Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

a reply to: Scrubdog

You....

“I find it odd that they would litigate a request to see the footage. I find it odd that the footage wasn't part of the commission's report”

Then find credible evidence to refute what was cited to you?

a reply to: neutronflux

You have a way of taking every statement and making it strangely personal, it's quite weird.

I said that I found it odd that they would litigate a request for the video. You first tell me (with certainty) that they would be trying to hide the inadequate security around the Pentagon. Ok, that's one explanation, definitely not the only one, no matter how certain you might be.

And yet If make me the Justice Department or Defense Depart attorney, or officer in possession of the video, faced with that suit making that request, I would immediately note the downside of withholding such information, that it would needlessly cause people to question the motivations for doing so. When one sees what all was released, then it becomes an even bigger mystery because the disclosure itself did not speak to obvious security vulnerability, it spoke to the fact they do not have a picture of the airplane - something they would've been FAR better off simply admitting first off.


The dynamic here is just strange. I haven't made any assertions, made no claim to know anything, DID make clear that I'm not comfortable with anything about being a "truther" (and yet you lump me into buying into "them" wholesale), basically think out loud about some very simple questions that have always bothered me, and I get, in equal parts, answers, scorn, challenged, and derision. Almost as if it is wrong for one to have questions at all.

Deal with it: I find it extremely ODD that there is not one picture, anywhere, of an airplane in and around the Pentagon.

THAT is IT.

Sometimes I get the distinct feeling that there are people who are obligated (somehow) to ensure that those who question accepted positions, come to regret doing so.

originally posted by: Scrubdog
a reply to: neutronflux

You have a way of taking every statement and making it strangely personal, it's quite weird.

I said that I found it odd that they would litigate a request for the video. You first tell me (with certainty) that they would be trying to hide the inadequate security around the Pentagon. Ok, that's one explanation, definitely not the only one, no matter how certain you might be.

And yet If make me the Justice Department or Defense Depart attorney, or officer in possession of the video, faced with that suit making that request, I would immediately note the downside of withholding such information, that it would needlessly cause people to question the motivations for doing so. When one sees what all was released, then it becomes an even bigger mystery because the disclosure itself did not speak to obvious security vulnerability, it spoke to the fact they do not have a picture of the airplane - something they would've been FAR better off simply admitting first off.


The dynamic here is just strange. I haven't made any assertions, made no claim to know anything, DID make clear that I'm not comfortable with anything about being a "truther" (and yet you lump me into buying into "them" wholesale), basically think out loud about some very simple questions that have always bothered me, and I get, in equal parts, answers, scorn, challenged, and derision. Almost as if it is wrong for one to have questions at all.

Deal with it: I find it extremely ODD that there is not one picture, anywhere, of an airplane in and around the Pentagon.

THAT is IT.

Sometimes I get the distinct feeling that there are people who are obligated (somehow) to ensure that those who question accepted positions, come to regret doing so.

I cited sources that show the misconceptions surrounding the pentagon security video. It’s up to you to be part of exposing all road blocks to the truth, or continue to enable those that blatantly create false narratives to exploit 9/11. And the truth movement is one of the biggest exploiters of 9/11 for donations, book sales, and web traffic.

a reply to: Scrubdog


You are correct about the absence of photographic or video evidence of AA77 streaking across the front yard of likely the world's most secure building and front yard.

It is also interesting that the FBI quickly seized videos from hotels and other private businesses in the vicinity before the sun went down. Apparently they were protecting the public by not letting it see AA77 striking the front door.

It gets even better. The FDR data provided by the government 5 years after the request was not assigned to airframe. According to Dennis Cimino, an expert in such instrumentation, not being assigned to an airframe is a sure sign of the counterfeit nature of the government supplied information.

If the government has such a solid case, if the government has nothing to hide, why is it hiding so much?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Scrubdog


You are correct about the absence of photographic or video evidence of AA77 streaking across the front yard of likely the world's most secure building and front yard.

It is also interesting that the FBI quickly seized videos from hotels and other private businesses in the vicinity before the sun went down. Apparently they were protecting the public by not letting it see AA77 striking the front door.

It gets even better. The FDR data provided by the government 5 years after the request was not assigned to airframe. According to Dennis Cimino, an expert in such instrumentation, not being assigned to an airframe is a sure sign of the counterfeit nature of the government supplied information.

