I have a question.

[cali]

Ok, I've read a few "truth sites" and I saw "Loose Change", which by the way, I though was literally laughable, but that's about the extent of my familiarity with the MIHOP stuff. Oh yeah, I've read a few threads in this forum.

Here's what I want to know: If it was an inside job, why the WTC? Why so many of their own, so to speak? Why Olsen's wife? I mean, if the purpose was to foment war, they could have just hit the Pentagon and crashed a few aircrafts into less prominent targets. Really, that would have been excuse enough. Hitting the WTC, (if it was MIHOP) they took a huge gamble, aside from wiping out right wing interests.

[dailykoff]

1. Hi cali, there are many good reasons

(from the planners' perspective) that the Trade Center was worth far more dead than alive. Here are a few that I'm aware of:

1. Their construction included many thousands of tons of asbestos which as you may know has become a huge problem for real estate operators both in terms of removal, which would have cost several times the worth of the buildings, and liability to claims by construction workers and tenants.

Depending on the judgments, the WTC owners, insurers, and asbestos suppliers--which include a mining company owned by Haliburton--could have faced asbestos exposures on the order of $250,000,000,000.00 (that's 50,000 five-million dollar judgments).

2. The towers were aging, inefficient white elephants that never made a profit and were never fully leased, unlike the Rockefeller Center whose success they were intended to imitate.

3. They were a drag on the NYC real estate market. Several prominent investors including the NY Times, Time Warner, Hearst, and Mayor Bloomberg had huge midtown office buildings under construction or in the works, all of which benefit from making 10,000,000 s.f. of cheap downtown office space disappear.

There were probably other reasons too but those are the ones I know about.

[TheWraith]

16. The asbestos and non-profitable statements are false.

For starters, it would have cost only $200 million to completely remove the asbestos from the towers. Furthermore, the towers were insanely profitable, worth about $3 to $3.5 billion dollars on the market--twice what they'd been worth just about three years earlier. And the asbestos thing had been known since the early nineties, and it wasn't an issue.

[dailykoff]

19. Oh brother. $200 million is $855,000 per floor,

counting subfloors. They'd be lucky to change the linoleum in the bathrooms for that kind of money. Asbestos mitigation would realistically cost on the order of a hundred times that amount.

Your other figures are too ludicrous to waste time on.

[TheWraith]

20. My figures come from reality. Where do yours come from?

Silverstein payed $3 billion dollars for the WTC lease, and he only got it because the bid of $3.2 billion from another investor fell through. And those were in 1998, whereas the value of the WTC had doubled since the early nineties. So yes, $3 to $3.5 billion dollars in value.

And $200 million is the official estimate for asbestos cleanup, as entered into the federal court system when they were hashing out whether it was even neccessary. A figure which, I will note, is accepted as fact by many CT websites.

[dailykoff]

21. The reality is that Silverstein overinsured a worthless

white elephant and the insurers went along to avoid paying the massive asbestos liabilities I explained above.

[Contrite]

22. If it "wasn't an issue" why was it in ongoing litigation?

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7196971_ITM

No Insurance Coverage of WTC Asbestos Removal.

COPYRIGHT 2002 American Lawyer Media L.P.

Byline: Shannon P. Duffy, U.S. Courthouse Correspondent

In litigation that began years before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the owners of the World Trade Center office complex in New York are not entitled to insurance coverage for the costs of removing asbestos.

"The mere presence of asbestos or the general threat of its future release is not enough" to trigger coverage under a first-party insurance policy covering "physical loss or damage," U.S. Circuit Judge Joseph F. Weis Jr. wrote in Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co., et al.

The decision upholds a ruling handed down in 2001 by U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell of the District of New Jersey which held that unless asbestos in a building was of such quantity and condition as to make the structure unusable, the expense of correcting the situation was not within the scope of such a first-party insurance policy.

