Carefully chosen and thought out wording there. But lets just focus on the few core messages within it:
You point out that It's a heated topic (of course it's a heated topic) -- and that is in fact what makes it all the more interesting to participate in as opposed to a dull topic. Nothing wrong with a heated, or highly debatable topic. In fact, I'm honestly not too heated thus far as a result of it all. So the idea to just up run away from it seems a bit over the top to me at this point.
This is what I take away from your post that hits at the original topic (here we go) --
"Could 911 have been accomplished another way? Maybe"
Of course it could have! But that's not the original question though. Could 9/11 have been accomplished in a lot simpler fashion than the CT's claim it was, yielding just as big of impact on the national awareness when it comes to terror threats? That's a simple question and the answer really is pretty simple in itself; yes, creating mayhem with two commercial airliners under your control is a no brainier really....Especially if you are hell bent on Kamikaze, dive bombing the planes into heavily populated areas.
Wouldn't you agree on as much?
That's enough really to put the fear of God into anybody sitting in traffic, or cooped up in a high rise somewhere (fanatics with two huge aircraft ready to dive bomb down out of the sky to wreak as much havoc as possible?) C'mon now.
Again, this is the key idea. No need for elaborate, shady little capers involving rigging up dynamite and firing off missiles; the planes up in the sky with those fanatic types at the controls is all the incentive one would ever need to create mass hysteria and your day of 'infamy.'
You sit there and refer to the 'perps' as manipulating the strings throughout it all. Yet, you can't really put together a clean scenario (even rough outline) to implicate some sort of proven conspiracy (the Pentagon missile theory is a bunch of nonsense.) The collapse of the buildings has been thoroughly explained in detail not only here, but elsewhere by qualified professionals. The missile disguised as a hologram is just retarded (I'm sorry, but it just is.) Plus, I know John Lear knows better than that (or you would think so anyway.)
The sad part is, hey maybe there was some treasonous happenings going on leading up to those attacks. The even sadder part is anybody really attempting to seriously weed into that is going to get labeled nut (and for good reason.) Holograms??? Case in point right there.
The Nixon administration screwed up burglarizing a hotel room (and that was news in everybody's living room practically the next day.) You honestly believe the Bush administration is capable of pulling off such a complex, interwoven plot which when put to this test by anybody capable of a bit of rational thought simply defies common sense?
It almost seems as if these warped theories about missiles and holograms are straight disinfo designed to discourage any credible person from taking a look at certain key events surrounding the attacks that may shed some new light on some wrong doing. The real investigator would be laboriously examining key people connected to the events, paper trails, intelligence documents and so forth; not the events themselves. It's no mystery what happened that day; commercial aircraft used as flying bombs to kill anybody who happened to fall victim. I'm personally not a CT, but anybody can see that the flawed investigating and sensational nonsense is killing your cause. That is if it's even a valid one, because I see nothing really compelling to make me give up hope here in the free world over some shadowy 'cabal' that is capable of doing the impossible whenever they chose at will.
Heated exchanges? I don't know about you, but I'm having a blast.
