9/11 TV fakery - No planes

[MID]

It’s quite simple if you understand these logical steps: -

[*]Those who came to power believed “a new Pearl Harbor” was necessary to ensure American global pre-eminence into the new century.

Those military folks understood that we couldn't (understandably) justify military intervention without being attacked (again, duh).

I note that you failed to answer the question I knew you wouldn't:

Military intervention for what?

[*]Obviously, “a new Pearl Harbor” would involve loss of life.

Logical extension.

[*]Therefore, loss of life was necessary to ensure American global pre-eminence.

Therefore, loss of life is unavoidable in miltary intervention, largely.

This has abosolutely nothing to do with a plot to commit treason.

Your logic and your entire paradigm is flawed.

Have fun with it, as I said.

Now keep the above in mind while I clarify the question: -

If the President had the option to exchange

your

life for American global pre-eminence, which do you think he would choose?

If you’re not brave enough to face up to the inevitable answer then just say so.

If you're imbecilic enough to keep rephrasing the same irrelevant question, one which i answered for you in depth, as I said, knock yourself out.

It's absolutely ridiculous to argue in the fashion you are.

Prove your case.

That should end the discussion, sicne you can't do that.

When talking about conspiracy theorists, is there any words to describe them other than "beyond stupid?"

Well...

Their reasoning, their ideas are, certainly...

[Q24]

Those military folks understood that we couldn't (understandably) justify military intervention without being attacked (again, duh).

Exactly.

For the record, those folks behind the Rebuilding America’s Defenses document were not just military but approximately 20 individuals who took up prominent positions within the Bush Administration.

After coming to power they had a guaranteed five year window to enact their vision and set the course of history in American favour. Would they allow the opportunity to slip away and see their roadmap confined to the dustbin waiting for “a new Pearl Harbor” that might never come… or did they chose to be masters of their own destiny and engineer the event they required? Well, we had 9/11 followed by the Afghanistan war followed by the Iraq war in that short time period.

You could believe it was sheer luck that the roadmap unfolded so neatly but as Roosevelt once said, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

I note that you failed to answer the question I knew you wouldn't:

Military intervention for what?

You did not pose this as a question previously.

If you had read the Rebuilding America’s Defenses document then you would know that the United States sought to increase military forces in the Gulf region which would be used to shape events to their favour.

Take a look around you at the recent wars in the Middle East. Many are still content to believe that the United States entered Afghanistan to chase bin Laden and invaded Iraq to hunt non-existant WMDs… nevermind that these ventures happen to fall in accordance with the roadmap set out a year prior to 9/11.

Therefore, loss of life is unavoidable in miltary intervention, largely.

This has abosolutely nothing to do with a plot to commit treason.

Your logic and your entire paradigm is flawed.

Have fun with it, as I said.

If you're imbecilic enough to keep rephrasing the same irrelevant question, one which i answered for you in depth, as I said, knock yourself out.

It's absolutely ridiculous to argue in the fashion you are.

Prove your case.

That should end the discussion, sicne you can't do that.

Twice now I have asked a very simple question and twice you have failed to answer.

The rhetorical lengths you are going to in avoidance of the question say everything about your approach.

The question has absolutely everything to do with breaking down the barriers that prevent people from understanding that even a President can be involved in criminal activities and/or false flag operations (this extends from your contention that involvement of the President is “idiocy”). The realisation is in that you are expendable; you are a resource of your country; there are greater causes than you as an individual.

As we are discussing in the conspiracy forum where theories are the standard, you can answer it as a purely hypothetical question if that makes it easier (it doesn’t even matter if you cannot grasp the logic behind it): -

• If the President had the option to exchange your life for American global pre-eminence, which do you think he would choose?
  

You already blanked my response at the top of this page where I demonstrated your tendency for logic jumps stemming from preferences rather than knowledge or rationale. No answer to the above question this time ends any remaining credibility you have as someone who is able to provide serious consideration to events beyond the preferences you are comfortable with. This approach is not at all conducive to thoughtful discussion or evidence based input. As the guidelines state at the top of the forum, “there is little point in posting in this section if you are unwilling to consider any opposing viewpoints”.

[Sleestak Lightning!]

Q24 I have something I want you to address...

[Q24]

Q24 I have something I want you to address...