If the government has such a solid case, if the government has nothing to hide, why is it hiding so much?

Did you read anything just cited. Your narratives are false. All you have is blatant false narratives?

a reply to: neutronflux


I have truthful narratives NF, and that makes you angry.

The bloody pentagon has no cameras, is what you want me to believe. Sorry, all I can do is laugh at such ridiculous claims.

a reply to: Salander

Then refute the works cited

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate


911truth.org...
911truth.org...

Pentagon Security Videos: Recent work on the video from two Pentagon security cameras shows that they captured images of the approaching, low-flying plane. In his paper “The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras,” Ken Jenkins explains the images, how the date error came about, and the likely origins for the trailing white smoke. There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.

Ken Jenkins and David Chandler also recently took pairs of sequential images from the Pentagon surveillance video cameras, putting them together as you would see them in what is called a blink comparator. In this way, the image of the plane “pops out.” If you watch the image cycle a few times, the details of the plane are clearly visible. You can find the blink comparisons on David Chandler’s website, 911SpeakOut.or

The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras

www.9-11tv.org...
www.9-11tv.org...

From that starting point, the numbers of useful recordings regarding the Pentagon event begin to fall dramatically:

Very nearly 2/3rds of the 85 recordings, specifically 56 “of these video recordings did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11.”
Of the remaining 29 video recordings, 16 did show some part of the Pentagon, but “did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.”
Of the 13 remaining recordings, 11 “only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77.” An example is the video that was released from the Doubletree Hotel. That camera was initially pointed away from the Pentagon, then repositioned minutes after the crash to point towards the smoke cloud rising from the Pentagon crash site.
The two remaining recordings, from the Pentagon’s two security cameras both clearly showed the Pentagon impact fireball. One of those two recordings seems to show only the fin of the plane, due to a foreground obstruction. The other recording seems to show the entire plane, but also at low resolution.

www.judicialwatch.org...

Judicial Watch v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No.06-1135)

November 01, 2011
Judicial Watch lawsuit to obtain previously unseen footage of Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, seeking all records pertaining to camera recordings from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation.On May 16, 2006, Judicial Watch forced the Department of Defense to release video footage of American Airlines flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11. The videos had been kept secret by the DoD until Judicial Watch filed the FOIA request and, eventually, a lawsuit stating that the DoD had “no legal basis” to refuse release of the footage. On September 15, 2006, Judicial Watch released videos from the CITGO gas station near the Pentagon, which was released by the FBI in response to the FOIA request.Judicial Watch is committed to completing the public record of the 9/11 attacks.

a reply to: neutronflux


Thank you NF--none of the videos contained images or footage of AA77. Rather the point here isn't it?

In a rational world, that means that AA77 did not strike the building, and that is corroborated by Cimino's work showing the FDR provided by the government was counterfeit.

This all demonstrates what most of us have known for years--the official theory is contradicted by all available evidence.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


I have truthful narratives NF, and that makes you angry.

The bloody pentagon has no cameras, is what you want me to believe. Sorry, all I can do is laugh at such ridiculous claims.

Quote were I ever said the pentagon had no cameras. Anther fakes argument by you!

It has been explained over and over in threads you apart of why 80 some cameras for a building over 23 acers in size were not all pointed at one wall of a five walked building.

The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras



Why very few cameras captured the impact event

www.9-11tv.org...

There are a number of valid reasons why only 4 of the 85 videos were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only 2 of the 85 cameras captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event[1].

Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most or all surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), generally at one frame per second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to over 550 mph, caused some image blurring and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).

a reply to: Salander

False argument by you?

“Thank you NF--none of the videos contained images or footage of AA77. Rather the point here isn't it? ”

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

911truth.org...

Pentagon Security Videos: Recent work on the video from two Pentagon security cameras shows that they captured images of the approaching, low-flying plane. In his paper “The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras,” Ken Jenkins explains the images, how the date error came about, and the likely origins for the trailing white smoke. There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.

Ken Jenkins and David Chandler also recently took pairs of sequential images from the Pentagon surveillance video cameras, putting them together as you would see them in what is called a blink comparator. In this way, the image of the plane “pops out.” If you watch the image cycle a few times, the details of the plane are clearly visible. You can find the blink comparisons on David Chandler’s website, 911SpeakOut.org.

a reply to: Salander

Another false argument by you?

