Reply #87: "anyone who does not buy the official story"

[ma2007]

Obviously in this thtreat I do not buy it too.

So by your open definition I would be a CTer - and a CTer who claims that CTers are eager to hide what I just try to show. The defintion makes no sense or my position is completely impossible annihilating itself.

Take a definition close to the wording. The word DT includes the "C", and unless somebody claims 9/11 to be a tragic series of traffic accidents we can comonly conclude: there was a conspiracy. But of whom with whom ?
The allegation of the 19 evildoers stays without evidence. It is the official theory.

So let us take the "T". As you see I do not use or need a theory. It is fact when I say:
1. no interceptor jets were there on 9/11 in time
2. They should have neen there according to FAA rules, NORAD rules, international regulation, logic and so on.
3. Those who are responsible for the "delay" are conspirators. None of them was held responsible or even accused yet.

There is no theory in this.
Those who try to build up a case of "whatever hit, whoever planted bombs" try to build up a theory ( it is not even one by definition, btw). And if they would prevail they would lead us into the nowhere. WHO pulled the triggers for the "cruise missiles" or the "exolosions" ? There is not even proof for that, but even if - so what ? There would not even be a slightest chance to prove the authorship of the bombs. These people - willingly or led by red herring throwers - do not care a dime for the facts of this threat. Except as eye catcher - i.e. in the first minutes of "loose change" - and then to drop it behind their theories in which they lure those who must agree that the facts are commonly know: no interceptors. America defenseless. Why ?
(as you see, in the last remarks: I do focus on the OCT.