Here, listen:

   a) I don't believe the official government story. Too pat and
   clean.
   b) More happened than we're told

   Those points I agree with you on.
   But:

   a) Considering everything ELSE that happened because of it and
   the seeming LACK of effort from parties who were DIRECTLY
   AFFECTED by the consequences of the official government story,
   even IF the government brushed over details to make a simple
   story out of a complicated situation...

   ...I have no alternative but to agree that it's "close enough to
   true".

   Yes, I was being flippant about being contrary for contraries
   sake. I was being flippant with something that's important to
   you.

   Obviously it matters to me on some level; why else would I talk
   about it?

   Here's what I want:

   a) I want to understand what conclusions are reached based upon
   this evidence presented
   b) Compare the conclusions to what happened on the world stage.
   c) Find out who else reached these conclusions.
   d) Find out if any of the directly affected parties *also*
   reached the same conclusions.

   I remember there was a French book a few years ago that seemed
   to start the conspiracy thing. It struck me as a work of
   creative fiction, along the lines of Ancient Astronauts books
   which I read as a kid (my grandmother was into that stuff) -
   alternative accounts of history that are interesting but don't
   seem to mesh up well with the rest of history.

   I'm willing to be shown wrong. But these little details of
   "doesn't make sense", still doesn't seem to add up to anything
   for me.   You have a willing audience. I've explained my bias. I
   need to see big picture. Botched forensics are small picture. I
   need to see big picture. I'm listening.