Now you're gonna claim there was no insider trading on 9/11 either??? Wow....you do cooooolll drugs dude.
Oh, you mean like John O'Neill, Sibel Edmonds, Colleen Rowley, Kenneth Williams, Robert Wright, Steve Butler, Patrick Leahy, etc.? Or do they not count? You've just admitted an exhaustive investigation was entirely warranted. Besides the insider trading and the direct wire transfer from the head of the ISI to Atta? Or do those not count? This game is fun. But a few Arabs? No problem. ... It just didn't ever see a reason to detain or question Mahmud Ahmad. Noted. ... That's a whole lot of incompetence and communication breakdown the Bush League insisted was the cause of our inability to see. And yet no one lost their job. That's a wonderful story you guys tell yourselves.
That's quite a leap. Let me know what the strawman you're arguing with says in response. Is this where you try and pretend that anyone told not to worry about talking to the SEC for the SEC's own investigation had dirt on the whole plot? I'm sure not saying that, so why are you trying to pretend I am saying that? Oh right, you need to conjure up the most ridiculous extrapolations possible. It's what coincidence theorists do.
How about explaining how they count? John O'Neill died on 9/11. You would think if he had foreknowledge he wouldn't have taken the job at WTC. Sibel Edmonds was hired by the FBI AFTER 9/11 and found some untranslated material that MIGHT have exposed the plot. Do you know the meaning of the word FOREKNOWLEDGE? Coleen Rowley doesn't claim the government had foreknowledge, but did claim the FBI's incompetence led to missed opportunities that MIGHT have uncovered the plot. Kenneth Williams thought something was up with the flight schools, but had not uncovered the plot. If Robert Wright's claim that he and 10 other FBI agents knew the time and place of the attack, each one of them should be brought up on charges and face the consequences of their silence. OR Robert Wright was trying to sell more books. Steve Butler didn't uncover the plot. He uncovered some of the financing that, if followed, might have uncovered the plot. Senator Leahey claimed 9/11 could have been avoided if everyone had done their job. That is his opinion. Does he have any evidence this is true? No. How stupid does someone have to be to understand NOTHING is absolutely proveable? Look at 9/11. TONS of evidence yet a bunch of complete idiots pretend like the evidence doesn't even exist. No matter what an investigation claims, there is nothing to stop the retards from coming out of the woodwork and pretending they know better. The insider trading was found out to be completely unrelated to 9/11. You do know that the guy who bought the vast majority of the United put options also bought a massive amount of American Airlines stock, right? How do you explain that? As for Ahmad, the former head of the ISI, the Times of India, made that claim and could not back it up. You do realize India and Pakistan are enemies right? Maybe you should actually research 9/11 instead of making a bunch of claims that have already been proven to be complete bunk. We can agree on that! I love exposing the idiocy of the TBM! Ah, the usual truther ignorance of pretending 19 hijackers working alone and with no need to cover their tracks once the deed was done is EXACTLY the same as an entire government planning, preparing for, executing and then covering up fake attack by 19 hijackers. On what grounds? Baseless claims by an Indian newspaper? My you truthers love to pretend people are guilty based on opinions, don't you! The rest of us actually require EVIDENCE of someone's guilt above and beyond the claims of an enemy nation's paper. A lot of the communication breakdown was by law and by design and extended back well before Bush. At least we have our story straight. Care to explain how your posts like to bounce around between LIHOP and MIHOP and seem to believe whatever retarded theory happens to fit the moment?
Let me remind everyone what you posted: Still want to try and claim my statement is a strawman? Yeah, you're not saying that. You're just letting Ruppert say that and hoping that no one figures out that Ruppert has no clue what he's talking about. Talk about your coincidence theories. So which is it? Do only a few people know something, or did the SEC deputize hundreds if not thousands of people to keep them from divulging information? What evidence do you have that they did so to prevent them from talking?