“In a rational world, that means that AA77 did not strike the building, and that is corroborated by Cimino's work showing the FDR provided by the government was counterfeit. ”

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.) January 2011

www.journalof911studies.com...

Summary and Conclusion
In response to FOIA requests the NTSB provided a CSV file and a coded FDR file. All contradictions between the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and these files appear to be traceable to missing data. In the case of the CSV file the data stopped about four seconds short of the impact. In the case of the FDR file the final frame was not initially decoded. Some researchers recognized that data was missing, while others claimed that the files proved the official account was false, as it appeared the flight terminated at a point too high to have created the observed damage trail on the ground.
Previous analyses were further confounded by uncertainty of the position of the last data point; failure to consider possible calibration errors in the pressure altimeter data, caused by high speed and low altitude; and false information in the NTSB flight animation.
The recent complete decoding of the FDR file has enlarged and clarified the information available and has thereby enabled resolution of the contradictions. It is clear that this file supports the official account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports the majority of eyewitness reports.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Can you even show one floor of the towers could handle more the the equivalent dynamic load of six floors hitting it.

You cannot even cite the capacities for the the floors of the towers.

We are supposed to believe one floor composed of relatively light weight tresses could take the falling weight of 12 falling stories?

Yes I get the context kinetic energy increases with velocity. We are shown a jet less than 300,000 pounds could cut through the vertical and core columns?

But you want use to believe that one floor of one tower could take the equivalent of 25 percent or 10 percent of the building falling into it and not fail?

www.nist.gov...

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren't the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

You avoided the problem of ignoring the critical evidence, once again!!

How did NIST come up with their conclusion of fires weakening the steel to the point it caused initial failure?

What shows an investigation is legitimate, or a cover-up?

It is legitimate if ALL the evidence is of importance, because nobody knows anything yet...To have a theory of what happened is only a theory, nothing more.

A cover-up takes only evidence it can use to support their predetermined 'conclusion'. All other evidence is ignored. When even their cherry-picked evidence fails to support their 'conclusion', that evidence is dismissed as completely irrelevant, too...

That allows them a final grasp at straws, because the evidence they IGNORED from the start, 'must be all the fire weakened steel'!!

A model with imaginary steel shows what happened.

The actual evidence would never indicate such a thing. Just the opposite, in fact. That no collapse was possible from fires.



One tower showed the upper floors already had toppled over to one side, first of all. It still collapsed the same way, of course. Even if the floors are not above the building, it works the very same !!

a reply to: turbonium1

The problem? you have no intellectually honest arguments.

Link to anywhere you have quoted NIST? And ever provide an explanation why the cited NIST material is wrong. I have provided NIST and American Wrlding Societies material.

The Explanation is not solely NIST.

You have not even proven the NIST calculations for the dynamic floor load limits which were excited at the start of collapse wrong.

It’s science that steel heated to 1000 Celsius looses 60 percent of it’s ability to resist strain.

There is a reason steel is required by code to be protected by fire insulation. The structural steel collapsed due to fire at the Mardrid Windsor is an example: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


There is a reason why the inward bowing leading to buckling which initiated collapse was isolated and localized to the area of the jet impacts, where fire insulation was knocked of, the most damage was done to the structure, the area of the most fire damage, and the area that underwent the greatest thermal stress.

The area in which the collapse was initiated, there was no possibly of a cd system would have survived. The jet impacts would have knocked out the ignition system, the fires would have destroyed the ignition system and/or remote detonators, the impacts or fires would have prematurely set of blasting caps or explosives, the fires would have degraded the explosives beyond useful ability.

There is no explanation how a cd system would have survived the impacts and fires to initiate the collapse witnessesed.

There is no proof of CD.

a reply to: turbonium1

So either refute this....
www.implosionworld.com...

Or cite where you proven the NIST load limits for tower floor dynamic load ratings wrong.

Or quote where you actually cited NIST, and proven why the cited item is wrong.

Or prove how sophisticated CD systems would have survived jet impacts and fires for the first successful high rise top down CD twice in one day.

Or champion one of the leading truth movement explanations for tower collapse, and try to prove that to supersede impact/fire/thermal stress damage leading to inward bowing and buckling.

Will you choose:

The debunked thermite?

The mythical fizzle no flash explosives?

Or the book that debunks the other tower conspiracy theories, but then goes on to push the laughably impossible theory of Dustification from power captured from a hurricane?


