[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

LOL. Ok. No problem.

But if its ok by you I will continue believing that we are not getting the full story

Youtube video

[Harry!]

If it was all a government scam then why would they want to cause all the pain and suffering to families who are now without loved ones, Not forgetting the thousands who lost their lives stuck in the towers. A cost of a life can not be covered by any amount of money.

[Vicky.]

Harry, do you really believe that governments care more for peoples lives than for money/power?

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Harry, do you really believe that governments care more for peoples lives than for money/power?

There is no such thing as governments as an entity they are made up by people who have families and children and there is no way that a patriotic country like the USA would not only do what you suggest but have the ability to cover it up.

[Liberty4eva]

I've looked into the 9/11 debate for years now and I am absolutely, 100%, convinced that it was an inside job. As an American, I do find it peculiar that in countries like the UK, Ireland, Australia, and Canada people think American foreign policy was evil, people thought George W. Bush was evil, yet the vast majority of them would not go the extra step and say that he could have been behind the whole 9/11 thing. It's as if they're allowed to think he was evil but not THAT evil.

All it takes is a little bit of understanding of physics and the knowledge that there is no way, in this world, that building 7 could have collapsed without explosives being involved.

Youtube video

I hate to quote Star Trek but once you've eliminated the impossible whatever remains however unlikely must be true. There is so much more evidence that supports the controlled demolition theory and contradicts the official story. It really is a mountain of evidence. When you finally realize 9/11 was an inside job and there were people at the top who planned it you will then realize that there has been a web of deceit and lies by the government and media. You'll realize that supposed anti-Republican, anti-Bush media like MSNBC and anti-Bush icons like Michael Moore were not as anti-Republican and anti-Bush as they lead you to believe. Fahrenheit 9/11 appeared to hurt Bush and be a 2 hour hit-piece on him but in actuality it helped them cover up the truth. Michael Moore when confronted on 9/11 truth by private individuals said he talked to firefighters who heard explosions and we don't know half of all the things that happened on 9/11 yet he has never given public support to 9/11 truth. When you finally put 2 and 2 together you'll realize the world is a scarier place but at least you'll be awake.

Someone mentioned that if it was an inside job it would have shown up on wikileaks by now. Wikileaks outright lies on Building 7 when they say no one reported hearing explosions around WTC 7. There was eye-witness testimony from Peter Jennings who was inside the building and heard and experienced explosions and there is video of someone outside WTC 7 and you hear explosions in the video. All these people at the top have a vested interest in covering up the truth and propogating the myth and are not beneath lying to accomplish it.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I've looked into the 9/11 debate for years now and I am absolutely, 100%, convinced that it was an inside job.....


All it takes is a little bit of understanding of physics and the knowledge that there is no way, in this world, that building 7 could have collapsed without explosives being involved.


I hate to quote Star Trek but once you've eliminated the impossible whatever remains however unlikely must be true.

Thats as maybe but a greater understanding of physics as applied to building weight loadings etc and you would know the opposite.

Its not originally Star Trek you know, its a quote by a character called Sherlock Holmes frequently used throughout the storires wrote about him by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. (Go figure.........)

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Harry, do you really believe that governments care more for peoples lives than for money/power?

... Kind of. Yes, you can argue they don't care about lives in war, and it's silly of me to suggest that power is not a big influence. But I don't think governments are made of monsters like these kind of theories believe and suggest.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Judas

... Kind of. Yes, you can argue they don't care about lives in war, and it's silly of me to suggest that power is not a big influence. But I don't think governments are made of monsters like these kind of theories believe and suggest.

No but it does suit the nuts who use conspiracy theories to explain why people at the bottom of the social strata cant better themselves after all it couldnt be their own inadequacies could it?

[letmein]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

There is no such thing as governments as an entity they are made up by people who have families and children and there is no way that a patriotic country like the USA would not only do what you suggest but have the ability to cover it up.

Naive... tragically naive.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Thats as maybe but a greater understanding of physics as applied to building weight loadings etc and you would know the opposite.

The reaction you get from people who are experts at buildings being presented with footage of Building 7 collapsing is at odds with what you say. Danny Jowenko is European demolition expert and this is his reaction to seeing footage of Building 7 collapsing.

