|
What you guys are describing as a "common frame of reference" is really an outcome, in my mind.
One approach might be to analyze the documentation one item at a time, with an open mind. These items would include the various "official" investigation reports as well as the numerous "unofficial" ones, like the various building collapse analyses, video examination discussions, etc. At the end of the day (or whatever time period) each item might be generally accepted or rejected, and the final body of evidence would indicate the truth. I think this is what you guys are trying to do, right?
One problem with this approach is the difficulty in getting concensus on what to reject and what to accept. For example, in the free-fall discussion endlessly debated in so many of these threads, a discrepancy of a few tenths of a second causes some to conclude that the real cause was aliens and micro-nukes. It's hard to accept that if a document contains a small error or fallacy, then the whole is or is not suspect.
Since my personal opinion is based on probabilities and not a detailed scrutiny of the thousands of documents available, I think I'll back out and leave you to it. I'll lurk, though, because a lot of thought and work is going into your posts.
|