One for Parky

[Park Life 71]

Parky spits out the word "official" as if it's a swear word. "That's right, you go on believing the official story. Me and my friends at www.conspiracynutcases.com know what really happened."

 

 

 

[Meenzer 15870]

Parky spits out the word "official" as if it's a swear word. "That's right, you go on believing the official story. Me and my friends at www.conspiracynutcases.com know what really happened."

 

"Planning"

[Guest alex]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

The many eyewitnesses who saw it happen make it believable enough to me.

 

This isn't so, there were many contradictory eye witness reports inc a small passenger jet and even a military aircraft..Some even described the high pitched whine of a missile. Police will always tell you that under pressure in these split second moments eye witnesses often haven't a clue what they really saw.

 

And how many eye-witness accounts are used to support your questions?

 

Steve it must be so easy for you just laboriously and religiously following the official story....Have a little fun fella..

The thing is though Parky, he's shown in this thread that he knows what he's on about, he's more or less answered your questions while asking you questions you can't answer and he hasn't had to resort to making up an anecdote about meeting someone 'in the know' yet either.

 

He's just regurgitated the official story. And he hasn't answered many of my (and others questions). Ie A fire near the top of a building and how this would collapse the steel in the bottom of the building....Even in the official report (some of which I've read and I doubt you or Stevie have) this is gossed over with phrases about conductive heat energy and transferance....All cobblers you undrstand.

 

WHY NO INDEPENDANT INQUIRY??

 

 

.......I'm not talking about 'good old boy' senators and friends of the Bush family either...

 

I really think its hilarious that people beleive this whole story as it has been portrayed....So full of holes it is.

Whereas merely alluding to esoteric knowledge about what really went on means either you know what happened and can't divulge the information or you're making it up. Which scenario is the more likely though?

[Park Life 71]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

The many eyewitnesses who saw it happen make it believable enough to me.

 

This isn't so, there were many contradictory eye witness reports inc a small passenger jet and even a military aircraft..Some even described the high pitched whine of a missile. Police will always tell you that under pressure in these split second moments eye witnesses often haven't a clue what they really saw.

 

And how many eye-witness accounts are used to support your questions?

 

Steve it must be so easy for you just laboriously and religiously following the official story....Have a little fun fella..

The thing is though Parky, he's shown in this thread that he knows what he's on about, he's more or less answered your questions while asking you questions you can't answer and he hasn't had to resort to making up an anecdote about meeting someone 'in the know' yet either.

 

He's just regurgitated the official story. And he hasn't answered many of my (and others questions). Ie A fire near the top of a building and how this would collapse the steel in the bottom of the building....Even in the official report (some of which I've read and I doubt you or Stevie have) this is gossed over with phrases about conductive heat energy and transferance....All cobblers you undrstand.

 

WHY NO INDEPENDANT INQUIRY??

 

 

.......I'm not talking about 'good old boy' senators and friends of the Bush family either...

 

I really think its hilarious that people beleive this whole story as it has been portrayed....So full of holes it is.

Whereas merely alluding to esoteric knowledge about what really went on means either you know what happened and can't divulge the information or you're making it up. Which scenario is the more likely though?

 

 

I don't have to prove anything actually.....Just laughing at the official story...

[Park Life 71]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

 

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened?

 

Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction.

 

Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place.

 

Which crash are you comparing it to then?

 

This is a good site. Note the gouged earth.

 

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html

 

 

I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

The many eyewitnesses who saw it happen make it believable enough to me.

 

This isn't so, there were many contradictory eye witness reports inc a small passenger jet and even a military aircraft..Some even described the high pitched whine of a missile. Police will always tell you that under pressure in these split second moments eye witnesses often haven't a clue what they really saw.

 

And how many eye-witness accounts are used to support your questions?

 

Steve it must be so easy for you just laboriously and religiously following the official story....Have a little fun fella..

The thing is though Parky, he's shown in this thread that he knows what he's on about, he's more or less answered your questions while asking you questions you can't answer and he hasn't had to resort to making up an anecdote about meeting someone 'in the know' yet either.