Youtube video

In fact the 9/11 truth movement is comprised mostly of professionals. There are a lot of loud people in movement, the "9/11 was an inside job" chanters, but it is mostly professionals.

But, IMHO, you don't even have to be an expert in buildings to be able to know that it's a CD. Hate to quote more popular culture, but if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck.

I have a suspicion the people who look at Building 7 collapsing and don't see an eerie similarity between that and a controlled demolition have a psychological need to deceive themselves and not see the world as it actually is.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

The reaction you get from people who are experts at buildings being presented with footage of Building 7 collapsing is at odds with what you say. Danny Jowenko is European demolition expert and this is his reaction to seeing footage of Building 7 collapsing.

Youtube video

In fact the 9/11 truth movement is comprised mostly of professionals. There are a lot of loud people in movement, the "9/11 was an inside job" chanters, but it is mostly professionals.

But, IMHO, you don't even have to be an expert in buildings to be able to know that it's a CD. Hate to quote more popular culture, but if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck.

I have a suspicion the people who look at Building 7 collapsing and don't see an eerie similarity between that and a controlled demolition have a psychological need to deceive themselves and not see the world as it actually is.

Yeah it does look a lot like a controlled demolition, that doesnt mean to say it was, as for Jowenko he says "oh thats controlled" at first, then when additional facts were pointed out, like when it actually happened and the fact the building was on fire at the time of collapse, he doesnt press the fact it was a CD, he says he cant explain it.

Think about it would a demolition team go in and rush a job that would normally take a team several days to do, while the building above and around them was on fire?

Wouldnt the fire officers and police officers and other people at the scene notice the dems team, (Jowenko says about 30 - 40 men)?

Would a skilled demolition team take the risk in wiring up charges with det cord? Which if its burnt can kick into demo mode, ie fast burn and trigger all the dets in the string? But not with the same effect as a CD.

One other point, large buildings in the US have to follow Federal and State (and even localised zoning) Building Regulations, these include design rules, stress rules and failsafe collapse systems.

That means when certain stresses are achieved, under certain circumstances the building flat pack collapses onto its own footprint. Most of the conspiracy believers seem to forget that!

So if a fire weakens the structure and starts a collapse, pre stressed in built weak points will also collapse and progressively (within a few seconds) stop the building collapsing outwards. In other words the initial collapse point may move the parts of the building just above the collapsed area off the footprint but the rest of the building collapses on itself.

Incidentally if you actually read the full FEMA report you will indeed see the wording "requires further investigation", several times in fact. This merely acknowledges that the FEMA investigation wasnt able to reach a full and satisfactory conclusion to the exact cause of collapse ( where it specifically started etc) Funny old thing that, it had a couple of other minor things to investigate at the same time.

Saying that however conspiracy theorists who love to quote those 3 words seemed to have completely forgotten all about the follow up more detailed NIST led investigation which really went into detail on 7WTC.

It stated the building had collapsed as a result of structural damage which occured from the collapse of the twin towers, and then subsequent multiple fires occuring throughout the building caused even greater structural damage.

They also conveniently ignore the fact that firemen in the building attempting to fight the fires heard the building creaking and groaning as bits fell off. In other words the building was not structurally intact at the time of collapse.

If explosives were used to drop the building then surely some flying glass would have been observed on one of the many films of the fire fighting attempt at the building or its subsequent collapse. And wouldnt all those bangs going off simultaneously create one motherfucker of an explosion that people would hear even out of the safety cordon?

Or did the US government develop some new super explosive that is not only invisible, doesnt produce any outward blast but is also soundless, just for this job?

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I have a suspicion the people who look at Building 7 collapsing and don't see an eerie similarity between that and a controlled demolition have a psychological need to deceive themselves and not see the world as it actually is.

This possibility scares people so much that they go into denial. The possibility that over a trillion dollars has changed hands in a war against iraq (a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11) might just be more valuable than 2000 human lives is so scary to some people they will ignore the obvious to placate themselves.

[Livia]

I think the whole 9/11 thing was organised by the man on the grassy knoll.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Livia

I think the whole 9/11 thing was organised by the man on the grassy knoll.

