What I KNOW is that we have been lied to enough. False promises, false reports etc. Fool me once, shame on them. Fool me twice, shame on me. They have lost my trust pure and simple.

Do I "know" what happened? No. I do know that they lied and are still lying because I have caught them in their lies. So I see no logical reason to even give them the benefit of the doubt.

"Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it."

The entire "government" may not be corrupt, but the people responsible for sponsoring this terrorist act are capable of ANYTHING.

I watched this footage of the first collapse taken from within the lobby. Where are the explosions? There are some loud noises from bodies hitting the awnings, elevators plummeting to below ground level, debris falling. No bombs going off above the lobby to initiate a collapse though. If you can hear any charges going off, please let me know, as I must've missed them.

Warning, this footage may upset some people.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=246_1252784976&p=1

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c2_1252778443&p=1

By the way, I know it's a long shot, but has anyone bothered to read the material posted some pages back?

How's that 'proof' coming along? Is there any chance you might post it in the near future? I mean, I don't want to badger you, but it would be great to read a paper with some real data that supports your position. I've seen all the videos over and over again, and to be frank, they're not really all that convincing. Anyway, I'm getting a little tired of watching long videos with a narrative that could be read in 10 mins. So, if you have anything that could be considered scientific on the WTC7 collapse, I'd be appreciative if you would kindly share it.

can I call you BLUEFACE now?
In case you been holding your Breath!

It is interesting how many people think that Explosives and Fire are able to co-exist in the same space!
There you have a raging Fire for hours,then they blow the Building with FIREPROOF Explosives!

Back on topic.

How does the extreme nature of CTer thinking indicate a level of skepticism?



This quote suggests quite linear 'black & white' thinking. The statement indicates that 'if you don't believe what I believe' you must support the 'Official version'. Now, this crops up all the time and is quite an extreme stance. There is no middle ground, or room for doubt. One is one type, or the other. That does not demonstrate the qualities one would expect in a true 'skeptic'.

Another example:



Is this the critical thinking one would expect to read from a skeptic? The testimony of a small group of fire-fighters that conflicts with other evidence is not 'ignored' but employing Occam's razor, probably deemed 'inaccurate' owing to the extreme nature of the circumstances. This does not confirm any form of conspiracy theory, nor does it confirm the conclusion reached. The 'national security state' is merely a hyperbolic device and there is a wealth of scientific data available on how the buildings collapsed if one cares to look.

So, by reaching such a flawed conclusion without trying to evaluate all the available evidence, the CTer doesn't really demonstrate the thought processes one would expect to find in a true skeptic. Examining the language employed, one can ascertain the political bias that influenced such a flawed conclusion and note how opponents of the hypothesis (remembering the dualistic nature of the contention), possess the lowest IQ of the targeted demographic.

Another example:



Is this an example of logical and reasoned thinking? Hardly. The causality within these sentences demonstrates an extremely 'black & white' belief system that again, has no room for middle ground. One must be 'either'-not somewhere in between. This is not the critical thinking one would expect to find in a true 'skeptic'.

Now it is clear that these extremist examples may actually represent veiled slights directed at those who do not follow a particular 'dogma', and as such are not universal examples of the thought processes employed by every conspiracy theorist. However, they in no way support the 'Conspiracy Theorist is the 'true Skeptic' hypothesis presented in the OP.

A true skeptic would look into a contention; try to collate as much data on a given subject, and evaluate the data on its merits, while maintaining an open mind and trying to remain objective. The skeptic would make use of tools, such as logic, research skills, identifying subjectivity, probability and language skills to assess the data in order to ascertain a reasoned evidence based hypothesis.

The flaw in CT methodology (and this is quite apparent in discussions) is that a conclusion is reached, highly influenced by personal bias and then the data is selected in order to confirm the hypothesis, while ignoring, or dismissing that which conflicts with the hypothesis. Sources are rarely assessed for accuracy and subjectivity (except when in conflict with the hypothesis) and specious causality comes into play regularly. Political views and other biases are highly influential in arriving at a hypothesis with any opposition treated as a threat, while any mainstream discipline or belief that conflicts with the hypothesis becomes an attribute of that threat.