 

He's just regurgitated the official story. And he hasn't answered many of my (and others questions). Ie A fire near the top of a building and how this would collapse the steel in the bottom of the building....Even in the official report (some of which I've read and I doubt you or Stevie have) this is gossed over with phrases about conductive heat energy and transferance....All cobblers you undrstand.

 

WHY NO INDEPENDANT INQUIRY??

 

 

.......I'm not talking about 'good old boy' senators and friends of the Bush family either...

 

I really think its hilarious that people beleive this whole story as it has been portrayed....So full of holes it is.

 

 

He's just regurgitated the official story

 

As far as it agrees with my own sense of reality and understanding of the world, that is true. Would you rather I claim blue is green to explain events?

 

he hasn't answered many of my (and others questions). Ie A fire near the top of a building and how this would collapse the steel in the bottom of the building

 

In an answer previously, I asked you who had claimed it had collapsed from the bottom? As far as I recall, the collapse occured near the impact sites. I don't remember any other questions you had that I haven't answered. If there are, apologies, remind me what they were and I'll try my best .

 

phrases about conductive heat energy and transferance

 

Not clear what you allude to here.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

 

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened?

 

Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction.

 

Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place.

 

Which crash are you comparing it to then?

 

This is a good site. Note the gouged earth.

 

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html

 

 

I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here.

 

http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?...st&p=283999

[Guest alex]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

 

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened?

 

Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction.

 

Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place.

 

Which crash are you comparing it to then?

 

This is a good site. Note the gouged earth.

 

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html

 

 

I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here.

SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us.

[Park Life 71]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

 

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened?

 

Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction.

 

Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place.

 

Which crash are you comparing it to then?

 

This is a good site. Note the gouged earth.

 

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html

 

 

I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here.

SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us.

 

I suppose you and Stevie believed there was WMD in Iraq.

 

 

.....and thre was nothing wrong with the voting machines in Florida..

 

 

[Park Life 71]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

 

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened?

 

Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction.

 

Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place.

 

Which crash are you comparing it to then?

 

This is a good site. Note the gouged earth.

 

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html

 

 

I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here.

SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us.

 

Are you saying a passenger jet would leave a tiny hole like that in the side of the Pentagon and there would be hardly any debris and what happened to the wings? Why won't they release more than 3 secs of footage with what is one of the most security camered up places in the world.....Don't worry I know neither of you can ans any of these. But I won't debunk your opinions for it.

[Guest alex]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

 

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened?

 

Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction.

 

Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place.

 

Which crash are you comparing it to then?

 

This is a good site. Note the gouged earth.

 

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html

 

 

I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here.

SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us.

 

I suppose you and Stevie believed there was WMD in Iraq.

 

 

.....and thre was nothing wrong with the voting machines in Florida..

 

 

And I suppose you've got no evidence with which to back up those assumptions either

[Gemmill 47102]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

 

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened?

 

Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction.

 

Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place.

 

Which crash are you comparing it to then?

 

This is a good site. Note the gouged earth.

 

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html

 

 

I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here.

SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us.

 

I suppose you and Stevie believed there was WMD in Iraq.

 

 

.....and thre was nothing wrong with the voting machines in Florida..

 

 

 

Now Parky's going down the Leazes Mag route - when someone's pulling your pants down in an argument, opt for the "Next you'll be telling me that *something they wouldn't tell you at all, but if they did it would make them look silly. So suggest that that's what they'll be telling you next to try and re-establish a foothold in proceedings*"

 

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

 

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened?

 

Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction.

 

Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place.

 

Which crash are you comparing it to then?

 

This is a good site. Note the gouged earth.

 

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html

 

 

I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here.

SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us.

 

I suppose you and Stevie believed there was WMD in Iraq.

 

 

.....and thre was nothing wrong with the voting machines in Florida..

 

 

Iraq had (note emphasis please) nuclear program technology in the 80's and 90's. The fact Saddam chose to obstruct the IAEA would plant seeds of doubt in anyone but the most optimistic of people.

