Reply #69: A considered response.

[mhatrw]

If a building collapsing at the speed dictated by gravity is suspicious, how is a building supposed to collapse in a non-suspicious way?

Asymmetrically, partially and less than the speed of gravity.

Would you care to share video of what a non-suspicious collapse looks like?

Here's what controlled demolition looks like:



If no plane hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers?

If a 767 hit the Pentagon, where did the engines hit the wall? Where did the tail hit the wall? What happened to the wings and tail? Just wondering.

If you believe that they were killed, why would you believe that any rational plotter would go to all the effort of using a missile or smaller plane to blow up the Pentagon, plus hiding and destroying the real flight and its people, when they could simply fly the plane into the building and not risk inconvenient witnesses?

If you believe that a 767 hit the Pentagon, why would the government withhold video footage showing this? Does that make any sense to you?

As a corollary, why do you insist on believing improbable, impractical and unnecessarily contorted theories about the execution of events, when simpler and more obvious explanations could still be made to fit your beliefs?

Whether or not a 767 hit the Pentagon, which is nothing but one of literally hundreds of unanswered questions about the events of 9/11, there is nothing simple about our government's explanation of how 19 Arabs outwitted our entire military, intelligence and justice departments for 2 years in the run up to 9/11 and managed to outrun the entire US air defense for a full two hours on the day of 9/11.

Finally, what's more believable to you -- that a ragtag team of 19 Arabs brandishing boxcutters (2 of whom spent months basically living with an FBI informant) managed to pull off 9/11 without any help from any powerful well-placed insiders or that this same 19 managed to pull off 9/11 with some assistance from a few powerful well-placed insiders? Why?