Do these examples indicate a level of critical thinking one would expect to find in a skeptic, as suggested in the OP video?

In a word, no.

yep,Good Show indeed!

Also, the CTers seem to have an absolute memory of about two weeks before everything that proves they are wrong is gone (or they claim it never existed). Then it starts all over again.

The fires didn't get hot enough to melt steel!! (they didn't have to.)
Explosives were used ______ fill in the blank. (none were used anywhere).
The beams were dustified! (too stupid to discuss really)
Bush did it. ( )
Anyone that ridicules us truthers is stupid. (yeah ... right.)

n order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy.

You only have to know two things.

One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.

It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.

On 9/11 Doubts Were Immediate

On September 11, 2001, a neighbor telephoned and said, “turn on the TV.” I assumed that a hurricane, possibly a bad one from the sound of the neighbor’s voice, was headed our way, and turned on the TV to determine whether we needed to shutter the house and leave.

What I saw was black smoke from upper floors of one of the World Trade Center towers. It didn’t seem to be much of a fire, and the reports were that the fire was under control. While I was trying to figure out why every TV network had its main news anchor covering an office fire, TV cameras showed an airplane hitting the other tower. It was then that I learned that both towers had been hit by airliners.

Cameras showed people standing at the hole in the side of the tower looking out. This didn’t surprise me. The airliner was minute compared to the massive building. But what was going on? Two accidents, one on top of the other?

The towers—the three-fourths or four-fifths of the buildings beneath the plane strikes–were standing, apparently largely undamaged. There were no signs of fire except in the vicinity of where the airliners had hit. Suddenly, one of the towers blew up, disintegrated, and disappeared in fine dust. Before one could make any sense of this, the same thing happened to the second tower, and it too disappeared into fine dust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6alf9_xswA

The TV news anchors compared the disintegration of the towers to controlled demolition. There were numerous reports of explosions throughout the towers from the base or sub-basements to the top. (Once the government put out the story of terrorist attack, references to controlled demolition and explosions disappeared from the print and TV media.) This made sense to me. Someone had blown up the buildings. It was completely obvious that the towers had not fallen down from asymmetrical structural damage. They had blown up.

The images of the airliners hitting the towers and the towers blowing up were replayed time and again. Airliners hit the top portions of the towers, and not long afterward the towers blew up. I turned off the TV wondering how it was that cameras had been ready to catch such an unusual phenomenon as an airplane flying into a skyscraper.

I don’t remember the time line, but it wasn’t long before the story was in place that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang had attacked the US. A passport had been found in the rubble. Another airliner had flown into the Pentagon, and a fourth airliner had crashed or been shot down. Four airliners had been hijacked, meaning airport security had failed four times on the same morning. Terrorists had successfully assaulted America.

When I heard these reports, I wondered. How could a tiny undamaged passport be found in the rubble of two skyscrapers, each more than 100 stories tall, when bodies, office furniture and computers could not be found? How could airport security fail so totally that four airliners could be hijacked within the same hour? How could authorities know so conclusively and almost immediately the names of the perpetrators who pulled off such a successful attack on the world’s only superpower, when the authorities had no idea that such an attack was planned or even possible?

These questions disturbed me, because as a former member of the congressional staff and as a presidential appointee to high office, I had high level security clearances. In addition to my duties as Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, I had FEMA responsibilities in the event of nuclear attack. There was a mountain hideaway to which I was supposed to report in the event of a nuclear attack and from which I was supposed to take over the US government in the event no higher official survived the attack.