I think you mean Newman?

Youtube video

['Conor]

erm what happened in 9/11? as far as i remember terrorists hijacked planes and crashed them into the twin towers..

[arista]

Originally Posted by 'Conor

erm what happened in 9/11? as far as i remember terrorists hijacked planes and crashed them into the twin towers..

Yes Evil Saudi Arabia Bin Ladens Clever Master Plan
Worked so well as the metal melted in the structures
due to the Oil Burning getting Intense and Super Hot
from those 2 Deadly Planes.



And What Stupid Evil G W bush do
Carpet Bombed all the Iraqi public in one Deadly go.

And Iraq had Feck all to do with 9/11.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes Evil Saudi Arabia Bin Ladens Clever Master Plan
Worked so well as the metal melted in the structures
due to the Oil Burning getting Intense and Super Hot
from those 2 Deadly Planes.



And What Stupid Evil G W bush do
Carpet Bombed all the Iraqi public in one Deadly go.

And Iraq had Feck all to do with 9/11.

No thats not the whole truth.

Bush declared war on terrorism. Formed the Office of Homeland Security and brought in the USA Patriot Act of 2001. And also invoked article 5 of the NATO pact, meaning all NATO countries should help in any subsequent military actions in response to the attacks.

At the same early intelligence led the US to believe Al Qaeda to be at least part responsible for the attacks. Consequently they asked the Afghanistan Government (the Taliban) to hand over the Al Qaeda leaders located in their country and close the training camps. (Something the US had been demanding for over a year as they wanted Bin Laden and co for other attacks)

The Taliban refused as they had not been furnished proof of the link between Al Qaeda and the attacks. The US then led an invasion into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, capture Al Qaeda leaders believed to be in the country and close the terrorist training camps.

Part of the intelligence that led the US to Al Quaeda and Afghanistan was furnished by an Anti taliban fighter called Ahmad Shah Massoud, he not only identified terrorist camps but also stated a couple of months before 11 Sept, that Al Qaeda would attack either mainland US targets or European targets in a massive attack.

Massoud himself was assassinated on the 9 Sept 2001.

Iraq itself was invaded under a separate pretext, in that they had failed to co operate with the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission and for non compliance of UN resolution 1441. The US believed that Iraq had the capability of launching Biological and chemical attacks on the Eastern US seaboard.

There are uncomfirmed reports of an agreement between Bush and Blair to invade Iraq and remove Hussein from power with or without UN agreement in Jan 2003.

The invasion of Iraq started March 20 2003.

[letmein]

Originally Posted by Shasown

No thats not the whole truth.

Bush declared war on terrorism. Formed the Office of Homeland Security and brought in the USA Patriot Act of 2001. And also invoked article 5 of the NATO pact, meaning all NATO countries should help in any subsequent military actions in response to the attacks.

At the same early intelligence led the US to believe Al Qaeda to be at least part responsible for the attacks. Consequently they asked the Afghanistan Government (the Taliban) to hand over the Al Qaeda leaders located in their country and close the training camps. (Something the US had been demanding for over a year as they wanted Bin Laden and co for other attacks)

The Taliban refused as they had not been furnished proof of the link between Al Qaeda and the attacks. The US then led an invasion into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, capture Al Qaeda leaders believed to be in the country and close the terrorist training camps.

Part of the intelligence that led the US to Al Quaeda and Afghanistan was furnished by an Anti taliban fighter called Ahmad Shah Massoud, he not only identified terrorist camps but also stated a couple of months before 11 Sept, that Al Qaeda would attack either mainland US targets or European targets in a massive attack.

Massoud himself was assassinated on the 9 Sept 2001.

Iraq itself was invaded under a separate pretext, in that they had failed to co operate with the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission and for non compliance of UN resolution 1441. The US believed that Iraq had the capability of launching Biological and chemical attacks on the Eastern US seaboard.

There are uncomfirmed reports of an agreement between Bush and Blair to invade Iraq and remove Hussein from power with or without UN agreement in Jan 2003.

The invasion of Iraq started March 20 2003.