Hi Sleestak,

It is often claimed that ‘too many’ individuals would be involved in implementing 9/11 as a false flag attack for it to be possible to keep the internal details undercover. Notwithstanding there is no reason to think any such individual would find it beneficial to declare their role to the world, the numbers frequently appealed to are theatrical overstatements.

For example: the thousands of firefighters, scientists, rescue workers, police, airline pilots, House of Representatives, air traffic control, military contractors and entire Bush administration referenced in the cartoon certainly did not require knowledge of the plan – they were unnecessary to the operation and would not be involved. Unless you can explain why it was essential for every one of these individuals to be included then we can forget it.

It is in fact exactly the evidence provided by firefighters, scientists, rescue workers, air traffic control and government officials including members of the Bush administration that assists in casting such a large shadow of doubt over the official 9/11 story.

Taking from the cartoon again, if we limit ourselves to the 17 Bush administration officials from the PNAC think-tank, plus the President, that is more sensible. Also it is realistic to add a cell from the CIA (who specialise in clandestine activities) and select individuals within the FBI and perhaps NSA – we are looking at less than two dozen agents in total. So from the exaggerated claim of “thousands” it is possible that no more than approximately 40 were actually involved within the U.S. system.

The cartoon also mentions demolition experts and indeed there are other areas that would require manpower such as providing secure access to the WTC buildings, procuring the aircraft, fitment of remote technology, etc. These roles could all be performed by any number of foreign agents such as from the Mossad (an agency with false flag attacks on record) who benefited their nation through 9/11.

Perhaps now you could address something. How many were involved in the following?...

• The Gleiwitz incident – German false flag attack only revealed due to the Allies’ victory.
  
• Air America – airline covertly owned and operated by the CIA for over 25 years.
  
• Operation Gladio – CIA/NATO clandestine cells unknown of for over 40 years.
  

At least in the hundreds overall surely.

We can add the Mukden Incident, Operation Ajax, the Lavon Affair and authoring of Operation Northwoods (read up on them if you want to understand what we are dealing with) which all went ahead despite a number of people having to be involved. These are just some of the events we are aware of though it would be very unwise to believe all such covert operations are now in the open.

To summarise: -

• There would not be “thousands” involved in the 9/11 false flag operation, far from it.
  
• Those involved would have no desire to reveal their role.
  

History indicates that false flag attacks/covert operations not only exist but can do so without detection.

[Sleestak Lightning!]

Haha, that was the greatest response ever!

100% bull, but a great response nonetheless.

I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

[Q24]

Haha, that was the greatest response ever!

100% bull, but a great response nonetheless.

I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

Fortunately I doubt that your playground behaviour will impress anyone serious about understanding the subject. I do understand your response though – you don’t actually have any counter and haven’t even thought about it, thus all the talk and no substance. There is a quote I’d like to share: -

All truth passes through three stages.

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as self evident.

~Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher

It is likely that the 9/11 topic is relatively unexplored for you and it appears you are still at the first stage. Most who have been here a while drop the attempted ridicule as the realisation dawns on them that there is something to the false flag claims and enter the second stage using the forum as a medium to express their opposition. Perhaps we could get you to the third stage if you ever decide to give some consideration to the subject.

In what is probably a vain attempt to engage in discussion with you (can’t say I haven't tried already), I will ask: -

1. How many do you believe would have to be involved in the 9/11 false flag operation?
   
2. Of the above individuals you number, why was their involvement essential and specifically in what role?
   
3. Why should these individuals come forward and admit to their involvement?
   

If you can’t answer fair questions like those then it will be clear your assertion is an empty one and that the ‘bull’ is all yours.

I might also suggest that, far worse than tinfoil, you have your head stuck too deep in the sand.

A response like the last one will have to be ignored as a waste of time.

[Travelling Man]

• The Gleiwitz incident – German false flag attack only revealed due to the Allies’ victory.
  
• Air America – airline covertly owned and operated by the CIA for over 25 years.
  
• Operation Gladio – CIA/NATO clandestine cells unknown of for over 40 years.

Not bad... except for the fact that the first two are clear that the operations were either conducted by very few people, or that very few people were actually in "the know." The last was merely an organized resistance to the perceived threat of Communism... and should be seen from a military light to actually understand what they were doing and why they were doing it.