Up to you if you want to wallow in pseudoscience and the company of those that exploit 9/11 for attention from conspiracists.....


But don’t expect those that can discern truth to put up with the blatant misinformation of the truth movement to exploit 9/11 for personal gain.

originally posted by: Salander

Thank you NF--none of the videos contained images or footage of AA77. Rather the point here isn't it?

In a rational world, that means that AA77 did not strike the building, and that is corroborated by Cimino's work showing the FDR provided by the government was counterfeit.

Funny that you preface with, "in a rational world..." and then follow that with a well-known logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance.

You also ignore the wreckage that was on-site as the building was still burning, the 40+ witnesses who directly watched Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, the DNA evidence, the downed light poles (also attested to by witnesses), the fact that Flight 77 and its passengers were never seen again, and that not a single witness saw a missile.

In short, you are arguing that we could have a knife with the murderer's fingerprints on it, a dead body full of stab wounds that match the knife, blood on the knife that matches the victim's DNA, and 40+ witnesses to the murder, yet...WE CAN'T SAY HE DID IT BECAUSE THERE ISN'T VIDEO. IT'S A MYSTERY!

That's why you're doing this on an internet forum instead of a court of law, because they would laugh you out of the courtroom within 10 seconds.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: neutronflux

Set our your opinion and evidence on the facts all you want. Please do. I'm always willing to learn.

Please do not be so condescending and angry that you says something as appalling as "people who exploit 9-11 for ____ " as if somehow I am gaining something through this - that's sickening.

The questions I have, the suspicions based upon certain coincidences that just seem out of a movie (like the fact that the military was on that very day doing an exercise in which planes were captured but doing it in the Canadian north, and most fighters gone) just "coincidences" that eat at the brain and lead on to say "common sense says that many questions are left unanswered" (such as - "who decided the military's exercise would be on that very day? What's their background?) are appropriate.

There is absolutely no piece of evidence yet that you throw your hands up and say "Dunno, stuff happens" bc it just remains unexplained, you know it all. I'd really really like to know how a plane doesn't survive beyond tiny burned scraps, but a practically perfect passport of one of the terrorists is found not just uncharred but readable. A logical question would be "Did they find other wallets? Other passports, other items KNOWN to be from a passenger? Because if that's the one single thing to be found, it stinks to high hell and I have NO idea how that doesn't eat at your brain, wondering "what are the odds?"

Just bc a person has nagging doubts, believes questions are unanswered (why is the Saudi material still classified? Got an answer for that? Classifying important evidence in a matter like this offends the citizens' right to answers) just b/c a person has these questions, does not mean they are exploiting a single darn thing. What in the world am I gaining by asking these questions?

When one asks questions that spring from seemingly impossible and illogical facts, something as dumb as the fact that Olson's new wife bears an uncanny resemblance to his old one, which means nothing more than it makes a person scratch their head, it certainly can be construed as me HONORING the victims of 9-11 by simply questioning the incredible number of coincidences, saying that these doubts mean it has not been publicly investigated enough. Someone could construe you espousing that you know everything with 100% certainty and then take that certainty to beat down others through over the top aggression. It almost sounds like your job is to try to make asking questions on a public forum not worth the beating. And that's weird.

I'll just note here, let's say you''re 100% right, terrorists overtook planes and crashed them into buildings causing them to fall, actually doesn't obviate questions as to whether certain people knew. We know a sophisticated stock market analysis showed abberant trading statistically indicative of inside knowledge. Does that prove 100% that some "inside" people knew? No. Not at all. It just means there's reason to really believe that all these coincidences indicate there's very possibly another level, that is all.

a reply to: Scrubdog

Do you believe jets could not damage the twin towers?

Do you have evidence that the tower’s were brought down by CD? Or think the towers were brought down by planted government explosives?

Do you deny that a large commercial jet hit the pentagon?

Do you think the crash site at shanksville was caused by something other than a large commercial jet?

These are the items that killed any chance of the truth movement being taken seriously? Is that a false statement?

a reply to: Scrubdog

A logical question would be "Did they find other wallets? Other passports, other items KNOWN to be from a passenger? Because if that's the one single thing to be found, it stinks to high hell and I have NO idea how that doesn't eat at your brain, wondering "what are the odds?"

