Okay, so there's no comprehensive theory. Let's try this:

What are the five most obviously false elements of the official story? What are they, why are they important, how do you know they're not true, what's a more likely explanation. Anybody up for it?

That's creative.

Curious if there's any consensus. Why so touchy?

As I posted here, in Faith vs. Skepticism, I don't understand the need to know *THE ANSWER*. Personally, I think the questions are much more interesting.

I think it's enough, at least at first, to say, with a high degree of certainty, that the official theory is *not* the right answer. Beyond that, as with most science, it's a question of trying hypotheses and seeing what may or may not fit.

Honestly, I think we'll never *KNOW* everything that happened. I hope (accent on the word, "hope"), that someday we'll know enough to have a better understanding of what did happen, how it happened and why it happened.

But I don't expect certainty, and I think it's unreasonable to expect everyone else to try and come up with "a more likely explanation". Isn't it truly enough to just say, "I don't know, but I do know that what I've been told is wrong"?

But I find it odd. It's like everybody's intellectual curiosity shuts down when they're asked to go out on a limb. Why the defensive crouch? I don't get it.

ask anyone to give you the kind of cut and dried answer you're searching for? I could come up with something like, "I believe the so-called hijackers thought they were just that, hijackers taking planes and hostages for terror purposes. Letting the known plan take place, the shadow faction of our government used this to their advantage, rigged the planes with remote controls, and in mid-flight changed the plans of the hijackers forever. They became fellow victims with the passengers. The flight over Pennsylvania was shot down because of a malfunction in the remote controls, and rather than let it land anywhere, they had to shoot it down in order to avoid the truth from emerging. Needing something to justify overt military action, a direct attack on our bastion of defense and security was perpetrated. Knowing the maneuver for the pentagon target was a difficult one, they opted to substitute a cruise missile, or A-3 SkyWarrior in it's place, and painting it with United Airline colors. The original plane either was diverted earlier, or was flown low over the Pentagon with the cruise or skywarrior close to it's underside. The missile hit the exact target intended, and the airliner is now at the bottom of the Atlantic ocean. There. Does that help? We still don't know what happened because what I have related is exactly what people have been telling you. Speculation. For most, it's enough to have serious questions and doubts concerning the OCT, and until an open, fully funded investigation is launched, by credible independent people, and the full spectrum of evidence suppressed by the government is released, I'm afraid that's all you're going to get. I wouldn't swear to my little hasty scenario for all the tea in China, although it's probably as plausible as the OTC story, but that there are legitimate questions that have not been answered to any degree of credible satisfaction, is enough for me to keep pounding. If these posts don't answer your question, I'm afraid you'll just have to wait like the rest of us for the real truth. Just my o2. Thanks.
quickesst

Right there, you're highlighting the issue, in fact. I'm in *favor* of intellectual curiosity. But, being curious doesn't mean that you have a theory to explain everything, or even anything.

For example - I'm pretty damn sure that a B757 with passengers did *NOT* hit the Pentagon. That's where my certainty ends. I haven't got the first clue as to what *did* hit the Pentagon, nor am I comfortable making any sort of guess. I just don't have enough evidence to make a compelling guess that fits with the facts. I'm willing to see, though, that the "B757 hits the Pentagon" theory doesn't fit with the facts either.

Another example - B757s hitting the two tallest steel skyscrapers in New York City caused them to collapse into their own footprint within hours of impact. I'm pretty damn sure that's, at best, the external viewpoint on what happened. I don't, however, believe that the impact of a B757 would have been sufficient to cause catastrophic, free-fall, fully vertical collapse of those buildings. What did cause the collapse? Shrug. Again - no clue.

Once you get past the desire to "know beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened" (paraphrasing), all that's left are the unanswered questions and the, largely, unasked meta-questions. (Meta-questions being things like "Why don't we know what happened?" and "If the official theory doesn't fit the facts, why is it the official theory?")

We couldn't have predicted it - straight faced lie, they did predict it and did nothing. More likely, they let it happen/made it happen.

We know Usama is responsible - no, actually the FBI says they don't. More likely, Usama and ALQ are the ubiquitous other. ALQ can morph into anything and be anywhere they want it to, even in your neighborhood or for that matter your living room if they say so.

NORAD unprepared/incapable of handling this, switched to FAA/ATC failed to inform - duh, this is what NORAD is for and I call BS on the latter no way four ATC dudes sat on their hands while planes flew with transponders off all over the place. More likely, NORAD could do nothing until the Sec Def gave the go, and he was in a meeting and not to be bothered at the time.

Pancake and zipper theory - obviously FUBAR, now they have sledgehammer theory or some-such, still FUBAR resistance exists (maybe not in mindless America, but in physics it does). More likely, there were bombs in those buildings - regardless of who planted them, explosives are more likely to cause that effect.

The wall of separation between agencies caused such a mess that we could do nothing - more BS, they shut down every investigation into this that they came across prior to the fact. After it happened, then they got excited. More likely - they shut down the investigations into the upcoming terror event that their friends were paying for, and that men who were "one of our own" (see Able Danger) were participating in because it was a false flag op.

Best I could do for now :)

Note to others in this forum: was that so freaking hard?

The difficult part was coming up with a speculative version, a very well written version by Sinti, that you could understand. Nonetheless, I am pleased that you have attained your goal. Thanks.
quickesst

Sometimes it isn't just that there are false elements, but glaring omissions -- what is not said, rather than what is falsely said.

The 9/11 Commission claims that the only state (ie governmental) sponsor of the 9/11 hijackers was the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

However, researchers have documented that Pakistan's intelligence agency, the Inter Service Intelligence (or ISI) had a close relationship with the Taliban, al Queda and the hijackers. So Pakistan was a sponsor of the 9/11 attacks. The ISI in turn, is closely connected to US intelligence and has funnelled billions of dollars from the US to the Afghan mujahadeed during the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan.

The head of the ISI in 2001 at the time of the attacks was Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad. Some time in the year before 9/11, Gen. Ahmad ordered that $100,000 be wire transfered to Mohammed Atta, and the funds were used for among other things, flight school training. Ahmad used an intermediary, a notorious ISI agent, Saeed Sheikh, to wire the money.

Ahmad, therefore was one of the chief financiers of the 9/11 plot. Yet Gen. Ahmad flew to Washington just days before 9/11/01 to confer with his counterparts at the highest levels of the Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council. As the planes flew into the WTC towers, Ahmad, the financier of the 9/11 attacks was, in fact, having breakfast with then Congressman Porter Goss, chair of the House Intelligence Committee and a famed former CIA agent who would go on be appointed head the CIA in the wake of intelligence reorganization after the attacks. Goss represented a district in Florida adjascent to where Atta was living and taking flight lessons. Also present at the breakfast was Sen. Bob Graham, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Goss acknowledges that he and 9/11 financier Ahmad were discussing terrorism originating in Afghanistan, as the planes flew into the towers.

Saeed Sheikh, the intermediary who wired the money at Ahmad's order, later murdered Wall St. Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, who was pursuing the ISI-9/11 connection, and Sheikh has been convicted and sentenced to death in Pakistan for the murder. Ahmad was removed as head of the ISI after 9/11 for being too close to the Taliban and al Queada, and is under a form of house arrest in Pakistan.

The US has never asked for the extradition of either Ahmad or Sheikh.

fact that bin Laden is apparently hiding in Pakistan), but I was not aware of the Ahmad/Goss/Graham breakfast; or the Sheikh/Pearl/ISI connection. Can you source that stuff for me?

There is a lot of confused info about this, so I would go to the one place that ties all the sources together -- cooperative research. It is documented in mainstream media sources.