The more the story of 9/11 was presented in the media, the more wondrous it became. It is not credible that not only the CIA and FBI failed to detect the plot, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, which spies on everyone on the planet, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, Israel’s Mossad, and the intelligence agencies of Washington’s NATO allies. There are simply too many watchmen and too much infiltration of terrorist groups for such a complex attack to be prepared undetected and carried out undeterred.

Washington’s explanation of the attack implied a security failure too massive to be credible. Such a catastrophic failure of national security would mean that the US and Western Europe were never safe for one second during the Cold War, that the Soviet Union could have destroyed the entire West in one undetected fell swoop.

As a person whose colleagues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington were former secretaries of state, former national security advisors, former CIA directors, former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I was troubled by the story that a collection of individuals unsupported by a competent intelligence service had pulled off the events of 9/11.

As a person with high level government service, I knew that any such successful operation as 9/11 would have resulted in immediate demands from the White House, Congress, and the media for accountability. There would have been an investigation of how every aspect of US security could totally fail simultaneously in one morning. Such a catastrophic and embarrassing failure of the national security state would not be left unexamined.

NORAD failed. The US Air Force could not get jet fighters in the air. Air Traffic Control lost sight of the hijacked airliners. Yet, instead of launching an investigation, the White House resisted for one year the demands of the 9/11 families for an investigation. Neither the public, the media, nor Congress seemed to think an investigation was necessary. The focus was on revenge, which the Bush neocon regime said meant invading Afghanistan which was alleged to be sheltering the perpetrator, Osama bin Laden.

Normally, terrorists are proud of their success and announce their responsibility. It is a way to build a movement. Often a number of terrorist groups will compete in claiming credit for a successful operation. But Osama bin Laden in the last video that is certified by independent experts said that he had no responsibility for 9/11, that he had nothing against the American people, that his opposition was limited to the US government’s colonial policies and control over Muslim governments.

It makes no sense that the “mastermind” of the most humiliating blow in world history ever to have been delivered against a superpower would not claim credit for his accomplishment. By September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden knew that he was deathly ill. According to news reports he underwent kidney dialysis the following month. The most reliable reports that we have are that he died in December 2001. It is simply not credible that bin Laden denied responsibility because he feared Washington.

But Osama bin Laden was too useful a bogeyman, and Washington and the presstitute media kept him alive for another decade until Obama needed to kill the dead man in order to boost his sinking standings in the polls so that Democrats would not back a challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Numerous bin Laden videos, every one pronounced a fake by experts, were released whenever it was convenient for Washington. No one in the Western media or in the US Congress or European or UK parliaments was sufficiently intelligent to recognize that a bin Laden video always showed up on cue when Washington needed it. “Why would the ‘mastermind’ be so accommodating for Washington?” was the question that went through my mind every time one of the fake videos was released.

The 9/11 “investigation” that finally took place was a political one run from the White House. One member of the commission resigned, declaring the investigation to be a farce, and both co-chairman and the legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission distanced themselves from their report with statements that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” that resources were withheld from the commission, that representatives of the US military lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for criminal prosecution.

One would think that these revelations would cause a sensation, but the news media, Congress, the White House, and the public were silent.

All of this bothered me a great deal. The US had invaded two Muslim countries based on unsubstantiated allegations linking the two countries to 9/11, which itself remained uninvestigated. The neoconservatives who staffed the George W. Bush regime were advocating more invasions of more Muslim countries. Paul O’Neill, President Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, stated publicly that the Bush regime was planning to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. O’Neill said that no one at a National Security Council meeting even asked the question, why invade Iraq? “It was all about finding a way to do it.”

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-01-10/politics/oneill.bush_1_roomful-of-deaf-people-education-of-paul-o-neill-national-security-council-meeting?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

The leaked top secret Downing Street Memo written by the head of British intelligence (MI6) confirms Paul O’Neill’s testimony. The memo, known as the “smoking gun memo” whose authenticity has been confirmed, states that “President George W. Bush wants to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” In other words, the US invasion of Iraq was based on nothing but a made up lie.

