Comment: You lost me at "you

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Hold up there champ. (see in situ)

You lost me at "you

You lost me at "you automatically claim that it implicates Bush or the establishment". You proceed to present a viewpoint you claim I and all others who question 9/11 have. You assume we all think the government did it. This is collectivist thinking that assumes all 9/11 truthers believe exactly the same thing and are unable to change their minds. You lose on logic here. 9/11 truth is growing, which indicates it's made up of people who can change their minds. Most 9/11 truthers have a list of suspects and about a thousand questions that the government and media refuse to answer. They don't claim to know the truth. Between the whistleblowers, money wired to Mohammed Atta, put options on airline stocks, terror warnings ignored, NORAD stand down, not releasing video of the Pentagon, hijackers alive and well, thermite dust, wacky physics, building 7, molten metal burning for months, no black boxes, etc, there's enough evidence to suggest a broad conspiracy to omit a large amount of information from the official story. Most 9/11 truthers don't say what you claim they say. Some do, but most of us just want this information presented in a non-biased fashion to the general public so they can think about it for themselves. You generalize all 9/11 truthers. It's the same thing Anti-Paul people do with Paul supporters, and it's inaccurate. I have my theory, my neighbor has another. They all spell cover-up, which implies media and government complicity at some level. Beyond that, it's hard to say anything with any certainty which is why this subject won't go away anytime soon. The hijackers may have been motivated by occupation, and the defense industry (which was waning at the time) decided to orchestrate a suicide attack to provide impetus for immediate defense spending increases. Too many people profited directly and indirectly, and they just happen to be suspects in this crime until it is solved. Ron Paul's public position doesn't conflict with 9/11 truth because 9/11 truth has proposed many possibilities based on the large body of evidence. The government has given us 1 possibility with very little evidence to back it up. Lots of theories, but very few solid leads.