If that's the case then you will want to keep your questions relevent to what the actual "official story" is, namely, nineteen Islamic
fundamentalists hijacked four planes and used them as suicide weapons, two of them successful, a third questionable since we can't know whether the
Pentagon was the intended target or not, and a fourth a failure. The technical details on how the towers collapsed isn't even remotely part of any
"official story" because there is no "official story" for how the towers collapsed.
Well DAVE that was exceptional and i star you and i congratulate you....there has never been anything so concisely put in all my time here in the
No matter what anyone thinks that is the extent of the official story...that is it...and no more than that...and even within that statement it is all
conjecture....not a single bit of fact.
It is what has been promoted...and as i said before there is nothing that the officials can even agree upon when it comes to the collapses....Bazants
report was not part of the "official" story ever either...it was a referenced document.
As also as stated by the commissions own people it was set up to fail...why would they say this...well i think maybe because they realized their
career misjudgment and decided they would have to distance themselves from this bogus piece of trash before they completely destroyed any kind of
human decency they may have had left in their paltry little lives.
*why was the commission under funded
*Why was Dov Zakheim not questioned
*why choose to question a low brow like Mineta
*how were the commission people chosen
*why was the commission really run by Pataki
I think Dave is right again...this thread is doomed to fail.
For one thing these are valid questions on just one aspect.
*why did bazant have a report ready with 48hrs
*why did NIST not treat it as a crime scene
*why was NIST refused access to a vast amount of material
*Why differences between FEMA and NIST and Bazant
*why was Al Qaeda implicated so fast and then Iraq implicated
I could go one and on and on....but what would the point really be....there are sooo many holes that CANNOT be answer to any degree of certainty.
I do respect also what exponent is trying to do here....And it could be that maybe the right questions do need to be asked but for every question
that is asked...it seems that it will just spark a series of more questions of which cannot be answered.
But hey best of luck in this.....because the more questions that come about the more research that will be sparked in me...but I have done a couple
of threads to get people to look into the actual people who could have FUNDED such a operation....And even without the possible use of explosives in
the buildings the operation would have cost ten times the amount of money spent on the commission...so who funded it.
now before i get my head ripped off on the ten times amount....I don't know the answer...but i do know it would not have been cheap...also planning
time would have been very long....and would have had to have been very precise....could a radical group of terrorist have planned this so well without
some kind of inside help...IMHO nope.
I mean just planning it to happen on a day of fake drills and mixing it into real world scenario I guess that was complete coincidence.