The litigation began in 1991 when the Port Authority sued a slew of insurers seeking $500 million to $1 billion for the costs of abating asbestos in the World Trade Center and the Newark International Airport.

But the suit was put on hold for several years while the Port Authority pursued a separate suit against the makers and installers of the asbestos products.

(more at link above)

To the end, the World Trade Center was a mix of A and B tenants; multiple floors taken by companies who became sadly famous on 9/11, like Cantor Fitzgerald, and other floors (43,000 square feet each) sitting ragged and empty, or filled with numerous tiny businesses identical to those you would expect to find in a second class office building on 42nd Street. It took until about 1990 to become profitable, based on the aggressive courting of banks and brokerages who took multiple floors; some of the government offices ultimately moved out, though the Tax Authority was still there at the end. The 1993 attack sent the complex's finances staggering again; in the changed atmosphere of the late 1990's, there was increased sentiment in favor of privatizing the World Trade Center. In July 2001, less than three months before the attacks, the Port Authority granted a private developer a 99 year lease on the property, ending its history as a publicly managed landmark, and officially setting it free from its failed mission as a beacon of international trade.

http://www.spectacle.org/yearzero/huge.html

Before the building was sold to Silverstein, (Westfield America,) Stephen Roth, (who I think runs the "ADL" with Vernado Realty,) worked to take the bid as high as possible, offering $750.M more than the next lower bidder. Did he even have the money? Two months before the official auction, he withdrew the ridiculous bid. Could this have been a mistake, or just a 'foil' to make Silverstein's bid look legitimate? Interestingly enough, ADL's global presence was established through a massive re-capitalization in 1991. Researchers have noted that this occurred simultaneous to an unexpected rise in 'neo-Nazism' propagated in Germany, and attributed to "CIA instigators," under George Bush Sr's control.

Between 1989 through 1993, the downtown Manhattan real estate market was in decline, offering suspicion that the WTC owners may have accommodated the first bombing, courtesy of either the CIA, or the FBI. Both, The World Financial Complex, and Battery Park Improvements Project had attracted the WTC's biggest tenants, diminishing its lease viability. By 1996, the internet had "decentralized," (or at least threatened,) the financial industry, further eroding the profitability of this property. Each event significantly factors into this timeline, but I remain focused on the underlying motives:

The building was bid at $750.M, and cost$1.2B to build. It was worth about $4. to $5.B at its peak., but, would have cost nearly $15.B to un-build it in 2010 dollars, or as it neared its 1/2 'safe' life. Obviously, it was Imploded, because there was never going to be a 'break-even' point for either, the current, or future owners!

http://www.redlineav.com/tsg.deposition.contd.2.html

[StrictlyRockers]

29. Pwned. I was an asbestos paralegal for several years and I know the figures.

Contrite is correct. The asbestos clean up would have realistically cost into the billions, not the low hundred millions. In adjusted dollar figures the asbestos clean up costs may have come close to negating any real value for the towers. Asbestos mitigation is an extremely laborious, extremely costly procedure.

SR

[RovianPlot]

2. There were some very interesting tenants

not just in the towers, but in wtc7. I would imagine there was a lot of information to go along with them, now lost. Many are part of the revolving doors between military , intelligence, and large corporations. It sounds like you don't know that much about it, yet you
say Loose Change is "laughable". It's been so long I don't even recall what was in LC. What I find "laughable" is the version of events we've been given. Don't you wonder why there has never been a trial or investigation? Don't you wonder why fake tapes were made for Osama bin laden's confession and no one went after him? Don't you wonder why there are no serious questions from the media? Incuriousness killed the cat (or the middle class in this case) Read about it yourself, don't ask people on a forum, although I have a feeling you've already made up your mind, because usually what people do is start studying about something not watching videos on youtube. Or, one would hope..

[TheWraith]

17. Oy.

"not just in the towers, but in wtc7. I would imagine there was a lot of information to go along with them, now lost. Many are part of the revolving doors between military , intelligence, and large corporations."