Q, you are still having problems understanding the turf wars involved in the Federal bureaucracy that existed at the time. Yes, your allegations that the CIA knew this and the FBI knew that are potentially true (if misrepresented in places), but they didn't talk TO EACH OTHER - and that is what could have blown this thing wide open. It's all about the attitude of protecting one's fief and one's employer... if I tell you MY secret, I will be lessening MY sphere of influence.

Regarding your question that you've repeated (though you won't respond to repeated questions yourself...), yes, the leadership of ANY country has to weigh the benefit of one live versus thousands - and thousands of lives versus the survival of the country. If the leadership doesn't do this, they are on the road to ruin and will soon be leading nothing but a memory. Is this harsh? Potentially "evil"?? Definitely harsh, possibly evil, but it is the truth.

[Davedini]

Ok well this topic is just fun.

I have been in debate with my friend over the whole 9/11 thing for over a year now and we have looked at a lot of different view points. We have even broke it down to science trying to explain how it collapsed and how the planes themselves seemed to just pretty much explode into such small pieces. There are still something we just arent sure about such as looking at other plane crashes though history most of the plane is still intact in bigger pieces. The engines are usually almost fully intact and when we look at the Pentagon plane crash and flight 93 we dont quite understand how it just seemed to shatter like glass. Im not saying planes didnt hit the twin towers like everyone i know someone who was there but things just dont seem to add up there as well. The structure of the building is ment to withstand hurricanes and they are built so that even if part of the building was to collapse the rest will still stand. Thats even with the domino effect in which you saw the entire building collapse like dominoes. We have seen other things where building will burn for hours and they wouldnt collapse like the towers where it just took a short time. They say it was due to the 90k gallons of jet fuel melting the steel but that just doesnt make sense either because even with that much fuel its not gonna burn any hotter than if you only had 1k of it. It burns at around 1000c where you cant even melt steel at 1000c it melts at 1500c. We both agreed that was fishy but then again there could have been problems with the building that no one knew about. We then moved to the pentagon and would talk about that for hours on how there was almost nothing left of the plane. The one funny thing we saw was looking at it from a distance we could make out the path that the plane had to take to hit but what stood out was this lonely light poll. For the plane to hit like it did and cause that damage it would have had to hit the ground and skid into the building but it should have taken out this light poll because if it would have just took a regular path flying right into the building yes it still would have hit this light poll we didnt understand that so we chalked that part up as unexplained. Next we looked at the engines and the thickness of the walls well if the plane can hit the wall nose on and go through then it doesnt explain how the engines didnt hit as well and also go through. In the end we chalked up the entire pentagon thing as just unexplainable same thing with flight 93 we couldnt actually figure it all out. Then we moved on to talk about the 3000 ppl who died or as most say. He took the path that they did all die and i said they didnt. I looked around and found out that a lot of ppl think the planes that did hit were military issue so i said we maybe before they hit the stopped and let all the people off of the plane. He would come back and say well how do you keep them quite. Pay them would be my response. Then he would say well what would stop me from taking that money and then going on to tv and proving that the gov paid me to keep quite. So i said something along the lines they would probably kill you. Then he would respond by saying well that would be a little suspicious since i already made the claim. So no matter what way you look at all of this both sides have their flaws and im sure both sides have their truths. Im still waiting for the day the footage of the plane into the pentagon because then you can chalk one up for the truth. These are just our thoughts and i dont mean to p*** anyone off if you did have a love one that died in 9/11 its just my friend and i like to look at both sides of the story.

[+susieice]

I can't believe this CT just keeps going on and on. The people on those planes called their loved ones to say goodbye and told them what was going on, right up to the passengers who stormed the cockpits and hijacked the planes. Are we not to believe their final words.

[Davedini]

see we thought the same thing but there was something my friend found out it had to deal with the fact that their cell phones wouldnt work that high at 8000 feet a cell phone wouldnt be able to make a call in 2001 yes now they can but back then it was unheard of but they also had special onplane phones that they also placed phone calls on it works either way.

Expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry casts serious doubt on "the findings" of the 9/11 Commission. According to Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks:

"it was almost a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations... From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude"

technology wasnt the same then as it is now you have to keep things like that in mind and the window that is left open that can explain the calls is they were either just taking off from somewhere when they called or they were flying so low when they made the calls that they could stay connected but i was under the impression they were still pretty high up there when they made the calls since they didnt take over the plane yet

[Q24]

Not bad... except for the fact that the first two are clear that the operations were either conducted by very few people, or that very few people were actually in "the know." The last was merely an organized resistance to the perceived threat of Communism... and should be seen from a military light to actually understand what they were doing and why they were doing it.

