The 9/11 attacks were indeed the result of a conspiracy. They were the culmination of a intricate strategy on the part of Muslim extremists to destroy America (or whatever the "reasoning" was behind it) by trying to wreck the economy, draw it into an unwinnable war, terrify the civilian populace, etc. In carrying out their plan, they raised terrorism to a new level, using tactics that had been unthinkable before. From a historical perspective, this is really, really heavy stuff. But it's not enough for the CT's. The REAL conspiracy is not good enough. There has to be SOME OTHER conspiracy, more unbelievable and with more disturbing implications.
Sure...this did happen, on part of the extremists. But what is the legitimate ammo of the CT that keeps this a float? Perhaps the many documented connections between these people and the people in the american government that are the focus of the CT in the first place.
I had previously supplied links to articles detailing the depth of these connections, and they were written off because "no news story is accurate" in the eyes of the skeptics in this thread.
Then there are other matters, like the mutual inconsistancy of the official accounts ala FEMA, NIST, and the Commision. Upon close reading it should become apparent that they aren't in congruence. In summary, they basically admit that there is virtually no way this could have happened, but that it happened anyway by some means that are indeterminable.
Then there is the eutectic reaction, which as yet has been unexplained by both NIST and FEMA. You all write it off as well...even though it is a heat based reaction that requires temps around 1600-1700F degrees(some thing that the official accounts say didn't happen) The only way this could have occured is from a massive fire(one much larger, with much more volatile combustibles) or explosives...
As well there is building 7 with its nearly uniform collapse, and inconsistent explanation(it was not structurally weakened by planes)...and it also contained eutectic residue(buildings 1,2,7 all did).
The investigation was shoddy, and skeptics can't admit this, there is no evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the official story effectively...in fact other than a handfull of recordings made by bin Laden, the multitude of ignored warnings, and a passport that disappeared there really is nothing to support the claims of the government in regard to the Al-Qaeda plot except blind faith..
So how is a recording made in the hills of the Afghan tribal region and then leaked to the press more reliable than a news story that has been researched or based on actual documents?
anyways...
I think what this debate really truly boils down to is this:
Do you think there is enough physical evidence to prove the official story? If so, what is it?
Do you think that there are too many flaws in the investigation, and the findings to believe in total the official account? If so, why?
Personally, I have no doubt that Al-Qaeda and bin Laden are responsible for the planning and highjacking of planes....but you can't tell me the governments excuses as to why they didn't know in advance aren't bunk, and you can't tell me that they don't have ties to this because they do...the american government practically created extremist islam to combat the Soviet Union. Not to mention the years of meddling in the middle east that only served to harm us even more in the end...and all for private interests.
