Craig, you have made it clear that you singed up here for ONE purpose: To convert any level of less-than-complete-certainty about the flyover theory you had observed by various members of this site over the last few days into solid Yesses, utilizing tools of education and, particularly, logical persuasion delivered with your distinctive verbal HAMMER, and have stated clearly that you are "not here to debate". I can understand that after you and Aldo have spent a few years doing all the hard work you've done to compile this evidence, and have probably become exhausted having to spend so much time arguing with both genuine, as well as fake skeptics of your work and conclusions, your patience has probably run thin.

I think what rubs some people the wrong way is what appears to be your refusal to be open to constructive criticism regarding your style of presentation and cock-sure assertions/logic with no room given to differing but valid view points. I think you will find that there are many very intelligent members on this forum who have acquired a large amount of extremely useful experience with the issues/evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy and the best ways to present this material to others. Gretavo, for example, has put in an enormous amount of time doing public outreach on a daily basis about 9/11, particularly with his daily noon-hour tabling and talks with strangers in Harvard Square just about every single day for several years now, and has developed extensive knowledge about what is or is not effective and how people perceive the level of quality of various kinds of evidence we can present.

For example, several of us are of the opinion that the level of direct evidence proving the Controlled Demolition of WTC7 in the form of videos that constitute physical evidence of free-fall, sequenced cutter charges/squibs, and shockwaves, etc., constitutes a stronger level of direct evidence than that for the flyover (Pentagon), which is inferred from eyewitness testiimony of a NoC flight path, but which does not have any direct physical evidence, such as videos, to back it up (even though we accept that flyover is the logical conclusion).

Rather than conceding this point to us, you seem to keep taking offense to this and hitting us with the hammer of "IT'S NOT LOGICAL TO SAY THAT!!" and trying to compare this view to the way Jon Gold pretends to be agnostic about CD, which most of us feel is not a good analogy. But you have to understand that just hammering the same assertion over and over again that, "NO, IT'S THE SAME LEVEL OF DIRECT EVIDENCE, JUST ACCEPT IT OR I WILL COMPARE YOU WITH JON GOLD" can be very offputting and is not likely to give you the desired outcome of convincing us to adopt your position. If we are not able to do any more with this point than merely repeat our positions to each other, then perhaps it is time to agree to disagree on this point.

Yes, I understand that your "point is that both have been proven and nobody here or anywhere has put forth a logical argument showing otherwise and most here have agreed," but we are saying that that is NOT the only issue here. It would be great to see you be more open to discussing other important issues regarding presentation style and strategy because, since we are all on the same side, we want to help each other to be as credible and successful as possible in our efforts to educate the public and officials about 9/11 truth, while minimizing things that turn people off, etc.