I can't refute your argument for the very simple reason that I can't for the life of me figure out what it is.

I'm just Joe Sixpack with an internet connection and a cursory knowledge of history.

One of the differences between myself and other "conspiracy theorists" here is that I don't really have any hard and fast conspiracy theory. I have neither the knowledge nor the intellect to put it all together and I seriously doubt there is any single individual that does.

What I'm doing is identifying places where, in my opinion, the official story of 9/11 does not add up. It's entirely possible to know that a given story is wrong without knowing exactly what the true story might be..

The WTC towers were not destroyed by explosives, it would take weeks in an empty building that had been stripped of all interior covering to set up such a controlled demolition.

It was a plane that hit the Pentagon, even though any video of such a plane has been sequestered away from the public eye.

But what about the suspicious stock manipulations on airlines, the trail of which led to one Buzzy Krongard and then vanished like a will o the wisp?

Why did the fighters dispatched to intercept the hijacked airliners only fly at about one third to one fourth of their actual top speed?

In my mind questions are often more important than answers. Questions lead people to think, at least occasionally.

Aycharaych's argument always goes like this:

"Why X? I predict no one will answer this question."

And my predictions are accurate far more often than not.

For instance, you have yet to state whether or not you piss in a cup to keep your job. (not that everyone doesn't already know the answer)

RMP has yet to give me his opinion as to what he would do were he the agent in charge at Booker elementary on the morning of 9/11/2001.

I could go on but you get the drift by now.

That is self evident from your posts.

No one responds because no one thinks it's a compelling piece of evidence. There's nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise. The conspiracy explanation for the agent feels on the face of it, preposterous.

But RMP has indeed responded, with evasions.

I'll ask you then, would you have stayed in that school on the morning of 9/11/2001 knowing only that an air attack of unknown scope and magnitude against America was underway and the CIC being there was a matter of public knowledge?

Air Attack

Plane flies into building

Hijacked Airplane flies into building

In what significant way as to effect does an airliner piloted by a Kamikaze differ from a cruise missile?

Would you consider a cruise missile strike to be an air attack?

If aycharaych hears hoofbeats approaching from behind him, he turns around expecting to see zebras.

Not necessarily zebras but hoofed animals would be a distinct possibility.

Whereas I'm sure you would expect to see birds.

On September 11 of 2001 there were two airplanes. I guess that would make "Air Attack" the odd one out.

And of course this was known immediately by everyone on the morning of 9/11/2001?

You ain't Socrates

You have a firm grasp of the obvious.

But your avoiding answering them teaches me a great deal.

so, what now?

So now you are left to wonder why the professional paranoids of the Presidential Protection Unit did not not take the same actions that you would have.

Point being, lighten up. You really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed. Who is?

Why do you feel the need to tell me how and what to post?

We aren't in competition with each other every minute of every day on every post. You just seem to want to butt heads all the time. Why? I haven't a clue. That's why I 'suggested' that you lighten up. If striving to be the big f'ing cheese is your greatest passion above all else...that's your choice.

It takes two to butt heads, if I'm butting heads with someone then someone else is also butting heads with me. You don't seem to have any complaints when I butt heads with Shooter, only when I do so with those that you agree with.

When you feel you are right about something, do you not defend your point of view?

Occam's razor is not a carved-in-stone law but rather a rule of thumb. The simplest explanation is not always the correct one but only the most likely to be correct.

Don't use shooter for an example. I haven't replied to you about anything since you flippantly and carelessly called me a liar, and you then failed (and continue in that failure) to apologize when you discovered that you had been wrong.

I posted the contents of every link you provided on this board for all to see. None of them were an answer to my question and indeed most of them were vituperative and redundant rants.