As an engineering student I had witnessed a controlled demolition. When films of the collapse of WTC building 7 emerged, it was obvious that building 7 had been brought down by controlled demolition. When physics instructor David Chandler measured the descent of the building and established that it took place at free fall acceleration, the case was closed. Buildings cannot enter free fall unless controlled demolition has removed all resistance to the collapsing floors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESol88wOi0

If airliners brought down two skyscrapers, why was controlled demolition used to bring down a third building?

I assumed that structural architects, structural engineers, and physicists would blow the whistle on the obviously false story. If I could see that something was amiss, certainly more highly trained people would.

The first physicist to make an effective and compelling argument was Steven Jones at BYU. Jones said that explosives brought down the twin towers. He made a good case. For his efforts, he was pressured to resign his tenured position. I wondered whether the federal government had threatened BYU’s research grants or whether patriotic trustees and alumni were the driving force behind Jones’ expulsion. Regardless, the message was clear to other university based experts: “Shut up or we’ll get you.”

Steven Jones was vindicated when chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen In Denmark reported unequivocally that the scientific team in which he participated found nano-thermite in the residue of the twin towers. This sensational finding was not mentioned in the US print and TV media to my knowledge.

Several years after 9/11 architect Richard Gage formed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, an organization that has grown to include 1,700 experts. The plans of the towers have been studied. They were formidable structures. They were constructed to withstand airliner hits and fires. There is no credible explanation of their failure except intentional demolition.

I also found disturbing the gullibility of the public, media, and Congress in the unquestioning acceptance of the official stories of the shoe-bomber, shampoo and bottled water bomber, and underwear bomber plots to blow up airliners in transit. These schemes are farcical. How can we believe that al Qaeda, capable of pulling off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history and capable of devising improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that kill and maim US troops and destroy US military vehicles would rely on something that had to be lighted with a match? The shoe and underwear bombers would simply have pushed a button on their cell phones or laptops, and the liquid bomb would not have required extended time in a lavatory to be mixed (all to no effect).

None of this makes any sense. Moreover, experts disputed many of the government’s claims, which were never backed by anything but the government’s story line. There is no independent evidence that anything was involved other than firecracker powders.

The case of the underwear bomber is especially difficult to accept. According to witnesses, the underwear bomber was not allowed on the airliner, because he had no passport. So an official appears who walks him onto the airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas day. What kind of official has the authority to override established rules, and what did the official think would happen to the passenger when he presented himself to US Customs without a passport? Any official with the power to override standard operating practices would know that it was pointless to send a passenger to a country where his entry would be rejected.

The circumstantial evidence is that these were orchestrated events designed to keep fear alive, to create new intrusive powers for a new over-arching federal policy agency, to accustom US citizens to intrusive searches and a police force to conducting them, and to sell expensive porno-scanners and now more advanced devices to the Transportation Safety Administration. Apparently, this expensive collection of high-tech gadgetry is insufficient to protect us from terrorists, and in August 2012 the Department of Homeland Security put in an order for 750 million rounds of ammunition, enough to shoot every person in the US 2.5 times.

Naive and gullible Americans claim that if some part of the US government had been involved in 9/11, “someone would have talked by now.” A comforting thought, perhaps, but nothing more. Consider, for example, the cover-up by the US government of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed or wounded most of the crew but failed to sink the ship. As the survivors have testified, they were ordered in a threatening way not to speak about the event. It was twelve years later before one of the USS Liberty’s officers, James Ennes, told the story of the attack in his book, Assault on the Liberty. I continue to wonder how the professionals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology feel about being maneuvered by the federal government into the unscientific position NIST took concerning the destruction of the WTC towers.

What will be the outcome of the doubts about the official story raised by experts? I worry that most Americans are too mentally and emotionally weak to be able to come to grips with the truth. They are far more comfortable with the story that enemies attacked America successfully despite the massive national security state in place. The American public has proved itself to be so cowardly that it willingly, without a peep, sacrificed its civil liberty and the protections of law guaranteed by the Constitution in order to be “safe.”