Ah, yes, the lovable CTer tactic of sinister implication. Make suggestions without having to have any kind of proof, or even make statements which take a particular position.

"It sounds like you don't know that much about it, yet you
say Loose Change is "laughable"."

It is laughable. Loose Change has been thoroughly debunked time and time again.

"Don't you wonder why there has never been a trial or investigation?"

Out of curiousity, have you been asleep under a rock for five years, that you've missed both the investigation and the trial of the alleged 20th hijacker?

"Don't you wonder why fake tapes were made for Osama bin laden's confession and no one went after him?"

And I suppose you have proof that the Bin Laden confession was fake, right? And we imagined that whole war in Afghanistan?

[Contrite]

24. Sinister implication.

"You are either with us or you are with the terrorists".

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Another good example, Contrite.

That sinister implication from Bush is just like the sinister implications of the CTs. Excellent example.

[Contrite]

26. I dislike CTers being accused of "sinister implications"

when engaged in questioning what seem to be odd "coincidences" leading to other odd "coincidences" in a never-ending chain of odd "coincidences" that remain unexplained. If there are "benign reasons" for these "coincidences" then I think CTers would like to hear them rather than continuing to have partial answers, such as "we erred", that do not suffice to fully explain the "coincidences" being questioned.

It's unfair play that seeks to label us, in the same way that we are often labeled "nuts", "stupid", or "ignorant" or even, "unpatriotic". Edited to add: In fact, I reject the label "CTer".

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Sinister implications are what CTers do best...

...have you seen some of those CT videos? Some of them are nothing but sinister implication and innuendo all the way through.

If you don't like it, change it about your fellow advocates. Don't disparage us when we point it out - we aren't the problem. The sinister implications are.

[Contrite]

28. This is how it was presented.

"Make suggestions without having to have any kind of proof, or even make statements which take a particular position."

That is a blanket statement seeking to characterize "CTers" as a group as somehow disingenuous about their intentions in investigating certain events. Moreover, it does not necessarily indicate engaging in "sinister implication".

It better defines "hypothesizing" alternative theories in the face of not being quite able to accept the explanation proffered.

[jarnocan]

3. 911 Mysteries has some very interesting answers for that Profitability-on many levels

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=143335&mesg_id=143335 can find it here. You do not have to agree with everything in Loose Change, hey a couple very bright skillful kids did peak people's interest- give them crdit for that. But what about other scientist ant witnesses? Not agreeing with every conclusion, in an earlier vide,o does not mean one should not consider any new information.

[JackRiddler]

4. Which sites did you visit?

Loose Change is a corruption. Keep in mind 9/11 skepticism and research started on 9/11, and it was almost four years before LC arrived with a bunch of the worst, least-substantiated but oh-so spectacular ideas to exploit 9/11 skepticism with a snarky voice and a cool soundtrack. It is popular in large part because the media and the debunkers favor it, preferring an easy target.

This is about the basic ideas of transparency, accountability and full truth disclosure, without which democracy and a republic do not exist. Apply skepticism to the official pronouncements first, and they do not stand. What then? 9/11 is the basis for a global war and the entire Bush agenda. And it is a lie. That a bunch of fools in the conspiracy niche market try to come up with outlandish idea to grab more attention than their competitors is a very minor matter, by comparison.

So it is very relevant which sites or authors you read.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. A good one would be Triple Cross by Peter Lance.

It's saturated with hindsight, but some things are undeniable, and it's definitely piqued my interest to look into some things. I feel like some accounts are sketchy at times (the office politics in the FBI's New York office, for one - I think there's more there in the conflict between Floyd and others, but the main facts are clear).

Al-Qaeda proves to be a patient, methodical, and dedicated organization, able to capitalize on every major mistake made about them, and to exploit the American intelligence system with remarkable ease. I used to wonder why Salameh kept trying to get back his deposit on the rental truck used in the '93 bombing. How could he be so stupid? With this book, I wonder no more. With the audacious crap these guys were getting away with, trying to reclaim the truck deposit isn't a surprise at all.

