So we are to take Robert Baer's word, despite the fact that he contradicts himself? We are to discount the possibility that, like many pop history authors, he is carefully brewing controversy to sell books? We are to accept his authority because he was a CIA agent up until four years before the September 11 attacks? So many flaws in your argument right there, Arjay. Your other sources are equally questionable.

Otonkonoko,none of my sources are questionable.On http://patriotsquestion911.com/ ,Ron Paul the Congressman for Texas also questions the official conspiracy theory and is on this site.

There are now;
220+ military,intelligence,Govt
400+ medical ie Drs
400+ Professors
300+ survivors & relatives of 911
1300+ Architects and Engineers
200+ artists and entertainers
Who all question the offficial conpiracy theory and want a new independant investigation into 911.

Is that asking too much? Is the truth so toxic that the neo- cons of Isarel and USA cannot even entertain such an enquiry?

Robert Baer is an opportunist.He knows the truth and is being pragmatic in coming to Sydney for a security conference sale of security soft/hardware.There are many more CIA agents on this site http://patriotsquestion 911.com/ who do question 911.Why are their names still there in this era of litigation when they could make a fortune sueing liars?.

I have no objection to the independent review these people ask for. It is not my tax money they will be wasting.

What makes your sources questionable, though, is the unquestioning assumption that they are experts.

Of the 1,200+ engineers and architects, how many specialise in demolitions or - better still - in the consequences of very large, very flammable projectiles hitting buildings? History is littered with engineers who have said 'that shouldn't have happened' - yet the very things that shouldn't have happened DID happen.

The pilots' arguments are, generally speaking, intended to refute the one thing that appears unquestionable here - that planes flew into buildings. If the footage is doctored, the eyewitnesses are hired actors and the people on board those flights (as well as the planes themselves) are hiding out with Elvis, then I applaud the creators of this conspiracy for the successful ruse they pulled. But why go to all that trouble? Why hide the fact that they blew the buildings up?

I have a very good friend who is a professor specialising in philosophy. If he questioned it, could he be one of the 400+ professors? What makes the professor of music from the University of the Pacific any more of an expert than me?

I watched the Rainbow Warrior sinking in Auckland back in the late 80s. Does that make me an expert on how it happened? If not, what is the basis of the survivors' expertise?

Don't get me started on the artists and entertainers. Sometimes, the simple explanation - planes crash into buildings; buildings go kaboom - just makes more sense than the more twisted and exciting one.

Arjay,

<<Robert Baer Ex CIA: There is that possibility.>>

Not exactly proof of anything, Arjay. One person's point of view, and all he can say is that it might be a possibility.

Did planes fly into buildings ? Yes/no ? If no, then what did people see and video ? If yes, then why not terrorists ? If a plane fully-laden with jet-fuel flies into a building, then surely the structure of the floor that it hits is weakened, and the ones above and below ? After all, an airliner is a bl00dy big missile. Buildings have mass, and so they fall. QED. It's not rocket science.

How many CIA people would be involved in a staged event (phony planes, buildings wired to explosives on every floor, a missile being fired into the Pentagon, etc.), and a cover-up ? Thousands ? Did any of them spill the beans ? This is the Yanks we are talking about, not the brightest sparks. Evil is not necessarily genius. I don't have enough respect for Americans to think they could perform such magic. Think Wizard of Oz.

And if the Bush crowd was behind it all, imagine the uproar from New Yorkers if one little thing went wrong with their scheme - and why bring down such iconic buildings, for God's sake ?

Time to move on, Arjay. And a lot of water has flown under the bridge since 9/11.

Joe

Hang in there, Arjay.

Suggest that the doubters read....
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/09/sahar-tv-interviews-dr-alan-sabrosky-on-911-and-beyond/

Alan Sabrosky, ex-Defence Studies. If he is wrong, everyone, it is certainly taking a long time for the owners of the Zionist press to litigate against him and in a country where litigation is second only in importance to food, not one respected journalist or blogger has been sued on the 9/11 matters, all of whom have stated the questions raised by Arjay.

It is now an accepted fact in the US of the Mossad and US Government complicity and actions will be taken, sooner or later. Not even in the US, controlled as it is by the Zionist media, can such matters be swept under the carpet forever

Perhaps we may then see another Pearl Harbour response as the sleepy US population wake and realise that they have been used and abused. Then they'll think about the Lebanon Marine bombing, the Shatila and Sabra massacres, and the infamy of the USS Liberty, the Neocons involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US / Israel parasitic relationship, the moves against Iran and on it goes. Where does it stop? So far they have all had a charmed life.

As for Robert Baer or Alan Sabrosky (9/11 disclosures as above), go ahead and sue them. May be one way of getting it before the public.

Rexw,

So it was the Jews ? Mossad ? The same mob that couldn't knock off some has-been Hamas bloke in Dubai or wherever without bungling it ?

So it was the Jews who - what ? - set up a hologram of planes flying into buildings, wired up three buildings with 1000 tonnes or whatever of high explosives, the dust from which blew all over the eastern states, commandeered a missile to fire it into the Pentagon (I'll bet Rumsfeld loved that), didn't try to fly another plane into the white House (that plane didn't exist) and in general, have cooked up this fictional bogey-man called al Qaida as a pretext for persuading the Yanks etc. to invade Afghanistan ?

Good luck with all of that.

Joe