Let's skip the implicit contemptuous racism of the "19 Arabs with boxcutters" argument of which "Dreaded Guest" was a champion.

Let's also skip the recent abuse (or, more neutral: change of use) of "conspiracy theory" as any theory which includes a conspiracy. That's not the original use.

When I think about what might be the truth in a complex series of events, I don't go down to single bits of facts or theories for at least two reasons. The main reason is of course that I do not understand enough to be able to judge for myself who is right with one particular argument. The next reason is that I do not expect every detail to be correct or each theory why something happened to be the best theory even in what I think is the most reasonable story line. I try to look at the whole picture and what makes most sense of it.

Who, why, and how?
I don't believe even for a moment that a false flag operation of the US (and most other as well) administration would be unconceivable. It has happened and even Hitler who did not care much about world opinion has staged a false flag operation as a "reason" to attack Poland.

So, disregarding for a moment the 19 Arabs (at least one of them wasn't Arab, BTW) scenario and taking a false flag scenario serious, who could be the culprit? (1) Some small group in the USA, led by big C (C like clever, or what had you thought), in order to drag the USA into an action (Afghanistan, Iraq) they would normally not have started. (2) A secret service outside the USA hoping for the same sequence of events, either with the intention to help their own country (Mossad, for instance) or (3) with the intention to damage the USA (that could be the KGB hoping to push the USA into the Afghanistan quagmire; or the Chinese counterpart of the KGB).

So we have several people/groups who could hope to gain from 9/11 and the later sequence of events.

If I was among the few chosed by big C or KGB or Mossad what would I have done?. As much as necessary to trigger US "re"action but as little as possible to avoid blowing the job. Two missiles with conventional explosives, one against one tower (could be Chicago, or even the WTC) for the commercial and human lives damage and one against the White House or, if that's too small a target, the Pentagon, for the damage to the American soul. If the group I would have worked for was a pro/inside USA group the amount of explosives carried would have been smaller than if I would have worked for the KGB, but that's just a detail.

I wouldn't have made it too easy for the police, but 2 or 3 fingerprints and bits of DNA at the later found launch sites would have helped the police to trace some never to be found perpetrators who had shown Arab passports in Motels or at Airports. That would have been enough, easy to implement, and difficult to spot.

I would have avoided as much as possible (1) any complication of the plan, (2) any dependence of success upon events I had not under full control and (3) I would have used the minimum of people knowing the plan. In particular, I would not have included Bush among the conspirators. He only would have been a liability for success. His role would have been restricted to the useful (in this context) idiot (in general).

Looking at the sequence of events, the conspirators in this scenario would have been incredibly stupid for staging such a complicated story needing many years of preparation (long before Bush became president). Arabs training flying aircrafts; waiting for a morning with enough Arabs bording aircrafts; hoping that no uninformed general of the airforce would react too quickly; hijacking four aircrafts but using only two of them (in some conspiracy theories); and so on.

All these scenarios simply are outrageously improbable and would involve too many people and too many loose ends. The planners would have to be one the one hand incredibly stupid, in general, to hope to get away with a much too complicated plan and, on the other hand, to be incredibly clever, in detail, to be able to plot all that.

It simply makes no sense when thinking it through.

Just one more instance that makes me doubt the critical thinking ability of those convinced by one of the conspiracy theories. Let us look a Building 7 as one of the prime examples of conspiracy theorists. Why include building 7? Would that have been the straw to break the camels back? The USA would have turned the other cheek with a hole in the Pentagon and the two main towers downed? But Tower 7 would have set them on a revenge course. Think just for a moment: Tower 7 adds nothing in effect but adds a lot of work in preparation and adds some more possibilities to be found out. No one in her right frame of mind would have included Tower 7 in the plan (and that includes of course the 19 Arabs for whom that was windfall but not part of the plan).

Or do you seriously think that when everything was thought through, big C would have suggested a series letter to the owners of surrounging buildings: "Dear Sir, for reasons that I am not at liberty to disclose to you now, the two main WTC towers will burn and fall at a not too far away date. If you think it could be a financial gain to you to get your building scrapped at the same big event, we would be ready to give you more details for a considerable cut of your profit."

But perhaps the whole series event was actually staged by the owner of building 7 who thought he could get away with his plan to scrap his building by explosion if the focus of attention of police and press was on the other three buildings. But I think not even Little Hawk would consider that conspiracy theory worth of his attention.

If the whole story was much less complicated than it is I'd seriously consider an alternative view as possible. But as it is, the puzzle pieces don't fall into place when seriously considering another than the official story. Some bits of the official story too are bound to be wrong, some people may have even reasons to lie about details, but it is the only big scenario that makes sense.

I'm fond of conspiracy theories for they are a good area for research. One of my students writes his dissertation (PhD thesis) about conspiracy theories, who believes in which theory and whether there is pattern among the believers. I'll see his first presentation of his data at a congress sometime in May and I'm looking forward to it.

Perhaps he has even a good theory why people believe in such theories and who does more than others (females?, young people?, religious people?, people with a distrust in science?, politically left?,...). I don't know yet. (Though I'd bet that the believers would score fairly high on the Magical Ideation Scale)

Wolfgang