,all of whom were Saudi's, were interviewed on the BBC after 9/11. They were mostly students who never set foot out of their homeland and wanted to know how their passports got here.)

*Yes, this has been a practical reality since 1961. Google: "The Joint Chiefs of Staff Northwoods Project ". 'AZTLAN' has the clearest document. Please read pg 13, in particular from author Adm Lemnitzer. Later fired by JFK.

Reports are that flight 77 off-loaded into a NASA hangar in Cleveland, Ohio.

So here you have soldier's doing their jobs faithfully while dealing with real and ghost programmed blips on their screens. What a great cover. See " pilot's for truth.org".

Norman Mineta witnessed Dick Cheney arriving a half-hour before the VP states he did at the WH Bunker, ordering an aide repeatedly to "stand-down" as "flight 77" approached the pentagon.

For some odd reason, the power to strike down any object over DC skies was wrested out of the Military's hands by an executive order months earlier. It was now under Cheney's control , Why? Very peculiar.

Who wired the buildings? Very possibly the Mossad or a US Black-Ops Group or both.
Where did they operate from? Probably Rudy's bunker on the 23rd floor of Tower 7, which he never visited that day.

It had two floors actually, was super-reinforced structurally, including the glass, and had it's own water and air filtration systems. When that building inexplicably came down, all the files on ENRON and Worldcom and other Corporate fraud cases went with it.

Who is this shadow government? Three guesses. The Bilderberg's ( Read the new book
by Daniel Estulin " the True Story of the Bilderberg's ) The Council on Foreign Relations
( read Naomi Klein's new book " The Shock Doctrine") and the Tri-Lateral Commission.
Zbigniew Breszinski's " the Grand Chessboard" (or something like that ) was authored in the late 1970's and will illuminate this connection.

All are controlled by Globalists like The Rothschild's, the Rockerfeller's, etc.

Who in our Gov't?
Check out " The Project for a New American Century" a NEO-CON Think Tank, 1997.

Why? To start perpetual wars or WWlll, destroy our economy , all but the elite class and make Americans submit to "The North American Union" , The 'Amero' and the dismantling of the US Constitution. It's why they don't really fuss about immigration or
real homeland security. We're being fleeced on a scale that is astonishing.

Where is the MSMedia? Playing dead for their masters , the CFR.

The New World Order.
Happy Hunting.... Question is, what are we going to do about it? When ?
If we wait 'til these Bankers collapse us like they did in '29, it will already be too late.

How many people did you say there were involved?

Originally posted by Picard
Hello NoOneSpecialHere,

I believe there is insufficient investigation so far, on this topic, and on the other hand- no shortage of speculation either. This appears to be a highly polarized and emotionally-charged topic as well, on both sides. Given that assessment, I don't think further speculation or throwing jabs is productive. I would suggest that both sides try to come to an agreement that a more thorough investigation is called for, and move on to focusing on that.

Facts are facts. There is no compromise possible.

Facts are facts. There is no compromise possible.

It would be nice to know what the facts are.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm

And you also realize that NIST has not yet finished it's investigation of WTC 7, so no comment is possible on it.

I thought that had a final report in 2005, when they were supposed to but they keep changing it. Funny how 6 years and they cannot figure out what casued building 7 to collapse.

Funny you were unaware that only the reports on WTC 1 and 2 were completed and everyone else knows WTC 7's investigation hasn't been completed. After all, its been on NIST's web site all along:

wtc.nist.gov...

Maybe its has something to do with the fact that they did not recover any of the steel from building 7 to test.

Maybe it does. There is no time constraint when accuracy and thoroughness are involved.

But that doesn't really matter to you, does it?



[edit on 15-10-2007 by seanm]

Originally posted by coughymachine

Facts are facts. There is no compromise possible.

It would be nice to know what the facts are.

Well, as we've seen, there are several here who make a habit of avoiding facts and evidence. Here's one example of evasion most blatant:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

seanm,

I'm not sure I've come across anyone on either side of the debate who doesn't struggle when faced with a challenge to provide the facts to back up their position. That applies to even the most basic level of detail.

If, for example, I asked for incontravertible 'proof' that Mohamed Atta even boarded Flight 11 that day, I suspect many people would be stumped. In fact, if I asked for incontravertible 'proof' that each of the four flights even took off that day, I wonder whether any would be forthcoming.

In sum, the burden of proof cuts both ways. And neither side has coped.

Originally posted by coughymachine
seanm,

I'm not sure I've come across anyone on either side of the debate who doesn't struggle when faced with a challenge to provide the facts to back up their position. That applies to even the most basic level of detail.

If, for example, I asked for incontravertible 'proof' that Mohamed Atta even boarded Flight 11 that day, I suspect many people would be stumped. In fact, if I asked for incontravertible 'proof' that each of the four flights even took off that day, I wonder whether any would be forthcoming.

In sum, the burden of proof cuts both ways. And neither side has coped.

It's clear that when someone claims that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, that person must deal with ALL of the evidence for and against that claim. That person is not entitled to cherry pick evidence, ignore evidence, or misrepresent evidence. The burden of proof is on that person.

