9-11: Alternate Explanations; some questions that need answered

Reviewed, Updated and Expanded, January 4, 2013

It has been over a year and it is time to update the original list with additional questions.  Here they are, predicated on the notion that a false flag thesis/theory explains the events of September 11, 2001

  1. Describe a thesis that accounts for the sheer manpower necessary to undertake a false flag operation
  2. Account for the time necessary to plan, train, supply, and execute such a mission, with precision
  3. Describe the management of an operation that has many moving parts, all of which must be coordinated
  4. Explain how operational security was maintained with no hint of warning, no leaks, and no whistleblower activity then or thereafter
  5. Provide a convincing explanation of where that fits in to the list of original questions, below, and most important
  6. Explain why the complexity of controlled demolition with all its moving parts was even needed.

There are two additional questions that I have posed over the years to various correspondents.

1.  What is it, exactly, that the air defenders were supposed to do, given that all other lines of national defense had failed?  Paul Schreyer has provided one reasonable answer.  The air defense fighters could observe and identify the aircraft hijacked and, if possible, observe the cockpit to verify who was in control.

2. Why is it that an individual piece of anecdotal information trumps a large body of information, including primary source information, to the contrary, on the one hand?  And, on the other hand, why is it that a large body of conclusive information is wrong because one or two details are missing or sketchy?

Original Post, December 31, 2011

Questions begging yet more questions have come my way from various quarters, most challenging the findings of the Congressional Joint Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission. It is time for those so inclined to answer a few questions themselves during this next year.  The list is short; here it is.

We begin with a point of common agreement; there was a significant event on September 11, 2001.

1. Articulate a thesis statement.  I provide mine as an example. Nineteen Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial aircraft and successfully flew three of them catastrophically into selected targets destroying the World Trade Center complex in the process.

2. Given a Framework for Analysis, or one established by you, describe the factual body of information, pre-event, event, post-event, that supports your thesis statement.  Place primary emphasis on the pre-event component.

3. Given a significant event, such as 9/11, why do media reports, witness statements, and participant recall, provide a basis for analysis, especially when such information is not vetted against available primary source and forensic evidence?

4. Given the physics and chemistry of an event such as the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, why is thermitic-like or thermatic-like material not an expected by-product of an event of that magnitude?

5. Given that some people support a controlled demolition explanation, can they, collectively or individually, publish a paper in an established professional journal within the next year?

6. Given a controlled demolition explanation, why were the Pentagon and Capitol not so destructed on 9/11?

Your efforts will be graded at the end of the year. The clock starts now.