No, the Neocons did, the CIA did not. The Right wing was looking for a way to go to war with Iraq the first day they set foot inside the White House in 2001. They let Osama bin Laden go, and ignored Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors in before the invasion in 2003. The US said that this was a setup. These morons were hell bent on invading.

With all this being said, it is very easy for someone to conclude that the powers that be had some hand in 9/11 to get what they wanted. I personally don't believe this, but see it as a self-fulfilled prophesy. They always screamed that government didn't work, and they made it so. They let 9/11 happen, and then saw it as an opportunity to do what they always wanted to do, no matter how illegal it was. There was always a silver lining in their incompetence. They should all be in prison for war crimes.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by letmein

No, the Neocons did, the CIA did not. The Right wing was looking for a way to go to war with Iraq the first day they set foot inside the White House in 2001. They let Osama bin Laden go, and ignored Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors in before the invasion in 2003. The US said that this was a setup. These morons were hell bent on invading.

With all this being said, it is very easy for someone to conclude that the powers that be had some hand in 9/11 to get what they wanted. I personally don't believe this, but see it as a self-fulfilled prophesy. They always screamed that government didn't work, and they made it so. They let 9/11 happen, and then saw it as an opportunity to do what they always wanted to do, no matter how illegal it was. There was always a silver lining in their incompetence. They should all be in prison for war crimes.

Again thats only part of the truth, Saddma Hussein did allow inspectors in quite often between the end of the first gulf war and the start of the second. But then at other times escorted them out of his country, a few times at gunpoint.

To the weapons inspectors it appeared that Iraq was only tokenly complying with the inspection requirements in order to prevent further sanctions or bombings etc. The Iraqi authroities deliberately hampered and misled the inspectors throughout the inspection regime.

They disposed of their own records of the disposal of outlawed weapons and materials consequently the actual amount of materials could never be effectively verified. When further questioned about disposal locations methods etc, they would often become unco-operative and then hours later the inspectors would be expelled from the area or even the country.

There was very little the US could have done prior to 9/11 particularly to prevent it occuring, they didnt have effective intelligence about it.

However it did prove a god send for GW to remove both the Taliban and Hussein. Both of which he was already trying to do.

His administration was already in communication with the Taliban to effect the removal of Al Qaeda and its training and support network from Afghanistan, 9/11 provided him with the reason to remove the Taliban from government in Afghanistan and deal with Al Qaeda.

The paranoia in the US in general but particularly in both the Senate and Congress allowed him to push consent for the invasion of Iraq through both houses especially after rumours were circulated about Hussein's UAV capability and also his "support" for AQ. Naturally those rumours werent started by his administration.

Both the UK and the US administrations presented flawed information and reports to their own governments and also the UN. Whether or not that was deliberate is open to interpretation.

[letmein]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Again thats only part of the truth, Saddma Hussein did allow inspectors in quite often between the end of the first gulf war and the start of the second. But then at other times escorted them out of his country, a few times at gunpoint.

To the weapons inspectors it appeared that Iraq was only tokenly complying with the inspection requirements in order to prevent further sanctions or bombings etc. The Iraqi authroities deliberately hampered and misled the inspectors throughout the inspection regime.

They disposed of their own records of the disposal of outlawed weapons and materials consequently the actual amount of materials could never be effectively verified. When further questioned about disposal locations methods etc, they would often become unco-operative and then hours later the inspectors would be expelled from the area or even the country.

There was very little the US could have done prior to 9/11 particularly to prevent it occuring, they didnt have effective intelligence about it.

However it did prove a god send for GW to remove both the Taliban and Hussein. Both of which he was already trying to do.

His administration was already in communication with the Taliban to effect the removal of Al Qaeda and its training and support network from Afghanistan, 9/11 provided him with the reason to remove the Taliban from government in Afghanistan and deal with Al Qaeda.

The paranoia in the US in general but particularly in both the Senate and Congress allowed him to push consent for the invasion of Iraq through both houses especially after rumours were circulated about Hussein's UAV capability and also his "support" for AQ. Naturally those rumours werent started by his administration.

Both the UK and the US administrations presented flawed information and reports to their own governments and also the UN. Whether or not that was deliberate is open to interpretation.