The claim that AA77 did not the Pentagon involves dealing with a host of evidence and implications arising from the claim that the proponents of the claim must satisfy. I have given some examples in several threads, including here and asked that they be addressed.

They have not been addressed at all. The burden of proof remains on them to support their claims with evidence.

seanm

I agree, people shouldn't cheery-pick. But again, that works both ways.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about Flight 77, not least because, having taken a break from all things 9/11, I'm unfamiliar with the latest developments.

In general terms, however, both sides will allow themselves to become wedded to the evidence that appears to supports their belief and diminish the value of any evidence that appears to run contrary to that belief.

And therein lies the problem. For many people, this debate has ceased to be about the search for what happened that day and has become, instead, a packaging exercise.

seanm

The burden of proof remains on them to support their claims with evidence.

I wanted to address this seperately.

As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof lies with whomsoever makes a claim, whether on the pro or anti-official version side of the debate.

If someone argues that, for example, Mohamed Atta didn't board Flight 11 that day, then the defender of the official version is justified in asking for evidence. Similarly, the accuser is justified in asking the defender for evidence that he did.

In a great many of the debates I've seen, the last part often gets overlooked.

Originally posted by seanm

Funny you were unaware that only the reports on WTC 1 and 2 were completed and everyone else knows WTC 7's investigation hasn't been completed. After all, its been on NIST's web site all along:

Maybe it does. There is no time constraint when accuracy and thoroughness are involved.

Funny how much information you are missing and cannot post.

Finding the truth matters to me. So far we have very little facts and evidence to support what happened that day.

Seems strange that NIST could find out what casued the towers to collapse pretty fast but cannot find out the casue of builidng 7's collapse after 6 years.

Funny too how NIST originally stated it was the pancake theory that caused the towers to collapse but now the changed thier minds again. It seems like as soon as someones questions them about something they change the reports. Kind of like when they wrote in a report that neither the planes impacts nor fires caused the collapse.

Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
[email protected]
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Here is who supposedly did it.

This is a list of potential co-conspirators who were in on the whole thing.

Read and take with a grain of salt.

www.whodidit.org...

Originally posted by coughymachine
seanm

The burden of proof remains on them to support their claims with evidence.

I wanted to address this seperately.

As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof lies with whomsoever makes a claim, whether on the pro or anti-official version side of the debate.

If someone argues that, for example, Mohamed Atta didn't board Flight 11 that day, then the defender of the official version is justified in asking for evidence. Similarly, the accuser is justified in asking the defender for evidence that he did.

In a great many of the debates I've seen, the last part often gets overlooked.

I would question some of your assumptions.

First, it is clear that anyone making a claim has the burden of proof of supporting that claim with evidence.

But you are making an assumption that I consider invalid: that there are competing "theories" of what happened on 9/11 and therefore a "debate" between "theories", a leveling of the playing field where either "theory" may or may not be valid.

What happened on 9/11 and who caused it was a "theory" for barely 48 hours. Since then the accumulated evidence, from thousands of different sources overwhelmingly converges on the conclusion that bin Laden successfully pulled off the attack with 19 hijackers. No matter how you slice it, the evidence is what is key, vetted, analyzed, dissected by thousands of people with no vested interest in anything. It is no longer a "theory"; it is a body of accumulated evidence. As such, 9/11 conspiracists must refute that evidence to support their "theory" that 9/11 was committed or allowed to happen by our government.

But how do they approach the problem they face? I submit they do not approach it with intellectual honesty or anything approaching adherence to the scientific methods or the rules of evidence.

How do they do this? Here are some examples.

1. They claim there is no evidence; it's just a "story" hatched by the government that controls everyone and everything. To them, it's just a "theory", a government "story." In so doing they have brought down actual evidence to a competing "theory" of their own. Subtle, but effective, and a staple ploy of other "movements."

2. They claim there is no evidence that bin Laden and 19 hijackers from "caves" in Afghanistan could possibly pull off such a feat. They thus are trying to bring down some well-educated, well-financed, Arab men to an impoverished and ignorant level who could not possibly pull off such a feat.

3. Some claim, as here, that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. All eyewitnesses didn't actually see a 757 hit the Pentagon. There is no evidence of a 757 wreckage. Even if there was, it "could have" been planted.

It goes on and on.

Once evidence becomes so overwhelming, the burden of proof always switches to the side challenging it. This is historically true scientifically. Darwin and his successors had long had the burden of proof of demonstrating the evidence behind, and validity of, the theory of evolution. Now, creationists have the burden of proof of refuting the theory of evolution and they aren't doing too well.

Climate change - global warming - is in the throes of such a transition. Interestingly, that debate is more political than scientific but science, whichever way it goes, will eventually supersede the politics.

As much as those like Craig Ranke and Ultima1 want to shift the burden of proof and claim that there are only competing "theories" there are a majority of us who will challenge them to put the money where their mouths are.

I can also guarantee you that those of us devoted to logic, science, and reason have no vested interest in what the evidence shows. If anyone could successfully refute the massive evidence of what happened on 9/11, no honest and rational person could deny it.