[StrictlyRockers]

30. This is an EXCELLENT book, from what I have heard.

I very much want to read it.

People who I respect praise Peter Lance.

SR

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Warning: there isn't a lot of CD-plane denial-energy beam hooha in it at this point.

Peter tends to stick to the facts.

[Grateful for Hope]

6. Well said

I understand that some think that everyone has the right to express a hypothesis based on the fact that the current admin is so secretive, but, when the hypotheses are out-there on their face, and impossible to prove as a bottom line, then, I think that such hypotheses have the effect of detracting from the quest of those who want to know the truth about 9/11.

[dailykoff]

9. Actual people committed actual crimes

and they need to be brought to justice. Trivializing the evidence (however it's packaged) and bloviating about newspeak non-issues like "transparency, accountability and full truth disclosure" is simply contributing to their defense.

[JackRiddler]

10. Sure

Ignoring the obvious evidence of facilitation, foreknowledge and advance planning, and obstruction of justice -- all of which means TREASON -- because it's "too lame" or "too LIHOP." That helps bring the perps to justice. Right?

But if you really want to bring the perps to justice, you should make up spooky-sounding shit about non-existent pods, or cruise missiles, or the disappearing Flight 93. It's best to base your claims on blurry video, or the simple absence of pictures from a crash site (pictures that are then produced can be called fakes, whether or not there is any positive evidence of this).

In addition, you should get "minor" facts wrong in a serial manner, such that no one who can check facts takes you seriously. Taking the quotes out of context to make it sound like someone supports your case when they do not (and pretending they're not going to notice) is a very good way to get the perps.

Also, you should constantly expand the perp list until it includes every camera person who happened to record the events of Sept. 11th, or even the "baseball cap" guy on the street who expressed too-eloquent a belief in the later official story about how the Towers collapsed. You need to have a list of 1,000 perps minimum, and ignore that you've got cases against Rice, Myers et al. for anything as minor as perjury (or that these might unravel the rest of the plot). No, if you can't nail David Rockefeller and Larry Silverstein and the bankers and the Tavistock Institute all in one go, it's only helping the perps.

Any whistleblowers who come forward need to be attacked for being limited hang-out.

When called on any of this, rather than correcting yourself, you should say, hey, it's the big idea that matters, not the little facts.

Or better yet, you should just call anyone who corrects you a CIA agent. Or even better: You should apply this strategy premptively, go the route taken long ago by Haupt, WingTV, Hufschmid and others. Just call EVERYONE in the movement other than your direct fan-base agents of the CIA/Tavistock/Zionist/whatever. After all, since the perps knew to create a controlled opposition in advance, anyone now doubting the official story must be THEM, right?

THAT will bring the perpetrators to justice.

Fucking brilliant.

[dailykoff]

15. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Yes, there were and are many secondary and tertiary planners and colluding beneficiaries of 9/11, and I would be delighted to see every one of them tried and hung.

But let's not get distracted. The key players were the president and vice president and there's a constitutional mechanism in place for dealing with their crimes. The others can wait.

And if we don't address their crimes there will be others, like a nuclear attack on Iran.

[HamdenRice]

7. Why don't you start with this site:

Paul Thompson's cooperativeresearch.org. New York Magazine called it the "gold standard" of 9/11 research. It doesn't draw any conclusions, but is a massive timeline, at times minute by minute, based on mainstream media sources, almost all of which can be instantly verified through links.

For me, just reading the exact sequence of events in the weeks before 9/11, the day of 9/11 and the immediate aftermath made me conclude that the official story is complete horseshit. What's amazing is the number of "facts" that were reported immediately after the attacks that have fallen down the memory hole.

