9/11: Circumstantial vs Physical Evidence

Jeff Wells is very much in the Mike Ruppert school of 9/11 skepticism, where physical evidence is eschewed and circumstantial evidence and coincidences are supposedly sufficient to convince anyone 9/11 was an inside job:

it also has to do with the nature of the assessment of physical evidence, which rests largely upon the judgement of experts who themselves often come to such contentious cases with biases and agendas. So, as with JFK and the obsession over ballistics, physical evidence becomes a battlefield of expert opinion that never resolves itself into legal fact, while less readily contested evidence goes ignored.

I will admit in all the talk about demolitions and what hit the WTC and Pentagon and blew up in Shanksville, that a lot of good circumstantial evidence gets put aside.

The problem with Well's viewpoint is that non-physical evidence can be just as unconvincing and contentious as physical evidence.

Take for example the wargames and the hijacking exercises that were being run on 9/11. Highly suspicious? Yes. Convincing that 9/11 was an inside job? No. And every circumstantial piece of evidence can be treated the same way by someone who isn't inclined to believe the overall idea that the US govt was behind 9/11: there are hundreds of suspicious facts about 9/11, and together they make a good case that all is not right. But none of them are a smoking gun that will convince someone who doesn't buy the whole notion in the first place.

On the other hand, there is abundant incredible physical evidence that does constitute a smoking gun! The clear evidence of demolition at the WTC, the impossible Pentagon crash, the lack of plane wreckage at Shanksville, the clear fact that the original shots of the first and second hits showed planes that were too small, and the idea that plane wings can smash into heavy steel columns and bust through without the wings tearing off.

These are REAL smoking guns and it is madness to ignore them. Sure, the Conspiracy Smashers and the Pinches and the 9/11 Mythers and the Screw Loose Changers and the Internet Detectives will try to cloud the issue. And what they can't cloud they will simply ignore or call you a loony for mentioning. But shit man, THAT IS THEIR JOB!

The fact is, it is simply foolish to not study the 9/11 physical evidence and only a fool would say that the physical evidence is not just as suspicious (if not more) as the circumstantial evidence.