Completely and utterly incorrect, and it is NOT open to interpretation.

I'll leave you with one term: yellowcake uranium.

If you don't know what you're talking about, cease from posting. Thanks.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by letmein

Completely and utterly incorrect, and it is NOT open to interpretation.

I'll leave you with one term: yellowcake uranium.

If you don't know what you're talking about, cease from posting. Thanks.

With all due respect to your obvious self education on the subjects at hand, could I recommend you use unbiaised sources? I do know exactly what I am talking about unlike yourself. I dont base my knowledge of these situations from partial truths gleaned from sites set up to prove conspiracies.

Bin Laden had been placed on the Most Wanted List in 1998 after the US Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. That was under Clinton, he instigated amongst other actions cruise missile strikes agaisnt targets in Afghanistan and Sudan.

The Bush Administration formerly requested the arrest of Bin Laden in August 2001. (thats before the twin towers attack in Sept 2001). They also decided to increase the limited support to anti Taliban forces should the Taliban refuse to comply with their requests.

Go read up on Massoud's intelligence to the US and John O'Neil's( a former Assistant Director of the FBI - counter terrorist) comments on it.

As for Iraq, Bush's advisors were receiving reports that Iraq was stockpiling WMD's and also reports that Iraq wasnt in possession of WMD's. These reports came from a variety of sources, not only the UNMOVIC, CIA, DIA, NSA, British, French(Sabri) and German(Curveball) Intelligence sources.

If you were in his administration which ones would you believe and choose to go with, those that will hamper Bush's efforts to get rid of Hussein or those that back up his claims.

As for the phrase "Naturally those rumours werent started by his administration." Could I recommend you look up the word sarcasm and examine the concept?

Can I also recommend you read up on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, brought in by Clinton.

Urania reports from the CIA were discredited by Wilson however Bush then ran with reports from MI6 which came from different initial sources.

By all means continue to post on this and other subjects but at least have some idea what you are talking about. Not just a "rage against the machine" attitude that believes everything bad said about governments must be true.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yeah it does look a lot like a controlled demolition, that doesnt mean to say it was, as for Jowenko he says "oh thats controlled" at first, then when additional facts were pointed out, like when it actually happened and the fact the building was on fire at the time of collapse, he doesnt press the fact it was a CD, he says he cant explain it.

Think about it would a demolition team go in and rush a job that would normally take a team several days to do, while the building above and around them was on fire?

Wouldnt the fire officers and police officers and other people at the scene notice the dems team, (Jowenko says about 30 - 40 men)?

Would a skilled demolition team take the risk in wiring up charges with det cord? Which if its burnt can kick into demo mode, ie fast burn and trigger all the dets in the string? But not with the same effect as a CD.

It seems to me the apparent reason why Jowenko speculates that a team rushed in and demolished the building is because, in his mind, THAT was more likely than fire bringing the building down. He doesn't think fire demolished it at all and there's an extended version of this video somewhere where he goes into more detail. I think to him, in his mind, it's morally impossible for people in our government to be behind it and, to him, it's physically impossible for fire to cause the building to collapse. The only other alternative is 9/11 happened and there was an immediate decision to plant explosives and bring the wtc 7 down. Silly as it sounds, to him that's the only viable option. Personally, I think the events and evidence concerning 9/11 make a heck of a lot more sense when you look at it from the "inside job" theory.

"needs further investigating" doesn't even belong in the top 10 weird and peculiar things that arouse my suspicions about WTC 7.

There was the BBC coverage where a reporter announced WTC 7 collapsed when the building was STANDING behind her and would last another 15 or 20 minutes. Then there was the late Peter Jennings' eye-witness testimony of being in WTC 7 and experiencing explosions. Then there was presidential candidate John Kerry's answer to WTC 7's collapse where he said it was done in a "controlled fashion". Then there was Larry Silverstein's infamous "we made the decision to pull it and then we watched the building collapse". Then there's the pools of molten metal under WTC 7, then there's the fact that some people reported hearing the police or fire department (can't remember which) give a count down before the collapse, then there's the fact that the building just disintigrated and we don't see a pile of floors which one would expect if we believe the "pancake" theory. Then, just recently, there was a radio interview with former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld where he at least pretended that he had never heard of building 7 (how could he not have heard about it?)

