posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:39 PM
Well there are so many theories going this way and that about 9/11, and a lot seem to follow a logic of:
1. Official explanation is inconsistent
2. Come up with alternate theory
3. Stop unless major flaw.
There doesn't seem to be a point often where It is compared to the official theory to see if either of them are actually a good explanation for a
So what I'm asking for, is a proper explanation to compare against the official theory. And hopefully one which is consistent enough to actually
explain all observed aspects in such a way as to fool everyone.
Starting from the conception of the entire idea of 9/11, through to the collapse of the WTC.
Basically something that explains how all demolition explosive was put into the WTC with no one noticing, explains how they knew where exactly the
Planes would hit (or whatever they were), in order for it to do the right damage.
Then explain how the controlled demolition worked considering that the areas of the explosion severed all the pipes etc but don't sever the
Following onto where all the molten steel got there. And why if we are in no doubt that planes hit the WTC, why a missile hit the pentagon instead.
Oh and that if planes were changed for missiles, where did the planes and passengers go?
It would be nice to see a unified theory on this, rather than lots of small ones about individual aspects.