Skeptical
Haven't most of these theories been thoroughly disproven?

As I mentioned in another post, the problem with a lot of these "facts" are quoted by people who have do their research arse about face. They have a conclusion that they wanted to come to such as "building 7 was destroyed in a controlled explosion" then scour for the facts to back this up, ignoring anything that contradicts this conclusion. There's a term for this, but I can't be bothered going to SkepDic to look it up.

Building 7 was leaning, making ominous creaking noises and showing signs of colapse, well before it came down, which is why the FDNY abandoned it to it's fate.

i think there are a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11, but they are somewhat hidden by conspiarcy theories like Loose Change. There is a school of thought that these conspiracies are put about to deflect the questions that should be being asked, like how there were such massive breaches in security and how no-one noticed that all this was being planned or, if they did notice, why nothing was done to prevent it.

Saying that it was just an excuse to start a war is massively unrealistic, not least because the planning would have had to have been started in the previous administration (Clinton) then handed over to GWB, without there being any leaks.

And the leaks are the important things here. The sheer number of people who would have been involved in plotting this kinda thing would mean that someone would squal at some point and the truth would come out.

My take on it it that the security forces dropped the ball and allowed it all to happen.
(ScousersPet, Tue 8 Jul 2008, 14:32, Reply)