For example, it doesn't make sense to me that an "Islamic fundamentalist" fanatic, Mohammed Atta in Florida would get hammered nightly in strip clubs, deal in and extensively use cocaine, live with an American stripper/lingerie model/party girl, eat pork chops, and go out to dance badly at clubs. Nor would I expect two Islamic fundamentalist cells in Boston and New Jersey to call around for hookers to set up a party the night before the attacks when they were expecting their 19 or so black eyed virgins in heaven in just a few hours.

As for why the WTC, I imagine the best reason is that it was already attacked by Muslim extremists in 1993, and elements of the jihadist movement vowed they would finish the job. So whether it was an inside job, or Atta and crew were manipulated and discretely aided, or were the real thing and the attacks were allowed to happen, the WTC would be the logical target.

As for NY interests, if you are not from around here, you may not know that for decades, the towers were considered the most hated buildings in NYC. I once read a poll of architects in NY Magazine asking which buildings would you most like to tear down and the WTC and the incredibly ugly Pan Am (now Met Life) building that straddles Park Ave. and Grand Central Station, perhaps the only worst building in NYC, were at the top of the list.

I used to go salsa dancing on the plaza of the WTC with my SO in the summers before the attacks, and although New Yorkers were beginning to humanize that space with these kinds of events, it still was one of the bleakest, most unusable, wasted public spaces in the city -- a perfect translation of the monstrous ideas of Corbusier, the so called tower in the park, that has devastated cities all over the world.

[dailykoff]

8. There is not a glimmer of a chance that the attacks "were the real thing"

and pretending there is simply aids and abets the criminals who planned and executed this atrocity.

[JackRiddler]

12. More reasons for destroying WTC...

I am genuinely agnostic on the demolitions question. I can go into 100 arguments on both sides.

Demolition is not necessary to "inside job," though it would of course as good as prove it (anyone arranging a demolition would need access to secure areas of buildings), which is one reason people are so attracted to it. If not for WTC 7, I wouldn't even bother debating either side of the question.

Until 2004, demolition was secondary to the 9/11 skeptics' movement.

But to answer the OP's question, assuming inside job, what would be some motives for destroying the WTC?

- Psychological operation: traumatizing hundreds of millions with the live (televised) experience of watching thousands die and knowing that they are watching this live. Think of it this way: watching planes hit towers is the shock, but the subsequent biblical collapse wave is the AWE. One looks like a movie, the other looks like the Hammer of God (and gives an astonishing climax/conclusion to the story). Horrific, impressive, sudden imagery makes people susceptible to programming with the desired paradigm. Pictures of singing Palestinians and Osama bin Ladin are then played ad infinitum to the suggestible forebrain. (It even worked on me for a few days.)

That the propaganda reaction was automatic and prepared should be obvious. If 9/11 wasn't an inside job, the media and govt. still managed to react instantaneously with a prepared script. Which is not ultimate proof of anything, but tells us something important about the media/govt. and the "war on terror."

- Economic incentives: Whoever is doing this is not the "right-wing" but a specific perp. Odds are they're gaining from it directly as well as indirectly. As others have pointed out, the minimum insurance payments more than double the owners' expenses to date. Private ownership (established just before the attacks) allows a silencing of the people. (Think about it - before the privatization, the owner of the WTC was every citizen of New York and New Jersey, and could have sued as owners to get clarification about many issues.)

- Acceptable sacrifice: You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. If you're planning world war 3 through 7, which is what PNAC and the Bush Regime and its handlers are all about, you might risk even losing a friend or two in the carnage of the WTC so as to fulfill your grandiose, global (impossible) vision.

Every day, the people in power show you they are part of a whole class of totally reckless nutjobs. Does 9/11 seem like overkill for achieving the power to plunder trillions of dollars, launch a series of wars that will kill millions or hundreds of millions before they are over, and achieve the total militarized/surveillance state at home? In fact, it hasn't fully sufficed for these goals. So no, it's not really overkill.

