That's the problem though, you believe that what the 19 hijackers did is the first official narrative and that nothing predates or succeeds it, which I'm sorry to say is false.
Nope. The airlines released the passenger lists as soon as all the relatives had been notified. Fight attendants on all of the hijacked fights made phone calls where they gave seat numbers for some of the hijackers. We learned that a few of those names had been on an FBI watch-list that first week after the attack. Not much of a cover-up.
We can squabble over words, or I can get specific -- namely, things President Bush has said, the 'No one in this administration or the last ever thought of hijackers using planes as weapons'.
You seem to equate the government with the administration, and they have little to do with each other. Yes, down at Langley the concept of large jets being used as missiles. Exactly how this might happen was not part of the picture (I think cargo jets were considered). The Bush Administration most likely never had the concept presented to them, and prior to 9-11 it would have been dismissed as unrealistic. Terrorism was a law enforcement issue before 9-11, not really a national security thing.
That was pointedly proven to be false in the MSM. So many of the upper echelon figures in government at the time made similar comments that could not stand up under scrutiny. The I's are not dotted and the T's are not crossed, is what I'm saying. There are numerous loose ends, unresolved red flags.
At the time? You mean before any investigations had been completed? What do they say now? This is a Troofer red-herring that always fails. Some guy said something based on tentative information that turned out to be incomplete or wrong, so what? Happens all the time.
3. It is erroneous to say that *everyone* knew what had happened.
No it's not. It happened on live TV. The mechanics of the event are clear. Identical towers hit by almost identical aircraft collapse in identical fashion. Tower 2 was struck lower and fell first, which tells you about the damage and the force of gravity the structure endured before it fell.
I don't pretend to understand all of the physics and engineering behind the collapse, but I know it all started with the plane crash.
The NYTimes highlighted that fact -- that folks were calling for a more in-depth investigation because the collapses had surprised them --
The Times ran a story about people who wanted an in-depth investigation, the NY Times did not call for one themselves.
By the way, as a former conspiracy loon myself, I don't understand how you cannot read the NIST report and the FEMA reports and then read between the lines. Look at all of the building codes that were changed just to get the WTC built in the first place, and then look at all of those same codes reinstated and improved upon after those 9-11 reports.
Since you probably can't figure it out, I'll fill you in: corners (might) have been cut to get the Twin Towers built. Not huge issues, but - in my personal opinion - they shaved a few things and rushed others to get those buildings up. I am not saying the buildings were not safe, they were right up until they were each struck by a passenger jet. Even then, they stood long enough to get most of the people inside to safety.
Seriously, just look at the improvements to the new WTC1, and retrofits made over the last 12 years to tall buildings across the country. What do you see? You should see that good enough is no longer good enough, and that engineers have to consider some really awful things when they design tall buildings now. Things like: what happens when fire suppression doesn't work? How much fire retardant do we need to make the structure as safe as possible?
Troofers always point out that the WTC was designed to survive a strike by a 707, but to date nobody has shown how this calculation was even made. I recognize it as a selling point and not a statement of bankable fact.
4. Who had jurisdiction? FEMA and the F.B.I., right?
and the state of New York.
