A few thoughts as I find this matter amusing.
1.) Do you not see the Irony in posting "experts" opinions on whats happened, on the internet, as undeniable proof you are right, to dispel people who post "expert" opinions on what happened, on the internet, as undeniable proof they are right?
2.) About #8, Why would you believe anything that wouldn't stand up in a court of law. All of those have "reconstituted" audio and have been through the very channels otherwise accused.
While it doesn't mean they are wrong, it does go against the arguement of the CT's. If you go to court accusing a cop of being corrupt..you cannot take the sworn testimonial of that cop that he is in fact not corrupt as proof. Conflict of interest.
Does no one find it wierd that a CT on July 25 2001 talked about Exploding Airplanes and a terrorist attack on US soil being perpetrated by the Gov't in the coming months and blamed on Osama Bin Laden?
Now, while it is most likely a case of a Million Monkeys (or CT's) in a room with a Million Typewriters going at it..
Shouldn't there be an open investigation? Even if not into wierd tinfoil hat stuff..at least into rational questions like "Was he in on it?", "Did he communicate with terrorists?"
I mean, Does no one think its wierd that all the details of 9/11 were solved by 5pm that day? Convenience store robberies where the guy is caught and signs a confession aren't solved that fast.
Why shouldn't there be an open public discussion into all aspects of 9/11? Not for Conspiracy theories but at least to know what all went wrong and who we should blame. And it would be the publics right to know so they could make informed election decisions.