It's only those who deny. and can't refute, the evidence who get our attention. They know who they are.

reply to post by PistolPete

Pistol Pete, It's clear your assumption is that the first responders aren't talking, but they are and were warned. Some don't care anymore that their health is failing, that they may lose their benefits and pensions, they want justice to prevail.

503 First Responders Eyewitness Testimony was stricken from the 911 Commission Report by the Author of the Events on 911 and later became the Editor on his own work, The 911 Report itself. Touche'.

How ironic. I'm speaking of the think tank wunderkind, 'The Project for a New American Century' the neo-cons own psychological warfare expert, Philip Zelikow. This man wrote , in so many words, forgive me I didn't memorize them verbatum, that the way to galvanize the American people into a common cause in the middle east was to create a NEW PEARL HARBOR. Read this document please. It's like a play book for what happened.

I can smell the Cordite when this guy speaks. Creepy. Mengele would have been proud to call him his boy.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm

Funny you were unaware that only the reports on WTC 1 and 2 were completed and everyone else knows WTC 7's investigation hasn't been completed. After all, its been on NIST's web site all along:

Maybe it does. There is no time constraint when accuracy and thoroughness are involved.

Funny how much information you are missing and cannot post.

I don't have to repost what is already there.

Finding the truth matters to me. So far we have very little facts and evidence to support what happened that day.

We know, by your very own posts, that you need to protect your "story." And we know, as I pointed out in my last post, how much you have to deny the existence of evidence inconvenient to you. It's the nature of the beast.

Seems strange that NIST could find out what casued the towers to collapse pretty fast but cannot find out the casue of builidng 7's collapse after 6 years.

On the contrary. They and we know what caused it. They are interested in a complete understanding of the mechanics of the collapse so to learn how to better construct skyscrapers. As is their mission.

Funny too how NIST originally stated it was the pancake theory that caused the towers to collapse but now the changed thier minds again. It seems like as soon as someones questions them about something they change the reports. Kind of like when they wrote in a report that neither the planes impacts nor fires caused the collapse.

It's amusing to see someone who doesn't understand the nature of scientific investigations and the scientific method to so willingly stick his foot in his mouth. No wonder you don't deal with evidence well.

Craig, you should go through the alt.conspiracy archives starting back around 2002 forward to see how those who wrote the exact same stuff you're writing now fared.

You won't be happy.

seanm

First, it is clear that anyone making a claim has the burden of proof of supporting that claim with evidence.

Which is my view. But from here on in, I disagree with a great deal of what you say.

I won't go into too much detail - just offer a few thoughts.

But you are making an assumption that I consider invalid: that there are competing "theories" of what happened on 9/11 and therefore a "debate" between "theories", a leveling of the playing field where either "theory" may or may not be valid.

I'm not arguing about the validity of competing theories; I'm arguing that all theories need to be supported by evidence equally. I simply don't accept an Orwellian 'my evidence is more equal than yours' argument.

What happened on 9/11 and who caused it was a "theory" for barely 48 hours. Since then the accumulated evidence, from thousands of different sources overwhelmingly converges on the conclusion that bin Laden successfully pulled off the attack with 19 hijackers.

Now I don't necessarily contest this (don't get me wrong, I have some doubts), but this doesn't rule out a government/government agent-backed conspiracy.

No matter how you slice it, the evidence is what is key, vetted, analyzed, dissected by thousands of people with no vested interest in anything.

No vested interest? Are you serious? Virtually all those who have had exclusive access to evidence have had a vested interest. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the members of the 9/11 Commission, NIST, the FAA or NORAD, the list of interested parties goes on.

It is no longer a "theory"; it is a body of accumulated evidence.

Which amounts to a theory still. There is a considerable body of evidence, for example, which relates to the collapse of the towers but none of it is conclusive. No one knows precisely what structural damage was done to the buildings by the aircraft impacts. No one knows how much fire-proofing was dislodged; no one knows what temperatures occurred, where and for how long. It's all theory, much of it 'adjusted' in order to yield the observed results, and all of it entered as data into a computer modelling simulation that no one outside of the 'interested' parties has any understanding of.

Meanwhile, of course, any further attempts to conduct an independent investigation have been scuppered by the recycling of the materials.

As such, 9/11 conspiracists must refute that evidence to support their "theory" that 9/11 was committed or allowed to happen by our government.

Which is exactly what many are doing. They're challenging the so-called evidence-based findings; and asking how the conclusions are consistent with evidence that appears to contradict the official findings.

But how do they approach the problem they face? I submit they do not approach it with intellectual honesty or anything approaching adherence to the scientific methods or the rules of evidence.

Now this may, in broad terms, be true. Many of those who question the events of 9/11 are not scientists. However, should that preclude them from asking questions? I mean, you don't have to be a scientist to work out that there are glaring anomalies in NIST's report. You don't have to be a scientist to work out that, when the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission says they were lied to by the Pentagon and the White House, their final report is, in part, bollocks.

Once evidence becomes so overwhelming, the burden of proof always switches to the side challenging it.

Here, in my view, your mistaking quantity for quality. Sure, there's bags of so-called evidence that purports to back the official version of events, but it is, for the most part, unreliable.