- Consider the alternative: Towers still stand after being hit. New York real estate plunges and stays in the basement for two to three years as an extremely dangerous, massive 50-billion dollar operation to dismantle the towers floor by floor is undertaken. Now that's just too much ugly imagery: it keeps the immediate pain and questions alive, longer. You see the propaganda and economic difference in disposing of the Towers instantly?

[eyl]

23. This is wrong

For example, it doesn't make sense to me that an "Islamic fundamentalist" fanatic, Mohammed Atta in Florida would get hammered nightly in strip clubs, deal in and extensively use cocaine, live with an American stripper/lingerie model/party girl, eat pork chops, and go out to dance badly at clubs. Nor would I expect two Islamic fundamentalist cells in Boston and New Jersey to call around for hookers to set up a party the night before the attacks when they were expecting their 19 or so black eyed virgins in heaven in just a few hours.

There have been other cases where Islamic terrorists went on a (normally forbidden) binge just before their attacks. Remember that in their belief system, martyrdom cleanses of all sins, including the ones you comitted just before.

As for NY interests, if you are not from around here, you may not know that for decades, the towers were considered the most hated buildings in NYC. I once read a poll of architects in NY Magazine asking which buildings would you most like to tear down and the WTC and the incredibly ugly Pan Am (now Met Life) building that straddles Park Ave. and Grand Central Station, perhaps the only worst building in NYC, were at the top of the list

Relevence? The question is if they were profitable or not, not whether the man on the street considered them an eyesore.

[CJCRANE]

11. Political will/capital.

The PNAC documents stated that a "cataclysmic event" was needed to provide the political will for vastly increasing the military (and I guess also to justify a pre-emptive war policy). The Pentagon, being a military target, provided a casus belli but it wasn't "cataclysmic". United 93 if it had reached Congress might have wiped out the Legislature (thus leading to a de facto dictatorship).

But the WTC implosion was the "spectactular", the cataclysmic/apocalyptic event that stunned America, a kind of Third World War image straight from a sci-fi disaster movie.

(Even then after the attacks finished and America breathed a sigh of relief that it was over the neocons threw in some anthrax to keep the fear and paranoia going).

[JackRiddler]

13. I think anthrax was insurance...

Something went wrong on 9/11. Possibly the Capitol was to be targeted. Look at how the anthrax was targeted: first the media, to get them in a frenzy. Then, pow, Daschle and Leahy.

Daschle and Leahy?!

[CJCRANE]

14. "Something went wrong on 9/11".

I think you're right. Didn't Cheney disappear to a secret location soon after 9/11...and wasn't there some kind of "Armageddon protocol" implemented with a secure base put on standby for an emergency govt? If the Capitol or WH had been knocked down the base would probably have been used giving the appearance of martial law.

As things turned out, Cheney's disappearances to his "secret bunker" just seemed funny/strange.

[rman]

18. You're behind the times if all you've seen is "Loose Change"

I highly recommend "9/11 Press For Truth"
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250&q=%229%2F11+Press+For+Truth%22&hl=en

a clip / teaser
"Kissinger Vs. the 9/11 Families"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxjJDlbnC4

[barbtries]

32. i have a few ideas,

nothing that i KNOW. because if i know anything at all about 9-11-01, it's that i don't KNOW what happened. nonetheless, from the beginning i did not believe that coordinated simultaneous hijackings of US passenger aircraft could possibly succeed without at the very least the conscious decision by persons in the highest echelons of political power in this country to allow those crimes to proceed, and succeed.

and over the course of the past six to twelve months i have researched and read and read and watched and listened...until i was at last convinced, of that which i am presently convinced: 911 was orchestrated and perpetrated as a false flag terrorist attack by neocons/bushies/corporate fascists with delusions based on what they see as not only possible, but desirable: total US hegemony over the planet and outer space, accomplished via perpetual aggressive warfare, particularly targeting those lands where certain resources - like oil - exist.