But the thing that seals it for me is the fact that the building was in complete freefall collapse for at least some of the time during it's 7 or 8 second collapse. The phrase "collapsed like a house of cards" gets tossed around a lot and as far as I know, I am the only one who has thought of this theoretical "mind experiment": Let's say that it was possible to construct a house of cards of equal height to WTC 7 and let's say someone built it right next to WTC 7. Now the fastest a house of cards could collapse, like anything else, is at the speed of gravity. If you were to walk up and give this theoretical house of cards a push at the moment building 7 begand to collapse, that house of cards wouldn't collapse a moment sooner than WTC 7. To me, it's preposterous to think that a building that is designed to withstand high-winds, rain, sleet, hurricanes, and, yes, office fires, could collapse at the same rate as something as weak and vulnerable as a house of cards, which is one wind gust away from complete collapse.

I think you're making this more complicated than it actually is. To me, there is so much evidence that SCREAMS controlled demolition.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

It seems to me the apparent reason why Jowenko speculates that a team rushed in and demolished the building is because, in his mind, THAT was more likely than fire bringing the building down.

I think you're making this more complicated than it actually is. To me, there is so much evidence that SCREAMS controlled demolition.

At the time of Jowenkos interview he was told to all intents and purposes WTC 7 was intact, he wasnt informed about the damage to the north side of the building.

Wasnt just the BBC who prereported WTC -7 had collapsed Aaron Brown of CNN announced the building had or was collapsing, then like a minute later announced it was about to collapse. Reporters live misspeak on occasion, using it as proof of a conspiracy shows how lacking your critical thinking skills are.

Given the overall confusion fear and panic isnt it possible she got confused? The BBC reporter on the spot was taking live feed from the London studio which in turn was taking live feed from US TV stations.

Remember that the Fire dept chief expected the building to collapse and issued orders pulling people away from WTC 7 at 3:00 in the afternoon.

Kerrys answer has been taken out of context he was asked about the sequence of events, he answered it had been controlled in that when it was realised that tower 7 was damaged and had numerous fires, all occupants were evacuated safely, whilst the fire department attempted to prevent the spread of fire, after the evacuation the on scene controllers advised it was unlikely the building could be saved, the decision was taken to pull the emergency services out, they withdrew in a controlled manner ensuring they all got out safely, later the building dropped.

As for witnesses hearing explosions did they hear explosions, what sounded like could be explosions or did they hear the sound of reinforced concrete supports cracking under the immense loadings?

As for the free fall of the building, what way do you expect a building to drop if lower floors collapse?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7485331.stm

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

is there any evidence to suggest that katy perry was not aware the attacks were happening?

[Zippy]

Well...

I can't deal with all this technical stuff about buildings collapsing and how theyre supposed to fall. I know nothing. But as far as I know theyve never actually flew a plane into a building that size before to test it. Right?

So are we suggesting that the US goverment is behind this or the insurance scammers? Im getting confused. Problem is to start believing in all that you basically have to assume that the people involved are of such an evil and greedy level of humanity that they would literally have horns growing out of their heads. Mass murderers of mammoth preportions. And killing all those people and creating such a humongous global disaster for what? Money? Power? Sorry but Im not sure thats quite enough motivation. And then there's the small business of actually arranging it all and carrying it all out in a way that was never traced or discovered. Im thinking that would make the great train robbery look like a random whim. Then to insure everybody involved kept it zipped? Yeah this is looking mighty complicated already and Im just skimming the surface here.

On the otherhand you have the terrorist theory. Driven by an insane desire to make an earthshattering impact on the world media and strike a knockout blow to the mighty USA. No care whatsoever for the loss of mostly American lives(afterall the US has killed many of our people, they say in defence) In fact the more deaths and destruction the juicier the headlines. Win win. All carried out by suicide terrorists who are quite happy to be blown apart for their cause. Yeah this suddenly looks like a more coherent and believable option.

Maybe Im just too simplistic but Im gonna stick with the latter theory. Sometimes things really are what they seem to be. Despite those niggling unanswered questions.