It would depend what exactly you define as “very few”.

Involved in the Gleiwitz incident would have been the Gestapo officers and guards from Dachau concentration camp who detained the Poles, the medical officer who supplied the lethal injection, the group of German operatives who attacked the radio station and the named individuals we know of – Alfred Naujocks, Reinhard Heydrich, Heinrich Muller, Heinrich Himmler and of course, Adolph Hitler. That must be 30 people at least who were aware of the operation. And don’t forget that the Gleiwitz incident was only one part of the much larger Operation Himmler involving the Abwehr and SS.

Hitler sold the German people WWII based on this false flag attack and yet not one person involved spoke out.

Touching on Air America next, I can’t see an airline owned and operated by the CIA for covert missions over the duration of 25 years involving “very few” people. There were those who purchased the airline, CIA and military officers exchanging aircraft with the USAF, the pilots, unusual flight plans which air traffic control must have been aware of and all of this would require funding and approval. This would surely necessitate a whole cell within the CIA plus military and other government officials ‘in the know’.

Regarding Operation Gladio, I agree the intentions were quite clear, the only problem being that the stay-behind elements were eventually used in such a way they were not originally intended (i.e. to perform terrorist attacks). In any case, the point is that these covert units were embedded within European countries, funded and supplied weapons by the CIA and NATO and without the governments of those countries even knowing about it for some 40 years! There must have been a great many aware of the existence of the operation and yet no one cracked and informed the European leaders.

These are just three out of many covert operations which between them must have involved hundreds of people and yet were not revealed for over 70 years when combined…

Then some grasp at the misguided hope there would be ‘too many’ involved in the 9/11 false flag attack who would be blurting out the details.

Q, you are still having problems understanding the turf wars involved in the Federal bureaucracy that existed at the time. Yes, your allegations that the CIA knew this and the FBI knew that are potentially true (if misrepresented in places), but they didn't talk TO EACH OTHER - and that is what could have blown this thing wide open. It's all about the attitude of protecting one's fief and one's employer... if I tell you MY secret, I will be lessening MY sphere of influence.

I don’t have any problem understanding the compartmentalised nature of government agencies and agree with everything you say here (except the “misrepresented” comment for which you don’t give an example). It doesn’t make a difference because, for instance, the CIA agents who were tracking the future hijackers, knew their identities and that they were affiliated with Al Qaeda, could have prevented these men from entering the United States without relying on informantion from any other department.

Also, it is not the suggestion that the CIA agents tracking the hijackers were not communicating with the FBI or that neither of these were sharing information with the NSA or military intelligence in which I find a problem. It is the ‘coincidence’ that all were in such close proximity to the hijackers prior to 9/11 that raises an eyebrow - a coincidence is usually a one-off whereas a series of such events is a pattern.

Regarding your question that you've repeated (though you won't respond to repeated questions yourself...), yes, the leadership of ANY country has to weigh the benefit of one live versus thousands - and thousands of lives versus the survival of the country. If the leadership doesn't do this, they are on the road to ruin and will soon be leading nothing but a memory. Is this harsh? Potentially "evil"?? Definitely harsh, possibly evil, but it is the truth.

I don’t deliberately avoid any question and always give an honest response. If there’s a relevant issue you don’t think I have answered for then let me know the specifics. I do challenge my own views to ensure they stand up and welcome others to test them also. In contrast, what I find all too often is that obtaining answers from other posters is like trying to get blood out of a stone. All this tells me is that they are good at repeating their preference but are not serious about considering what they are saying.

I give you credit in this case as you did just answer the question that MID refuses to face up to. It is true that some sacrifices which many would deem “evil” are necessary. And there is the justification for the 9/11 false flag attack – it was “evil” by most standards but also necessary according to the PNAC members who took up positions in the Bush administration.

[+susieice]

I just find it difficult to believe that people facing certain death would lie to their loved ones about what was happening on those planes in the first place. I think these CT's are disgraceful and demeaning to the people who died that day.

[flyingswan]

Ok well this topic is just fun.