Congress is not about to expose itself for having squandered trillions of dollars on pointless wars based on an orchestrated “new Pearl Harbor.” When the neoconservatives said that a “new Pearl Harbor” was a requirement for their wars for American/Israeli hegemony, they set the stage for the 21st century wars that Washington has launched. If Syria falls, there is only Iran, and then Washington stands in direct confrontation with Russia and China.

Unless Russia and China can be overthrown with “color revolutions,” these two nuclear powers are unlikely to submit to Washington’s hegemony. The world as we know it might be drawing to a close.

If enough Americans or even other peoples in the world had the intelligence to realize that massive steel structures do not disintegrate into fine dust because a flimsy airliner hits them and limited short-lived fires burn on a few floors, Washington would be faced with the suspicion it deserves.

If 9/11 was actually the result of the failure of the national security state to deter an attack, the government’s refusal to conduct a real investigation is an even greater failure. It has fallen to concerned and qualified individuals to perform the investigative role abandoned by government. The presentations at the Toronto Hearings, along with the evaluations of the Panel, are now available, as is the documentary film, “Explosive Evidence–Experts Speak Out,” provided by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The government’s agents and apologists try to deflect attention from disturbing facts by redefining factual evidence revealed by experts as the product of “a conspiracy culture.” If people despite their brainwashing and lack of scientific education are able to absorb the information made available to them, perhaps both the US Constitution and peace could be restored. Only informed people can restrain Washington and avert the crazed hegemonic US government from destroying the world in war.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7jNOSQRRHzEA27oQRAUJ;_ylc=X1MDUCMxNTEzNDAwNDgEX3IDMgRjc3JjcHZpZANsM0h6cWtnZXVyRFRsNlpMVVFRUjN3eUcyR0J4TlZFRVNVNEFCN0I2BGZyA3l0ZmYxLXlmZjEzBGZyMgNzZy1nYWMEaXQDZ3AEbl9ncHMDMTAEb3JpZ2luA3l0YgRwb3MDNwRwcXN0cgNwYXVsIGNyYWlnIHJvYmVydHMEcXVlcnkDcGF1bCBjcmFpZyByb2JlcnRzBHNhYwMxBHNhbwMyBHNlYwNyZWwtc2EEc2xrA3RleHQEdnRlc3RpZANBQ0JZMDM-?p=paul%20craig%20roberts%209%2011&fr=ytff1-yff13&pqstr=paul%20craig%20roberts&fr2=sg-gac

now just tell me where they hid 150 Forty-Foot Container loads of explosives for each Tower,and how they accomplished the feat of the Explosives not cooking off in the Fires?

and please
fix
the
Post
you
goofed
the Thread
up
with!

I suppose you also need proof that the sun comes up every day.

I don't need "proof" because the video alone is glaringly obviously a controlled demolition.

When compared with other controlled demolitions
they look pretty much exactly the same.

You can see in the video, the explosions all in a row going off
before the collapse.

There are witnesses who were there and who were INJURED BY EXPLOSIVES
before hand.

It is common sense.

For building 7 to have fallen the way it did, according to experts I have read, is impossible.

You can look for your own proof if you are interested.
I am not interested in convincing you or anyone else. I don't care
what other people want to believe. It is not my job
to prove anything to anyone.

The sheeple insist on believing the bogas 9-11 commission "report" and the ridiculous NIST report and are not willing to look at anything else.

Your statement that no explosives were used anywhere is not supported. They did not find evidence of explosives BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY DID NOT LOOK FOR THEM.

To say that "they did not have to" is stupid. To not investigate all possibilities, especially of explosives, is stupid or just a cover up. Looking at building 7 most people saw it as a controlled demolition. For them to NOT LOOK for explosives is stupid or deliberate cover up.