Your quote asserted that people would have spoken up, yet didn't. I responded with a few who did. You seem to be gear-shifting, like your team is famous for, in a desperate attempt to spin away from your original, easily falsifiable claim. Regardless, you did fine "teh Googles" work in an effort to create a few more overlapping coincidences. My claim: corruption. Your claim: mind-boggling incompetence. Either way? No one was fired. Odd. This is painfully bad writing. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. You seem to have buttressed my argument, however, in that you admit tons of evidence exists. Thank you. In the other thread, you claimed this mystery man bought all the puts. Now just the majority. In neither thread did you provide a link for context. Please do so. While Fetzer may not demand you back up your work, I do. Several puts waited too long and were never even claimed, sacrificing an enormous profit for the sake of avoiding heat. So the assertion that the FBI knew all the perpetrators and questioned everyone is patently false. How much "backing up" should they have made? You seem to be a big fan of the FBI. Very well, as I'd say the FBI's confirmation of their findings lends credence. Or is the FBI's word situational? Here, I'll show you how to support your work with a link we can both verify. Give it a try some time: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/10/terrorism.politics/print This is all the more remarkable when this is the same Omar Sheikh who, at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, before the New York attacks, as confirmed by Dennis Lormel, director of FBI's financial crimes unit. LOL. Project much? But then, that's not what I've claimed at all. Again, let me know what the imaginary opponent you've created in your own head says in response. Or not. You mean like the FBI confirmation above? Or is your "So? single-source!" ploy going to change to "so? two sources? big deal!" Too funny. So, the FBI should be trusted when it comes to the insider trading narrative, but it's full of crap when it comes to the Mahmud-Atta link. Noted. Well, we don't call you coincitards for nothing. Ah yes, the entirely partisan explanation that alludes to the great "Gorelick Wall," whereby Clinton-era operatives made it impossible to protect America. Good one. But thoroughly debunked by Philip Shenon's book "the Commission," among a half-dozen other sources. No, you really don't. Which is what makes this so entertaining, time and time again. No, because they don't bounce around one iota. That's just you redefining and assuming a straw man argument. I'll let you dance with that imaginary foe. Meanwhile, I'll be over here adhering to "let it happen on purpose" summary, and not deviating from it at all. Do better.
Actually, Ruppert was simply quoting a Oct. 2001 San Francisco Chronicle story that has the SEC, itself, saying it. In a two-page statement issued to "all securities-related entities" nationwide, the SEC asked companies to designate senior personnel who appreciate "the sensitive nature" of the case and can be relied upon to "exercise appropriate discretion" as "point" people linking government investigators and the industry. That doesn't seem like the singular, rigid definition of the word as you prefer it. That, instead, has the SEC encouraging people not to spew what they know to anyone but them. Oops. False dichotomy, for the win! Neither. If you're called upon to testify as a witness, it doesn't mean you must have known or not known about a crime in question. You're merely a witness providing testimony that helps support the prosecution or the defense's narrative. You get how this works, right? I mean, you're the self-proclaimed law expert. What evidence do you have that the initiative 1) goes so far as to take the step of deputizing them, AND 2) "encourages" them to talk, ... despite characterizing the entire process as "requiring discretion?" In my opinion, based on known public record: The SEC, led by Bush League appointees, gained control over the investigation, tied up loose ends, destroyed the records, and make the money trail go away. That doesn't mean the SEC was in on the plot, or wasn't; merely that it takes orders and follows them. If those orders were as vague as "we don't have time for this while we're on a war footing, don't spend much resources on it," then so be it. So don't pretend I'm saying the SEC is part of the conspiracy. Focus on what I type, not what you hope I must mean.