 

Voting machines? No idea. I might go and have a read. Hardly worth debating though when the only clear winner in elections is apathy. Slightly ludicrous to say the entire country's policy and direction should hang on 2,000 people in Florida. I would suggest the voting boundary system is more generally at fault, if I recall, incumbents are free to redraw their own boundaries .

[Guest alex]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

 

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened?

 

Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction.

 

Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place.

 

Which crash are you comparing it to then?

 

This is a good site. Note the gouged earth.

 

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html

 

 

I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here.

SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us.

 

Are you saying a passenger jet would leave a tiny hole like that in the side of the Pentagon and there would be hardly any debris and what happened to the wings? Why won't they release more than 3 secs of footage with what is one of the most security camered up places in the world.....Don't worry I know neither of you can ans any of these. But I won't debunk your opinions for it.

I don't know and I don't claim to know. Neither do you. The whole topic is not something I'm particularly knowledgeable about. Claiming to know what really happened and offering no proof = zero credibility though imo. It's a bit like Dubya or Blair expecting us to believe the WMD thing tbh

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

 

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened?

 

Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction.

 

Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place.

 

Which crash are you comparing it to then?

 

This is a good site. Note the gouged earth.

 

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html

 

 

I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here.

SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us.

 

Are you saying a passenger jet would leave a tiny hole like that in the side of the Pentagon and there would be hardly any debris and what happened to the wings? Why won't they release more than 3 secs of footage with what is one of the most security camered up places in the world.....Don't worry I know neither of you can ans any of these. But I won't debunk your opinions for it.

 

Do not confuse unfamiliarity with irregularity.

 

I'm saying the situation has never happened before, and therefore observations on the crash can only be based on untested theoretical assertions.

 

The few bits of footage I have seen have amounted to a few relevant frames from each camera view, such was the speed of the impact. That would seem to account for there being only a few seconds of relevant (or rather newsworthy) impact footage existing. I can't see any reason why they would have fixed cameras pointing up at all points in the sky, just in case. I think a home video of the plane in flight exists, but can't quite remember either way.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

 

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened?

 

Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction.

 

Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place.

 

Which crash are you comparing it to then?

 

This is a good site. Note the gouged earth.

 

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html

 

 

I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here.

SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us.

 

Are you saying a passenger jet would leave a tiny hole like that in the side of the Pentagon and there would be hardly any debris and what happened to the wings? Why won't they release more than 3 secs of footage with what is one of the most security camered up places in the world.....Don't worry I know neither of you can ans any of these. But I won't debunk your opinions for it.

I don't know and I don't claim to know. Neither do you. The whole topic is not something I'm particularly knowledgeable about. Claiming to know what really happened and offering no proof = zero credibility though imo. It's a bit like Dubya or Blair expecting us to believe the WMD thing tbh

 

To be fair (evidentially) Parky is not claiming that (apart from with the insurance scam ), he is merely posing questions. I am offering up what I believe are plausible answers, but there comes a time when you realise that no answer will do, as the motivation is the questioning itself. There-in lies the credibility, or lack thereof .

Edited February 20, 2007 by Super_Steve_Howey

[nufc4ever 0]

Same thing I always think with regards to events on this scale:

 

If it was a set-up, the number of people that would have to be involved on the inside would be huge. As if they'd all be quiet about it.

[Guest alex]

The one conspiracy theory about the whole thing is the Pentagon hit. Never seen a plane leave such a neat whole and no wreckage before.

 

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened?

 

Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction.

 

Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place.

 

Which crash are you comparing it to then?

 

This is a good site. Note the gouged earth.

 

http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html

 

 

I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here.

SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us.

 

Are you saying a passenger jet would leave a tiny hole like that in the side of the Pentagon and there would be hardly any debris and what happened to the wings? Why won't they release more than 3 secs of footage with what is one of the most security camered up places in the world.....Don't worry I know neither of you can ans any of these. But I won't debunk your opinions for it.

