There's no need for you to ever ask such a question, regarding this subject matter, anyway. Just assume it, k? Quite serious.
you should be able to explain what you think happened on that day or where the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong.
I'm sure you can do neither.
Check please.
It's amusing when cons like you present a challenge, and then go ahead and misrepresent an answer in the same breath. Followed, of course, by the declaration of some sort of smarmy "victory."
'Check', indeed.
Quite the contrary, I don't NEED to explain what happened that day. All I require of myself is that the case is made -- when presenting the evidence -- that it was never truly investigated in the first place. ... I believe that is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, as means, motive and opportunity are all well-established, yet the 9/11 Commission never came remotely close to fulfilling their mandate. Kean and Hamilton essentially ADMIT that fact in their book: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Without-Precedent-Inside-Story-Commission/dp/0307263770"]Without precedent[/ame]. NORAD lied, the White House stonewalled at every turn, and the director of the investigation was a Bush League lackey who wrote WH policy papers for the future occupation of Iraq.
But, if at knife point, you insist I offer a narrative of what I believe happened that day, very well, I will sum it up as best I can:
As spelled out in their PNAC essay "Rebuilding America's defenses" from the late 90s, and in adhering to the lessons gleaned from Tri-Lateral Commission founder and author Zbignew Brzezinsky in his book "Grand Chessboard" regarding central Asian energy reserves, I believe a cabal of the Cheney administration suppressed known intelligence and let the attacks happen for the purpose of creating, once and for all, a tangible foreign threat. This threat, real or perceived, would in all certainty galvanize America's support for retaliation, and grease the skids for expanded imperialism in largely-uptapped, liquid energy-rich nations. It is a known fact that mankind has flat-lined on global energy production since 2004, while demand continues to skyrocket. They knew, years ago, that this was coming, including no later than 1999 in London, when Dick Cheney admitted global oil decline to the Institute of Petroleum. Something always had to give, and the Cheney gang set out to mitigate the drawdown of the American empire, at the very least. Let them (China, India) eat cake. "The American way of life is not negotiable," Dick even said it on Meet the Press.
I don't think they believed those buildings would actually collapse, but they knew an attack was coming by way of hijacked aircraft. They set about to willfully suppress known surveillance (Phoenix Memo), bury testimony (Moussaui), ignore direct warnings (Putin et al) and change safety protocol (Cheney putting himself in charge of all operational management in the event of a domestic emergency). They coordinated as many as 5 different wargame scenarios -- some involving live hijack drills -- for that very morning, pulling most fighter cover away from the northeast sector. They got no straight answers from NORAD concerning who was in charge that day, nor any accounting for their noticeable time-line discrepancies. And of course, no one could find Donald Rumsfeld for 30 crucial minutes that fateful morning, when HE was required to advocate the shootdown order. Exactly HOW does the civilian chief of our military leave his post as the nation is under attack ... and somehow not lose his job?
To use a poker probability analogy: The array of overlapping coincidences that coincitards expect Americans to believe regarding the events that unfolded that day is akin to expecting a poker player to believe a particular opponent being dealt a pair and flopping a set 25 times in a row is completely plausible, and to never question the integrity of the dealer.