I have been in debate with my friend over the whole 9/11 thing for over a year now and we have looked at a lot of different view points. We have even broke it down to science trying to explain how it collapsed and how the planes themselves seemed to just pretty much explode into such small pieces. There are still something we just arent sure about such as looking at other plane crashes though history most of the plane is still intact in bigger pieces. The engines are usually almost fully intact and when we look at the Pentagon plane crash and flight 93 we dont quite understand how it just seemed to shatter like glass.

Most crashes occur near airports when the aircraft is at low speed. High speed like the 9/11 crashes means something like ten times as much kinetic energy, so the aircraft ends up with a lot more damage. If you compare other high-speed impacts you will see a similar lack of large pieces of debris, eg:

There was not a complete body, body part or limb found, as the entire aircraft and passengers disintegrated upon impact. Only six positive identifications were later obtained from the few recovered human remains

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185

They say it was due to the 90k gallons of jet fuel melting the steel but that just doesnt make sense either because even with that much fuel its not gonna burn any hotter than if you only had 1k of it. It burns at around 1000c where you cant even melt steel at 1000c it melts at 1500c. We both agreed that was fishy but then again there could have been problems with the building that no one knew about.

The buildings withstood the impacts as designed, but not the combination of impact and fire. No-one is saying that the fires melted the steel, but steel is weakened by heat at well below melting temperatures.

We then moved to the pentagon and would talk about that for hours on how there was almost nothing left of the plane. The one funny thing we saw was looking at it from a distance we could make out the path that the plane had to take to hit but what stood out was this lonely light poll. For the plane to hit like it did and cause that damage it would have had to hit the ground and skid into the building but it should have taken out this light poll because if it would have just took a regular path flying right into the building yes it still would have hit this light poll we didnt understand that so we chalked that part up as unexplained.

Don't see the problem, why can't the aircraft hit the light pole and then the building without hitting the ground in between?

Next we looked at the engines and the thickness of the walls well if the plane can hit the wall nose on and go through then it doesnt explain how the engines didnt hit as well and also go through.

There is an engineering simulation of the impact by Purdue University which matches what happened pretty well. The aircraft gets pretty well shredded, so what penetrated the building was more like a shot-gun blast than any large parts of the aircraft.

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/

[Q24]

I just find it difficult to believe that people facing certain death would lie to their loved ones about what was happening on those planes in the first place. I think these CT's are disgraceful and demeaning to the people who died that day.

I’d go further and say it’s practically impossible to believe that people would lie to their loved ones about what was happening on those planes. The thing is, there are certain scenarios allowing for a false flag attack (even with drone aircraft involved) where we do not have to believe such suggestions at all.

It’s understandable why some say that ‘conspiracy theories’ are disrespectful to those who died but truly this is not the case. Let’s not forget that the official story is a ‘conspiracy theory’ in itself and whichever version of events one believes they are not denying the loss of life on 9/11.

It may interest you to know that Bill Doyle, head of the Coalition of 9/11 Families (consisting of approximately 7,000 members who lost relatives in the attacks), estimated that half of those he represented held the view there was some form of cover-up and inside complicity in the event. Surely no one would claim that all of these people are disrespecting their loved ones.

What is disrespectful in my opinion is to not question the circumstances and to leave outstanding and unanswered issues surrounding these criminal deaths. It can only be through knowledge and understanding of every aspect before, during and after the event that justice is fully done to the victims.

I can honestly say that if I died of unnatural causes I would prefer the ‘conspiracy theorists’ here to carry out the investigation. I would be absolutely disappointed and let down by those who did not chose to question the circumstances.

[flyingswan]

they also had special onplane phones that they also placed phone calls on it works either way.

Answered your own question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airphone

[Davedini]

Answered your own question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airphone

not entirely since most were claimed using a cell phone and as for the engines if it directly hit the pentagon then i would think the engines would have hit as well. Like im not sitting here trying to p*** anyone off about this subject and as for the steel weakening yes that may be true but then i dont understand how the rest of the building would have fallen unless it somehow weakened all the beams. Like i really believe it did happen and that these people did die but things just dont really add up in our minds.

[flyingswan]

not entirely since most were claimed using a cell phone and as for the engines if it directly hit the pentagon then i would think the engines would have hit as well.

If you get an incoming call in those circumstances, you are unlikely to check whether it's from a cell phone or an Airphone.

The only evidence of what happened to the engines that I have seen are a few pictures of small pieces of engine found inside the building. This is perfectly consistent with the aircraft being largely a collection of small pieces once it passed the outer wall.

