9/11 Physical Evidence

Early on when I started this blog, I said that I would avoid physical evidence relating to 9/11. One reason I made this decision was because when I read Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon", Ruppert made a big point about not relying on physical evidence to make his 9/11 case because physical evidence was usually too subjective, too reliant on expert opinion and in a trial situation it could be easily manipulated either way. Then there was a whole school of thought in the 9/11 skeptic community to stay away from physical evidence because it made us look bad-- especially if we questioned the Pentagon hit.

Well I say, fuck that. I think that the physical evidence is an incredibly important part of the 9/11 story. In particular, the Pentagon physical evidence, when viewed the right way, conclusively shows that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon.

The other part of the physical evidence is that it CATCHES people's attention, much more so than a bunch of written out facts. Thus, physical evidence can be a powerful way to cast doubt on the official story.

Of course, phyisical evidence, like any other evidence, has to be treated carefully. And you don't want to over-interpret any one photograph, particularly if it lacks definition. Thus, you can't rely on one somewhat fuzzy photograph and say it proves government complicity-- rather a case needs to be built up.

The bottom line is that I have changed my mind, for better or worse, about using physical evidence in my 9/11 research. And while it has been obvious for some time that I have been looking more at physical evidence, I thought I should come out of the closet, so to speak.

What I don't quite understand is the people, like Ruppert, who are afraid of the physical evidence. Is there something they are hiding? Or are they afraid of being called kooks? It's curious.