Not ONE of those people was involved in the conspiracy. I realize to dishonest people this differentiation might seem trivial, but to the rest of us it is critical. Wrong yet again. You have nothing to prove corruption and the incompetence, if you can call it that, is only visible in hindsight. Unless you're going to make being able to see into the future a requirement for working at the FBI, you're barking up the wrong tree. Your inability to comprehend English is not my concern. Maybe there are some classes you can take. Regardless, my claim did not help your argument in any way, and instead exposed the idiocy of your claims. Better luck next time. This has been gone over to death, but if you insist. See, unlike you truthers, I can actually back my claims up. From page 516 of the PDF (page 499 if you have the hard copy) of the commission report, paragraph 130. Really? And your evidence to back this up is? Oh right. You have no evidence. So who are we to believe? You or the 9/11 commission, the SEC, the FBI, and the securities industry.... wow. That is a tough one. Tell you what. I did one better. Let's see you do the same. Here is Dennis Lormel's contact information. Call him or email him. Ask him yourself. I did years ago when this came up. He never made that claim and had NO evidence of anything involving Ahmed. Nope. I was being serious. You've proven either some severe ignorance on the events surrounding 9/11 or purposeful ignorance. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I was directly responding to your implied claim that the hijackers couldn't have done it alone. If that is not what you meant, say so, but trying to pretend you didn't claim it is a blatant lie as it is there for everyone to see. Call him. Write him. Don't rely on others. Do some work yourself. Think about it. If Lormel really made that claim, it would be huge news, not some small claim in a UK newspaper. You know what? If you had done your homework instead of relying on the truther sites that are chock full of lies, your claim above might not look quite so petty and ignorant. Again, some research would have made your claims look far more intelligent and a lot less ignorant. If I meant Clinton I would have said Clinton. Did Clinton add to the problem? Yes. So did George H W Bush, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. When you ASSume, you make... well, you know how it goes, except you failed to make an ass out of me. Better luck next time. Yes, we really do. And compared to the TBM where no two truthers can even agree on what happened, much less who did it, I wouldn't be bragging. I don't have to. It is quite clear in your posts that you bounce between LIHOP and MIHOP. Maybe you need to research the difference between LIHOP and MIHOP. Maybe you should take your own advice and do better. Much better. Much MUCH better. I would say you can't do worse, but I've seen truthers do far worse, so I won't go there.
Jiggs, I do not even bother anymore. These people have a form of mental illness. And I learned long ago that it is not nice to make fun of the handicapped. I remember not to long ago I was able to get some of them to even start fighting themselves. They can't agree on anything. Who planned the event, who carried it out. Some of them can't even agree on what it was that hit the buildings. Some claim nothing did and it was all an illusion. Others it was missiles. Still others that it was empty planes. Then there are those that say they were hijacked just as all the information states, but it was still arranged by President Bush. Or the Mossad. Or the Trilateral Comission, or the Masons. I am surprised that nobody has tried to place the blame on the Mormons and Boy Scouts yet. The 9/11 Truth movement is simply a bunch of mentally unstable paranoids who feel totally helpless in a world that they can't control. And since they can't control it, that means somebody else must. So they project it onto every boogieman they can think of. I also find it funny that both sides politically make the same claims. That the Government controls all our lives. But on the Right, they want to take away all of your rights and put you into prisons. On the Left, they just want to kill you. Ask for evidence, they have none. Just a bunch of disjointed and confused theories, with evidence that often contradicts with other evidence. And to this day, over 11 years after the fact, not a single individual has ever come forward with evidence to show how they were involved with the plot. Other then people like KSM.
This is nothing but personal attacks propped up by a very sill logical fallacy.. Universal consensus amongst all those who disagree with you shouldn't be expected or required, and lack of such proves nothing. What evidence did KSM come forward with?
I've just argued with you for pages to get you to admit this.. Now you finally do, but while also trying to revise history to pretend like you said that all along.. As always, I show the quotes to prove it.. HERE is you claiming KSM the owner: I asked you for real world forensics evidence against KSM.. You replied: "How about what was found on KSM's computer including (but not limited to)...." "What incriminates KSM is he had this information at his residence..." Now I proved that you lied that it was captured from KSM's residence as KSM was a guest in another's home when he and the hard drive were seized, and finally got you to concede that KSM isn't necessarily the owner of the computer. This is good; you've moved to a somewhat more reasonable stance, however you don't need to lie and pretend like I had it wrong the whole time when clearly it was your argument as I proved by showing your quotes. There are only two possible ways the hard drive can implicate KSM.. If he is proven to be its owner, or if there is incriminating stuff about him specifically on it.. NEITHER of these have been proven by you.. You've conceded the former as not necessarily true, and for the latter you've not pointed out