Yanno... the puzzle that I have is this:

The two theories vying for contention are
Theory 1: Terrorists hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into
the WTC and the Pentagon (and a field in Pennsylvania), presumably to
terrorize the US.

Theory 2: There were =no= airliners involved (since it would be
impossible for terrorists to fly commercial airplanes), but instead our
own government covertly destroyed the WTC and other buildings,
presumably in order to motivate us to war.

Now, given that destroying the buildings in any fashion involves loss of
lots of innocent lives, if our government wanted to do this, why would
it spare the lives of a few onboard the airplanes in order to fake the
attack. Why not simply have the government commandeer the airplanes
through its own agents, and fly them into the buildings? Everything
would fit the conspiracy scenario, and none of the observations would
need to be in contention. It's far easier for trained government agents
to crash an airplane than it is for them to secretly wire the WTC for
collapse, no? And any government willing to sacrifice 3000 of its own
innocent citizens would be willing to sacrifice a few hundred more.

Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.

(for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy, and
hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.