Did you look beyond a conspiracy website to answer that question ???????
Here's the first thing that popped up on google.
Families fighting to get back personal items from 911

a reply to: neutronflux


RE: Planes crashing into towers and bringing them down.

YEP - they certainly could damage the towers, could possibly bring them down. Does that mean no American knew and blessed it or even planned it? No.

Do you have evidence that the tower’s were brought down by CD? Or think the towers were brought down by planted government explosives?

NOPE. I personally do not own or possess a single piece of evidence from 9-11. I am forced to do as you, listen to others and think. I hear the fireman that were there talk about molten steal and never having seen that before, I hear scientists say there's no way to get a fire that hot. Are they right? Or are the ones that explain it some other way? I don't know. I find it a very odd thing.

Do you deny that a large commercial jet hit the pentagon?

I did not see anything hit the pentagon. I have to go by evidence gathered by others. Some of the scientists that have weighed in on the matter that believe it could not have been a plane make some sense to me, and so do the ones that say it had to be a jet. Who is right? I am not sure (unlike you), and as we started, there isn't a single picture, not one. As for witnesses of that plane? I see video of live TV an hour after the twin towers and hear witnesses describing all kinds of weird things, "an all black plane," a "small plane," an "air force plane" - so witnesses right after the fact are not rock solid reliable, as any criminal attorney would tell you (want to see the science on that? I'm not going to bother b/c it will simply lead to an insult) - it is an extremely ODD coincidence.

Do you think the crash site at shanksville was caused by something other than a large commercial jet?

I don't know. Very likely caused by large jet of some kind, but very little evidence there of any kind. More likely than not a plane of some kind. If one is planning an attack like this and has access to planes of some kind, not that hard to crash one. But I've also seen crashes straight into mountains in southern france going at the speed this one was going and yet much much more debris is found, obvious jet. Odd, but likely a large jeck.

These are the items that killed any chance of the truth movement being taken seriously? Is that a false statement?

Doesn't kill it at all, not even a tiny tiny bit. You ignored every single one of my very odd coincidences, to simply (in your mind) proves planes did all the damage. Congrats. (If you're right). How does that disprove that someone didn't find 20 idiot enraged young men and convinced them jihad was awesome and please do it, while also planning to ensure its success, such as planning a military exercise for that same day, planning the narrative that very morning, ensuring much less suspicion.

Proving that planes flown by terrorists caused all the damage does not prove that some Americans knew it was coming.

a reply to: samkent

Have they gotten them?

If not, why in the hell not?

What kind of personal items? Diamond rings? Were they found 6 weeks later while digging through wreckage and right next to a body part? That makes plenty of sense to me.

That's slightly different than a paper passport found within a few hours of the attack.

Is it physically possible to find that passport on the sidewalk? Maybe by the laws of physics it's within the realm of possibility, seems way weird that particular piece found and on the news within hours. Do you deny that? That it's just flat weird?

Has any family claimed a briefcase or something exists and has gotten it back? Money in a wallet?

IF "yes" - then it's less weird. If no, that's just so strange that it ought to bother any person who didn't decide beforehand.

Is it odd that this occured on the first day that a new guy took over charge of the FAA flight coordination? I find that oddly coincidental. Same with the military exercise.


please listen to me. I laughed at truthers. I don't think of myself as a truther and truly HATE the fact that I'm bothered by evidence b/c then it means there are real questions as to the reality of who is running the country and the world and what they're capable of.

I hate having these questions, but at some point the coincidences added up to SO many that I'm convinced that the matter hasn't been studied enough and the possibilities out there not ruled out sufficiently.

Certain steal beams were found perfectly cut in certain spots from "7" - something the NY Times characterized as "the single oddest question left unanswered in 9-11. I find that "odd"

And I find the fact that the government executives FOUGHT having a commission to investigate when that's most damn obvious thing on earth. Find it odd that the president and vice president insisted upon sitting side by side, not under oath, no notes allowed, for only a set number of hours, and refused to speak under any other conditions, exceedingly odd. Even if they were just protecting themselves from looking bad, it LOOKS BAD as is. So wha would be worse?

I don't know. I know that these unaswered questions bother me a lot, that even if all your plane evidence and terrorist evidence is 100% correct doesn't rule out it was known abetted by others, and that's just basic logic.

So many seemingly odd coincidences that it sure seems more likely than not that SOME knew beforehand. Who?