so, to answer your question, why the world trade center? it certainly packed the maximum amount of outrage potential. but there are some things i have learned that may make it more logical to you. Larry Silverstein took out a huge insurance policy on the WTC just weeks prior to the attacks. the policies specifically covered acts of terrorism. he reportedly collected twice to the tune of over a billion dollars, because both towers came down.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html
there were situations with the WTC that suggest that this was just what the doctor ordered for the owner. the towers were aging and had been constructed using asbestos. reportedly tenancy was down in the buildings and within just a couple or so years, silverstein was going to have to undertake an asbestos abatement program in the twin towers, which would have been prohibitively expensive at the same time it would undoubtedly cost more tenants.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/40476/
The Towers were White Elephants in NY City. They were not the High society place to do business, I guess. Their occupancy rate plummeted in the months preceding 911. Larry Silverstein purchased a 99 year lease from the NY Port Authority just months before this tragic event

the security for the WTC was reportedly provided by a company with which GW's brother Marvin was associated; a cousin supposedly was also a principal. they also held contracts for Dulles airport and american airlines, i believe. certainly fact-check me. but i will add one thing here. in 2000 after the election i recall being very disgusted and quite convinced that it was NOT a coincidence that FL - jeb's state - was the state where the election was strong armed by the president.

i didn't even remember that bldg 7 had come down, but since i have watched the video of silverstein telling PBS that he and NYFD agreed to "pull" it. Bldg 7 according to "Loose Change" housed the secret service, the CIA, and reams of documents related to ongoing financial scandals and/or criminal cases either being investigated or prosecuted. for instance enron.

The 911 truth movement is where sense can be found. because so much has been hidden so successfully from the population of this country and even of the world, members of the movement speculate about what really happened. i don't recall the catalytic article or video that started me really really researching what happened on that day, but since it's become a bit of an obsession, i find that as with spiritual beliefs such as whether or not there is god, or life after death, i have to choose what i believe. i am not an expert, but i am a very logical person, and certain things on 9-11 simply do NOT MAKE SENSE:

- the intelligence failure - please! CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, DOJ, all the branches of the military...there was just no way that something as massive as the coordinated hijacking of four commercial airlines would not have involved some preparations, movements of money and people, and communications that would have raised flags with our intelligence community.

- the defense failure - are you shitting me?! paper cutters? four jets are hijacked and suicidal muslims take over for the pilots, change course and expertly navigate these huge jets to all of their predetermined targets, with the exception of the plane in PA. from the first day i knew this was not credible, but it's only been during the past several months of research that i have learned that beyond any doubt the jets should have been intercepted by US fighter jets, that, in fact, if someone in a position of authority had not circumvented business as usual on that day, they would have been. on various sites i have learned that the decision making for such a scenario was taken out of the hands of the joint chiefs of staff and placed in the hands of the vice president a couple months before 9-11. i urge you to research this further - because maybe it's not so blatant as it seems to me now.

- This point really, resonates with me, and i don't for the life of me understand how the hell they get away with this! it's like the american people have not wanted to know the truth about 911 - they just wanted a convenient enemy to hate for what happened. regardless. the gw administration has actively obstructed any real investigation. it took them over a year to create the 911 commission, and when they did, they populated it with neocons, people who clearly had conflicts of interest that would prevent them from pointing the finger at anyone in the bush administration no matter how deserved. then they devoted less money to learning what happened on 911 than they devoted to learning that bill clinton got head from monica and came on her dress. THREE THOUSAND INNOCENTS MURDERED! where is the outrage?!

- and there is more, but i'll let this be the last point i make in this post anyway. the gw admin and their corporate fascist partner/fans/whores have made BOOK on 911. and they have used it to deceive the american public into a travesty of a war and occupation in iraq. and they let osama bin laden go and fucking forgot about him! and they have been systematically and quite thoroughly robbing the people of the US of their rights expressed in the constitution and the bill of rights when this nation first came into being. cleverly mouthing catch words to hide their evil ends all the while.