It's extremely (vitally) important to follow details of the case with regard to the people behind the crime and the connections as Ry points out. However, to largely discount the physical evidence, or slag off on it, as Ry does, is wrong headed. A balanced approach is needed that incorporates all the relevant material, whilst calmly dismissing disinformation such as the no-plane theories (with regard to 911 which he mentions).
The forensic part of the case helps prove the nature of the crime that was committed - especially when it comes to false flag events. By excluding the forensic side of the crime you can exclude the role played by various insiders and only indict part of the network. With 911, if you dismiss the physical proof that bombs brought down the Towers and Building 7 then you could argue that the claims about Israeli-connected vans full of explosives are irrelevant and likely a mistake. After all, where are the photos and testimony that proves this evidence as opposed to it all being a mistake? The police reports could be mistaken and if they are lost then so is the evidence. The physically observed proof (in videos and photographs) that establishes the demolition of the World Trade Centre buildings cannot be obfuscated and strengthens these other claims.
In court cases, if you don't have physical proof that a particular crime was committed then you often don't have a case.
In relation to Dawson's strongly implied dismissal (it comes across as this) of the 911 physical evidence case, he shows that he doesn't have a good grasp of simple concepts. He projects his own misunderstandings concerning BASIC science onto the population, which although relevant to a large extent, does a huge disservice to those that ARE able to understand the scientific material being presented.
A particular case in point is that Mr Dawson has claimed that fire temperatures on 911 were theoretically hot enough to weaken the steel on the Towers and in Building 7 for them to collapse how they did (where he must arbitrarily discount the rates of collapse against the undamaged portions of the buildings). He often links to this paper: Temperatures in flames and fires where it says:
There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics  and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119  goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.While the paper points to high temperatures achieved within an enclosed space (a room) it does not account for the fact that it takes time for a fire to heat steel (or other objects) in order for it to significantly weaken. The paper pointed out that:
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence
A peak temperature of around 1400°C is found in a candle flameNo one is suggesting that a candle flame could melt a steel beam or even weaken it. The same applies to larger fires.
In the case of 911, and other high rise fires, the building steel would need hours of constant heating in order to weaken the structure (in the fire area). This is because steel is a good conductor of heat.
Where there are large hot fires there will be places in which the building steel would have been weakened. The problem is that high rise buildings are OVER ENGINEERED when it comes to their static load carrying ability by an order of three to five times the amount necessary. Even if the steel were to lose half of its load carrying capability - in some sort of catastrophic fire - then structure would not be compromised.
The misunderstandings held by Ry regarding this matter seem to stem from his misunderstanding of the difference between temperature (often a localised measurement - of kinetic energy) and heat (a measure of the overall energy in the system). A lot of heating energy is required to weaken steel structures. A relatively hot flame applied to steel will be dissipated provided it is not overwhelmingly hot like a blowtorch. The following video explains the difference between temperature and heat and should prove enlightening:
Apart from this 'bone of contention' (one of many when it comes to the physical evidence, I believe he got suckered by the 911Myths disinfo site) Ry's assessment on the over-focus regarding the forensic side of the case, with regard to both JFK and 911, is correct.
911 Truth ~ Experts Speak Out
[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, March 18th, 2017.]