a shred of such incriminating content from the computer that ties to KSM specifically. So unless you can prove these, or even specify another way the computer can connect KSM to the crime besides the possession or reference to him in its content, you fail to actually support your case using that evidence. Again, it takes more than "we found the murder weapon" to prove a murderer guilty... Find him on camera using it, find it registered to him, find his fingerprints on it etc. THEN the murder weapon may implicate him... You have to actually somehow TIE the evidence to the accused.. THIS is what you are failing to do. No and I never said it had anything to do with these alleged "confessions".. Whether or not the hard drive belongs to KSM does however have bearing not on his confessions, but on the computer and its usefulleness as conclusive evidence. Trying to redirect to your only other piece of "evidence" is simply a red herring on your part. I have refuted the "confessions", your ONLY other piece of evidence you've presented, as inconclusive (not necessarily untrue) separately and for different reasons. As for the computer and its value as evidence for your case, try to stay on that topic when talking about THAT exhibit of your evidence. YES! I would think for you to make such bold statements about the information on this computer and how it most certainly implicates KSM, and even go so far as to call my idea retarded for imagining the possiblity of otherwise, you SHOULD have a working knowledge about the contents of the files. How else could you be so qualified to make such statements about the content? The only thing that's funny is when someone says that a piece of evidence is CONCLUSIVE proof against someone for a crime, yet asked even the most basic question about it and they are clueless and are all like, "how should I know?" If you know so little about the evidence and have so little working knowledge about it, then how are you so sure it implicates KSM? My guess is because your leaders told you it implicates KSM.. It doesn't look like anything you've independently corrobarated, that's for sure. Now the "how should I know" copout as I'll call it you are using is a bit too weak now to support your previously made statements, which should REQUIRE a working knowledge of the computer's contents: I merely asked if you could accept the fact that KSM, the guy you think must be behind 9/11 from a to z, wasn't referred to on the computer with all that 9/11 stuff on it. You replied: "Where the hell do you get off pretending there was no references to KSM?!? That is the most retarded thing I think you have ever said. Do you have evidence there is no specific reference to KSM?" -Your first attempt to shift the burden of proof, demanding I disprove the existence of alleged KSM references on the computer instead of you pointing out such references. You then said that me saying there's no specific reference to KSM on the computer was "an absurd claim" and a "bad ASSumption" on my part.. Clear as day.. Page 18 #174. The most logical debate path here is for you to now either point out the KSM references on the computer, or admit they aren't necessarily there. You failed to do either, just resorting to swopping the burden of proof instead. On a side note, you should really research this topic if you want to debate it.. KSM, even though his English skills are not very good at all, made it clear enough, in broken English, that he disputes at least 90% of the evidence presented against him. In fact, what is the "evidence" he does NOT deny? Name ONE single piece of evidence KSM acknowledges. Not at all. I explained it.. You can lie sometimes and tell the truth othertimes.. But he must be lying about something as he said mutually exclusive things.. YOU are the one basing your argument on his words, not me.. I'm simply trying to explain the simple concept known as "credibility" to you.. If you know he lies, which is proven, you can't automatically take one statement as gospel truth on its own. That's what you're trying to do. I am not making a claim about the veracity of ANY of KSM's statements here. YOU are the one doing this. If someone is tortured or threatened into being cooperative, do you really think the cooperation demanded of them will be to scream durress?!?!? Did you even think this through? Assurances of NOT being under durress would be expected of someone under durress. How's the news going to get out? By reading KSM's latest twitter entries? Maybe KSM can give a little press conference for us? He's in solitary at Gitmo.. The only one with an unrealistic view is you. As far as anyone knows, right now, KSM would have access to one person, and that is the guy who slides his meals into his cell. And since KSM is notorious for his little rants, what makes you think this guard would even pay attention or raise an eyebrow? We'll have to chalk up your claim that he hasn't recanted as more unsubstantiated crap. Your OPINION that you think such ought to make the news, when mainstream news buries so muc on a daily basis, means nothing. If I'm wrong, explain how KSM, sat in solitary, gets his recant into the news, automatically without fail.
To a degree I agree with you, but when it comes to truthers we are not talking about anything even somewhat resembling consensus. Most truthers can't even state what happened, who did it, how they did it, when it happened or why, but BY GOD they know the government/Jews/<insert non-Muslim boogeyman here> was behind it!!! When a group of people can't even state coherently what they believe, much less defend it, there is no hope of consensus, much less anyone actually believing their crap. You mean besides his sworn confession and the confessions of his fellow conspirators? Hmmmm. You do realize a sworn confession is evidence, right?
Simple human behavior. When evidence is not obviously conclusive, the mind makes something up to fill in the gaps. Some are more imaginative and paranoid than others.
