Just want to make sure I have this right...


We have an administration that was able to, in less than nine months in office, coordinate an incredibly intricate and flawless attack, working with terrorists that have been training for the operation in the U.S. for two full years before the administration took power, indicating that the previous administrations would have had to have been on board with this, as well?


Sold me. Pass the tin foil hats.

Yes, just nine months :rolleyes:
But it's perfectly OK to think cavemen in Afghanistan planned it and were able to overcome the logistics like air defences and making buildings a block away collapse.

The official story is not fact. It is theory that is lopsided to favor the version of events they claim. If you are truly objective and look at ALL the evidence without trying to assess blame from the start you can find the official story is not true. You at least owe that to yourself.

But then again if you still leave milk and cookies for Santa you don't deserve truth.

How is that this kind of tone is not met with the same kind of moderator admonishment as others?

Paranoia is pretty much a free-for-all these days when it's doing anything other than taking up space. This thread isn't a serious discussion anymore, we have one in Politics for it where you have to be civil, present evidence, and the consequences for being counterproductive are harsh. That thread is only 53 posts and is practically dead, read it and you can see why for yourself. I'm pretty much set in my belief that there is no way to discuss this productively because people will take evidence to mean what they want it to mean rather than stepping back and looking at it objectively.

Out of professional courtesy, I won't offer my unrestrained personal opinion on the topic, but I don't think it's really worth discussing anymore.

Thanks MSD - I agree this thread is more or less useless at this point, but I have seen others get slammed for taking an uncivil tone so was wondering why stuff like this gets a pass

Since my wonderful thread devolved into more bickering, I'll field this.

No, it was not 9 months in the making. The PNAC has been planning since at least 1994, if not earlier. Wolfowitz's words about a 'new Pearl Harbor' were absolutely clear. In addition to that, several federal agencies ran scenarios that when combined are very close to what happened on 9/11, starting in 1998. Planes crashing into the WTC and Pentagon, AF responses, bombing WTC, etc... the data was all there.

BTW, the other thread is simply slow not dead. That one thread has more data than 10 host threads combined. That takes a lot of time to process and then address.