Like im not sitting here trying to p*** anyone off about this subject and as for the steel weakening yes that may be true but then i dont understand how the rest of the building would have fallen unless it somehow weakened all the beams. Like i really believe it did happen and that these people did die but things just dont really add up in our minds.

Basically, it's the difference between static and dynamic loading. Once the building started to fail, caused by a combination of the impact damage and the fires weakening the remaining structure, then the loads required to bring the upper parts of the building to a stop again are much larger than the design loads, which are just required to support a static upper part.

It's the difference between balancing a brick on your head and having a brick drop onto your head. The first is unlikely to fracture your skull, but the second very well could.

[Davedini]

good points i must say

[MID]

good points i must say

What Swanny there has given you is a bare-bones engineering analysis.

I think you can take it to the bank.

I was about to make an analogy to holding a 10 lb. box on the top of your head, then having someone drop it onto your head from an altitude of perhaps 5 feet to illustrate the difference between static and dynamic load...but he (of course) did it!

[Q24]

good points i must say

There is enough evidence to support that an airliner impacted the Pentagon.

Just be careful not to fall for the logic fallacies being presented in regard to the WTC: -

1. Fire produces heat
   
2. Heat weakens steel
   
3. Fire caused the buildings to collapse
   

1. The building could maintain the static load
   
2. The dynamic load is greater than the static load
   
3. The dynamic load continued the collapse
   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Whilst the first two statements in each case above are true, they do not in any way prove the third statements.

The real questions specific to 9/11 are: -

• Did the fire actually generate sufficient heat to cause failure across the structure?
  
• Was the dynamic load really enough to overcome the design load?
  

The answer to the first question is “no” according to best estimates of the scientists who simulated the event.

The answer to the second question is outstanding as no detailed or realistic study has been carried out.

My advice is to research all of the information for yourself and not put too much faith in those here who are not interested in any detail that alludes to an explanation outside of the official story.

[joshsluss]

I just find it difficult to believe that people facing certain death would lie to their loved ones about what was happening on those planes in the first place. I think these CT's are disgraceful and demeaning to the people who died that day.

How is it demeaning? If anything, people are just trying to get to the bottom of it, whether you feel it's a CT or not is irrelevant when studying a major event of this magnitude.

Have you ever thought that maybe this might bring those loved ones justice and truth in the end?

There's always two sides to everything. You should be more open minded to the possibilities that things like this do in fact happen in reality. It's historical fact. Why do we have no Bin Laden? Why did we go to Iraq? Why do we not take out terrorists in Saudi Arabia?

It's the events AFTER 9/11 that make this "CT" so intriguing and has a ring of truth to it. No one can quite put their finger on it, but something is not right.

[Agent X]

[+susieice]

How is it demeaning? If anything, people are just trying to get to the bottom of it, whether you feel it's a CT or not is irrelevant when studying a major event of this magnitude.

Have you ever thought that maybe this might bring those loved ones justice and truth in the end?

There's always two sides to everything. You should be more open minded to the possibilities that things like this do in fact happen in reality. It's historical fact. Why do we have no Bin Laden? Why did we go to Iraq? Why do we not take out terrorists in Saudi Arabia?

It's the events AFTER 9/11 that make this "CT" so intriguing and has a ring of truth to it. No one can quite put their finger on it, but something is not right.

We have no Bin Laden IMO because the man is dead. On 9/11/01 he was already a very sick man on dialysis twice a day. Odds are very good he has not survived another 9 yrs. We went to Iraq because of Bush Sr's dislike of Saddam and it is known that none of the 9/11 conspirators were from Iraq. As to Saudi Arabia, you have a point. Out of 19 hijackers at least 15 had ties to Saudi Arabia.

[The Unseen]

Oh MY .This 9/11 stuff has been beaten to death with an Ugly Stick.NO PLANES? what is someone smoking the wacky weed? come on people,Its time all this hoo haa is layed to rest.next thing someone will say is it was a bomb planted by BIGFOOT or something just as silly. Please People ,Dont believe everything you see or read.QUIT WAISTING YOUR TIME READING THAT WHICH YOU KNOW IS JUST PLAIN HOGWASH .

[Agent X]

Personally, I like Conspiracy theories. However, I like them for pure entertainment value only. I also hate arguing against the true believers though because they can't conceive of anything other than their crap and use many dirty tricks as well, such as not responding to a specific question and moving on to another subject.