Yeah circumstantial evidence. There are many reasons one could take more credit than due.. Especially to be a martyr, facilitate AQ recruitment etc. That's why just because someone says they did something doesn't automatically mean they did.. If no one else chimes in, one might want to take credit.. It's possible KSM had a very ancillary role in the attacks (not principal architect a to z)... Since he's going down for it anyway, and won't ever see the light of day, it's likely he knows this, so as might as well take all the glory for such a spectacular attack and martyr himself, and claim he was the mastermind when he was only a smaller player.. Once death penalty is on the table, such a martyr role is possible, which is one possible explanation for a guilty plea. Nevertheless your statement is moot.. There was no "sworn" confession. And what confessions of the other conspirators are you referring to? As far as I know KSM was the only one to make such confession but I could be wrong, if you've got quotes from the other guys then I'd like to hear them.
KSM was living there. Whether the house belonged to another is immaterial, as is your whole argument about who owned the computer. He has not denied the fact he was involved in 9/11 and helped plan the attacks. Taking my quotes out of context does not do your credibility any good. But hey, if it makes you feel better, go for it. So why do you still insist on ignoring the sworn confession that makes the matter of the hard drive moot as I've been repeatedly stating? That is not my job, nor are you the person that needs to be convinced that the material indicts KSM. That has already been done by the prosecutors. Do I have the specifics? No. Do they? Yes? Did they indict him? Yes. Did he admit to it? Yes. So what is the issue? Why? You have "we found the murder weapon and the guy confessed along with his buddies". Why is this not good enough for you when to the rest of the known world a confession is solid gold evidence? They are not "alleged" confessions. They are confessions. The fact some nobody on the internet doesn't want to believe them is immaterial. The FACT of the matter is KSM and his fellow terrorists have confessed to 9/11. You've refuted nothing. Your paranoid delusions about the conditions under which he confessed are immaterial. Because the people responsible for indicting and prosecuting KSM said it has all the data necessary to convict him. I don't have to have first hand knowedge of the exact contents to know that they are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing. Do you honestly think the prosecutors are going to try and charge KSM with a hard drive that has nothing to do with him? If I were the prosecutor this would be true. But I am not. Trying to pretend I should have first hand knowledge of evidence to be used to convict a man when neither the trial nor the specific details of the evidence have been released is just retarded. Do you deny that the prosecution believes the evidence is conclusive proof?
Read above. You repeating the same lame theme over and over again doesn't prove your case, but does go a long way towards proving just how desperate you've become to prove your terrorist buddy's innocence. If I were the prosecutor, that would be true. Why do you pretend that the prosecution is going to release detailed information when it could ruin their case? You know they wouldn't, so you rely on pretending anyone who points to this evidence as (*)(*)(*)(*)ing should know first hand EXACTLY what is on the hard drive instead of relying on the FACT the prosecution has used it to indict a man based on that evidence. So the prosecution would submit as evidence a hard drive that contains no references to KSM in order to indict KSM? Wow. Using your lame logic, any prosecutor anywhere can claim any hard drive is evidence no matter what is on it. Or are you going to admit that the logical conclusion is that the hard drive had specific information tying KSM to 9/11 and that is why it was used to indict KSM? Really? I've read the testimony over and over again. Where does he say he denies 90% of what is on there? Does he deny the letters from OBL? Nope. Did he deny the chat sessions with the hijackers? Nope. Did he deny the biographies of any of the hijackers? Nope. Did he deny the spreadsheet detailing the payouts to the families? Nope. Did he deny the letter to the UAE? Nope. Did he deny the operational procedures for an Al Qaeda cell? Nope. So what did he deny? In his own words, there were only TWO PIECES of evidence he denied out of everything presented which was more than just what was on the hard drive. He denied telling Al Jazeera that he was the head of the Al Qaeda military committee, and he whined that some of the evidence was listed twice in reference to the Bojinka plot. He also whined his name was misspelled. Does that count towards your 90% claim? Nope. Because KSM doesn't say the information is wrong other than outlined. He says his witness would say it was wrong. Not the same thing even though you blatantly lie about it. Again this goes towards my argument KSM was doing everything he could to get Hawsawi there. Nothing else makes sense. So what kind of person lies about being responsible for 9/11? So KSM was under duress when he gave his testimony before the tribunal?!? What is your evidence of this? You're blatantly making (*)(*)(*)(*) up and hoping nobody notices. Pretending that he was under duress but couldn't SAY he was under duress is just asinine. So now you're claiming KSM doesn't have a lawyer? Isn't that how people in confinement usually get out information? If he wished to recant his sworn confession, wouldn't he have scheduled an appearance before the tribunal? Of course he would. You pretending he is completely without means to communicate with anyone including his legal team and the prosecution is just absolutely nuts. I believe I just did. Can you refute it? Do you have evidence KSM cannot talk to either his defense team, the judge, or the prosecution?