I don't know and I don't claim to know. Neither do you. The whole topic is not something I'm particularly knowledgeable about. Claiming to know what really happened and offering no proof = zero credibility though imo. It's a bit like Dubya or Blair expecting us to believe the WMD thing tbh

 

To be fair (evidentially) Parky is not claiming that (apart from with the insurance scam ), he is merely posing questions. I am offering up what I believe are plausible answers, but there comes a time when you realise that no answer will do, as the motivation is the questioning itself. There-in lies the credibility, or lack thereof .

That's what I was on about.

[Renton 22414]

A couple of weeks ago Parky claimed HIV was not responsible for AIDs and it was all a scam from the pharmaceutical companies to make us buy their anti-retroviral drugs. He subsequently admitted he has no background in medicine or biological science, and if diagnosed with HIV, he would probably take the very drugs he claims are unecessary.

 

That about sums up Parky's credibility.

 

It's funny how conspiracy theorists are a bit like creationists. They live to try and pick holes in other perfectly plausible theories to suit their own, frankly odd, agendas. What really galls me though is when their questions are answered, repeatedly, they continue to spout off the same old shit, Leazes' style!

 

Why for God's sake?

[ChezGiven 0]

Can anyone name a single major conspiracy theory that has subsequently be found to be true?

 

For me, the whole concept of a large group of people keeping clandestine secrets in a free society where investigative journalism is allowed lacks credibility.

 

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history.

 

Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened.

 

The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services.

 

The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Can anyone name a single major conspiracy theory that has subsequently be found to be true?

 

For me, the whole concept of a large group of people keeping clandestine secrets in a free society where investigative journalism is allowed lacks credibility.

 

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history.

 

Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened.

 

The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services.

 

The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya.

 

What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism?

 

No, just one or two CIA officials.

 

Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers?

 

Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats?

Edited February 20, 2007 by Super_Steve_Howey

[Renton 22414]

Can anyone name a single major conspiracy theory that has subsequently be found to be true?

 

For me, the whole concept of a large group of people keeping clandestine secrets in a free society where investigative journalism is allowed lacks credibility.

 

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history.

 

Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened.

 

The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services.

 

The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

 

Why is an entirely different question, and one pretty pointless asking at the moment if the only answers are completely speculative. I'm not sure what you are getting at tbh.

 

Parky's disputing what happened, even though it was witnessed first-hand by thousands of people and live on TV by millions. Not only this but the motive for this is he claims an insurance scam! The evidence? A friend of a friend told him a pub it seems.

 

 

To rephrase btw, can you think of a major conspiracy theory in popular culture that has been uncovered within the last 50 years in the western world where there is a free press? Is Watergate the closest thing to it? The Soviet government covering up atrocities doesn't really count imo.

[Renton 22414]

Speaking of conspiracy theories........

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6378463.stm

[ChezGiven 0]

Can anyone name a single major conspiracy theory that has subsequently be found to be true?

 

For me, the whole concept of a large group of people keeping clandestine secrets in a free society where investigative journalism is allowed lacks credibility.

 

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history.

 

Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened.

 

The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services.

 

The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya.

 

What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism?

 

No, just one or two CIA officials.

 

Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers?

 

Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats?

 

The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info.

 

'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people.

 

How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed?

[ChezGiven 0]

Can anyone name a single major conspiracy theory that has subsequently be found to be true?

 

For me, the whole concept of a large group of people keeping clandestine secrets in a free society where investigative journalism is allowed lacks credibility.

 

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

 

E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history.

 

Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened.

 

The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services.

 

The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is.

 

Why is an entirely different question, and one pretty pointless asking at the moment if the only answers are completely speculative. I'm not sure what you are getting at tbh.

 

 

Why were known al qaeda operatives allowed to board 4 flights and irrevocably change the face of global politics?

 

Why did the CIA not anticipate and act upon the intelligence that a strike was imminent?

 

Why did the CIA not order the FBI to bring in the suspects for questioning and investigation?