Tom Breidenbach's last post is about as clear as it gets in my opinion. I recently had a long discussion with my brother - initiated by him - he's a member of MENSA and no slouch by any measure, and he continually insisted that until he was presented with 'proof' of the various 'conspiracy theories' concerning 911, he would continue to assess them as 'mirages'. I sent him a few links which clearly ask valid questions about the official story, and he responded that he would not look at them because he doesn't want to waste his time with mirages.

There's no obligation for anyone to spend time looking for answers, but the questions are so insistent that it's hard to understand why people continue to cling to demonstrably false explanations. The JFK assassination is a good case in point. Anyone who has seen the Zapruder film intuitively understands that Kennedy was hit from in front - the violent splash of matter from his forehead, and the powerful reaction of his body being flung backwards into the car seat. This is basic human experience of life on earth - and also basic physics - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 45 years later people are still wading their way through acres of bullshit which are designed to support the case that he was shot from behind. Who benefits from the inertia thus created?

Likewise, I contend that anyone who saw the twin towers fall felt intuitively that there was something wrong with what we were seeing, even though we were incapable in the moment of understanding what it was. From this confused feeling naturally grew the desire to clarify and understand, fuelled immediately by the myriad questions raised by conflicting and spurious 'explanations' trotted out by the media.

There are so many obvious anomalies in the obsessive defences raised against these questions - for instance, as someone else pointed out in this thread, how can aluminium planes carve their outline through the steel lattice-work of the twin towers, when, at the Pentagon, the aluminium plane is supposed to have folded up and disappeared into a small hole?

500,000 tons of concrete and steel turning to dust in mid-air? Twice? Hijacker's passport found on a pile of crap in the street? Identities of the 19 hijackers broadcast within bours? Essential evidence removed as fast as possible? Molten steel found months later? Extensive war games tying up the USAF at the same time as the attacks, games which used software over-riding the ATC radar? The official enquiry not even mentioning Building 7? Condi Rice claiming that no-one could have imagined such a thing, when such a thing had been precisely the point of numerous official exercises for years, not to mention being the subject of mainstream TV shows.

And so on ad nauseam. The questions raised are essential, if only because so much of recent history is entirely dependent on public adherence to the nasty-Arab theory. Afghanistan, Iraq... Construction of major military bases in the Middle East well-placed to lock down the region of the Caspian and ME oil reserves, and also probably contain Russia while keeping a wary eye on China.

Though human, it is probably a mistake for 'conspiracy theorists' to claim to have the only answer, and the waters are easily muddied by outrageous claims (UFO's) - however
the events beg so many questions and the answers officially presented are so unsatisfactory.

My brainy brother said - 'why would the US government go to all that murderous trouble just to start a war with Iraq when they could have done it anyway?' I contend that public resistance, based on extensive experience and research on Vietnam and Gulf War 1, would have been too great - '...absent a major event like Pearl Harbor.' The effect of 911 has been described elsewhere as shock and awe. It certainly got the American people behind Bush and charging over to Iraq.

But of course, that is not an 'answer' or 'proof', just questions and suppositions. Perhaps my brother, and others, would only accept the confession of an entire cabal - yup, we did it, and this is how, and they told us to. How likely is that? Nuremberg?

All we can know for sure is that the official accounts are demonstrably untrue. That both sides of the present administration, and the UK government, stand behind the official accounts and the constant stalling. This understanding should radically change our conception of the world we live in, or the world to which we are expected to be chained.

Building 7 - if Silverstein's comment 'pull it' meant attach large chains and haul it over, why didn't we see any of that? It would have been newsworthy coverage for such a day - and if the fires were as intense as they claim, how could the chains have been attached? And the chain-pulling mechanism is apparently intended to heave a building over on it's side to facilitate further demolition work - Building 7 went down perfectly straight in seconds. I also watched the BBC clip where Jane Standley announces the collapse of Building 7 20-odd minutes before it occurred, and you can see the building in question standing behind her as she speaks. This does not prove that the BBC is complicit in a murderous conspiracy, and may only demonstrate that the BBC jumped on an opportunity to scoop the competition. But it begs the question - where did they get the information from? I'm going to try and ask Jane Standley. If and when I get her answer I'll let you know.

Finally, if CD took down even one of the buildings on 911, we have to ask how and when the charges were prepared. You can't do that in a couple of hours.

If our governments are not totally and criminally incompetent, they are lying to us. That's where we start.


Fructedor