A confession is NOT circumstantial evidence in ANY court of law. Try again. Wrong. While he did not take the oath before the tribunal, he did swear to Allah. So what holds more weight to a Muslim? Being truthful before Allah or being truthful to an oath to a tribunal? Regardless, the confession was recorded and confirmed by the tribunal as true and KSM admitted to it. That is a sworn confession no matter how much you want to get KSM off the hook. Source You didn't know that all five asked to confess to the crimes? Wow. And you accuse me of not doing my research.
This is one of the main reasons why I refuse to recognize almost all conspiracy theories. One thing they almost all have in common is that they never agree with each other other then the fact there is a conspiracy in the first place. They can't agree on who, how, why, or anything else. If you can't even agree with each other, why should you expect rational people to agree with any of your claims?
That's kind of weak, intellectually, don't you think, as Republicans and Democrats cannot agree politically, and husbands and wives disagree too. I think, what should matter, is if there is any truth behind the allegations of a conspiracy. Maybe you're just reading too many unqualified subjective opinions, man.
Why do you think we keep asking for evidence? If there were ANY truth behind the allegations, there would be evidence. There isn't any. This isn't the kind of discussion where one's political or philosophical comes into play where there is no definitive right and wrong. This is about what happened. This is about the truth. Truthers can't even come CLOSE to coming together. Truthers can't even agree with themselves based on how the discussion is going. There are MANY examples of a truther switching theories because they've been beaten so bad that they can't even pretend anymore. It would be one thing if they gave up the theory altogether, but they don't. They wait a while and then come back to the original theory after going through the same cycle with other theories. So back to your point. IF there is any truth behind the allegations of conspiracy, then yes it should be investigated to the nth degree. The problem is repeated requests for proof that the allegations are true will get you one of three things; silence, lies, or opinions. So do we start an investigation based on an individual's paranoid delusions and not based on the available evidence? Keep in mind that the individual in question has already rejected the truth in favor of the paranoid delusion, so what possible confidence can ANYONE have that they will accept the findings of any invesitgation that does not come to the same conclusion as their paranoid delusion?
Yes. I ragged on one truther at the 9/11 forum because he wrote this enormous article about how he had been wrong about so much before and had been fooled by so much disinformation but has recently found the truth...but is using the same kind of data, subjective analysis and Youtube videos. Alas, don't worry, man. I was speaking mostly in generalities, not exactly to this 9/11 convo. I disagreed with Mushroom's statement. It is intellectually weak to me. Nevertheless, good post!
Translation, "I am going to continue to make up tons of evidence, and totally ignore anything that does not agree with what I believe". This is one thing I love about conspiracy theorists, and they do it all the time.
There are differences between matters of opinion, and hard facts oround an event that already happened. Your argument is weak, very weak. Yes, the two political parties argue and fail to agree. But that is generally on things like how to fix the economy. I doubt you will find the parties disagreeing as to who won WWII, or who the last 44 Presidents have been. When you look at most things historically, even the few conspiracies that were real, historians rarely dissagree on what happened. A good example of this is Operation Valkyrie. A real life conspiracy, and just about everything is known, as well as most of the participants. But then we leave conspiracies and enter the relm of conspiracy theories. Where nothing is known, evidence contradicts itself, even the theorists contradict themselves. So you may try and claim my comparison is weak, but in actuality your counter is weak due to poor examples. You are trying to compare very subjective examples, which often have no right or wrong solutions. And compare this to the "hard facts" that each of these theorists claims to have (or is being covered up, etc, etc). Because we are not talking about something as nebulous as how to solve a budget crisis. These theorists can't even agree on what struck the buildings in the first place (some say aircraft, some say empty aircraft, some say missiles, some say drones, then some even say nothing struck the buildings, it was all special effects).
We know the "official" story is BS. That's enough to know the fairy tale we were told is predicated on lies.
