Alric, your thinking is flawed. I am not just simply interested in public opinion. I am interested in the opinions of experts, and I am interested in whether or not people heard an airplane hit the Pentagon and other social factors that are relevant to this conspiracy stuff. That's not the same as giving a damn what somebody like you thinks about whether there was a 9/11 conspiracy.

If an airplane hit the Pentagon, people working there would know. We don't have 1/6 of the thousands of people working at the Pentagon saying that it was not hit by an airplane. We have 0/6. They were there, while average Joe on the street was not. The Pentagon has windows, a parking lot, air traffic controllers responsible for its area, cops that react to its criminal situations immediately, and workers who can go outside immediately and see if it was a metal ball on a crane that hit the Pentagon. How would all or practically all of those people miss a missile or metal ball or whatever? Why would the government roll dice like that? If something other than an airplane hit the Pentagon, it would be widely known. Please explain how it would not.

Also, we don't have 1 out of 6 engineers or demolition experts or construction foremen saying the biggest news story in history, which involves construction/demolition aspects and issues, is flawed. You know good and well that most of them give a damn on some level about the story, especially the American ones, especially the Americans in New York. Do you claim that all of them know what really happened and are too scared to talk, except a very tiny percentage of them which can be accounted for by the Bush hate cult factor? Why aren't the masses going off about it? You underestimate the phenomenon of grape vine talking. A few engineers talking would get enough engineers interested enough to do more talking, and it would be an enormous matter. It would make Watergate look like a jay walking incident in Hazelhurst, Mississippi. Public opinion by itself is unimportant to me, which is why just seeing non-experts in this thread talking about how a bunch of demolition and construction principles that I know very little about, while the masses of actual experts are close to completely silent, does not mean much to me and is not going to have me going after an engineering degree so I can get to the bottom of their non-expert claims. But psychology/sociology principles that I know for a fact exist (stuff I do know a lot about) and are not at play in a situation where they should be if the situation is actually real does have me calling bullshit on ideas. If I hear about a situation where I know certain social phenomena will result, and those social phenomena do not result, the idea that the situation happened will seem absurd.

Let's say that somebody claims hurricane Katrina was just a regular storm and never a category 5 hurricane, not even a category 1 hurricane. Suppose that the claim is that the government and media hyped it up to make it look like there was a hurricane. They might say the levee was blown up so there would be a flood so the government and media could say there was a hurricane. Now suppose that the claim is correct. Don't you think people in Mississippi and Louisiana would be all over the place going off about how there was no hurricane? Well, they're not doing it. What does that tell you? So this is not about mere public opinion. It's about social phenomena that do occur under certain circumstances. If A results in B, and B does not happen in a situation, then A did not happen in that situation. Do you understand?