Czuch: You seem to be assuming that all evidence is either equal or nonexistent. Therefore, all argument is really speculation that comes down to "he said, she said," and thus fruitless.

My argument is that evidence does exist, that some evidence is better than others, that human beings are naturally endowed with an ability to sift through evidence and make sense of the world.

The towers, for example, came down at virtually freefall speed, according to video evidence. That is evidence. This point then falls to architects, physicists, engineers, and the like to produce tests, make calculations, and come to conclusions about how that might or might not be possible.

However, even folks like you me have common sense. And common sense is one of our greatest assets, not to be undermined. How could these towers fall as if there were no resistance at all, as fast as a rock falls through space, when we both know that the massive steel columns and concrete of which the towers were constructed must apply some resistance?

Without considering anything else, just this one piece of video evidence, we can surmise that demolition rather than gravity is the better answer. For one thing, that is what controlled demolition does. And that is what unaided gravity does not, and never has before or since.

From there, we look at possible aids to gravity. We do some experiments & test the results. But really, common sense wins here, with those who choose to utilize it.