The steel beams being dustified is caught on video. But people don't believe their own eyes, they only believe what officialdom tells them.

Anyone who trusts in and believes the official lies and cover ups is gullible.

When you mess up this thread and make is extend real long, I can't read
the end of your sentences. I wish you people who do that would stop.

How dumb can people really be at this point. One can speculate that the Pentagon has an incredibly sophisticated surveillance system and could if t hey chose show the plane that hit it in slow motion from a dozen different angles, we got nothing. You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this baby out.

America you have been had on a massive scale, tricked into wars ha your freedoms hacked away and bankrupted. Its that damn simple.

You have been given all the tools to understand that there was no possibility of the use of explosives and you have proven to be incapable of understanding any of it. You constantly make false claims as fact when, in fact, your claims contain no truth at all.

No one with any knowledge of demolition said they were used on Building 7. People like you who don't know anything "claim" they see what doesn't exist. The light and sound of explosives leave classic evidence that would be recognized by real experts but you can't seem to grasp that simple fact.

Anybody that believes anything you say is incredibly gullible. You never have any backup for your silly theories. You add blatant lies to almost every post.

The dustification theory is idiotic. Why not slime creatures from another dimension? Would that need proof to disprove too?

No, and there is no need for such a snide response. Please, let's keep this adult if you don't mind.



No. it's not. I've read the papers produced by scientists in both camps and the peer review process always exposes flaws in the truther hypotheses.



Yes, when buildings collapse they usually collapse in a downward direction.



Seen the supposed video and experts have shown they are not explosions. Some videos have been doctored. Please post the video in question and I'll compare it to those on file at JREF. Truthers have been know to 'doctor' videos uploaded to you tube.



I take it you haven't read the 109 page examination I posted?



Of course it is. Like this is all 'COMMON SENSE':

If 'the government' was really going to use explosives to take down the WTC, why not do so and blame it on the Al Qaeda anyhow? Why introduce aircraft hijackings, 'dancing Jews', WTC7 et cetera?

If they were going to make it look like Iraq had WMD, why didn't they plant them and pretend to find the same?

If they really had vaccines that could cause autism, why not use it on their enemies over seas?

If they really were able disperse Chemtrails why not use it on the enemy population like they supposedly do the American people?

And on and on.

Yep. CT's are 'just common sense'.



No, it would be 'impossible' if it fell upwards. Just who are these experts? You could be making this stuff up.



'Experts' you've read but won't post to support this insane notion? You demand evidence of everyone else and then don't read it, then rant all day on here without a scrap of evidence and you expect those of us that are capable of reasoned thought to take you seriously?

I've looked for your 'proof' and I know it doesn't exist, only lies. Lies like the FBI planted the passport and all the other CT crap in circulation. Sorry, I just can't take the notions you support seriously as they are just too insane.

Not much critical thinking being employed by those that produce this stuff and even less by those who believe it. So, the video in the OP is just more nonsense posted on youtube in an effort to give insanity some form of credibility, by inexpertly dressing it up as 'skepticism'.

Btw, who screwed up this thread and didn't fix it using the edit function?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0Wiz1elwHU

I can't answer that because it would be breaking the rules. I hope you're not suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with you is 'dumb'?



Witnesses saw the plane and there is CCTV footage. Where have you been for the last five years? I think you'll find what you're looking for in the links I posted for you. When you get time to peruse them, of course.



I disagree, it's the CT's that are 'simple'.

Logic 101:

If 'the government' was really going to use explosives to take down the WTC, why not do so and blame it on the Al Qaeda anyhow? Why introduce aircraft hijackings, 'dancing Jews', WTC7 et cetera?

If they were going to make it look like Iraq had WMD, why didn't they plant them and pretend to find the same?

If they really had vaccines that could cause autism, why not use it on their enemies over seas?

If they really were able disperse Chemtrails why not use it on the enemy population like they supposedly do the American people?

And on and on.