What would be the point? I'm beginning to get tired of banging my head against a wall. Does it occur to you that there is no logic to any of what you are trying to imply? Ah, well. I guess you know me too well to think I can resist such a tempting target. Here goes...

The obvious implication is that Someone Was In On This. Apparently just about everyone except Arab terrorists.

1. Our Air Force did not protect us.

Implication: The American military was IN ON IT.

2. The Pentagon did not defend itself.

Implication: The American military, which was IN ON IT, decided to have an airplane fly into the place where all the American military brass who are IN ON IT are sitting. Huh?

3. President Bush continued to listen to pet goat tales for almost 30 minutes after being told of the second WTC strike.

This is a lie. This did not happen after the second impact. When Bush heard about the first impact, there was no reason to think it may not have been an accident. Most everyone else did. I was watching the reports. In addition, I have seen no evidence that Bush was formally informed about the hijackings when they happened and before the WTC attack. Does the President get informed about every crime that occurs on a realtime basis?

A vast majority of the newsmen who were on top of both the hijackings and were filming the results of the first impact had not made the terror connection until after the second impact. I was watching them and listening to them. I saw. Bush left the school after the second impact, having had the dots connected pretty much at the same time as everyone else. A lot that seems obvious now was not obvious then.

4. President Bush has stated he watched the first WTC attack on television.
5. There was no live local or network coverage of the first WTC attack.

Implication: Bush ordered the destruction of the WTC, or knew about it ahead of time. Leaving the credibility of the very concept aside, I have seen no quote to the effect that he watched the first impact live. Do you have a source from a real news source? Isn't it more likely that he was referring to watching the already-burning building, like we all were? Is it likely that if he was watching the first impact on his secret New World Order Closed-Circuit Interociter, apparently in his car fifteen minutes before getting to the school, that he would mention this in public?

6. There were reports of explosions in the towers.
7. There are seismic records which evidence sharp spikes immediately prior to the collapse of each tower.
8. The mangled wreckage of the towers was hauled away and sold for scrap overseas without any forensic examination of it.

Not true. Much of the wreckage was examined.

9. Five Israeli "veterans" were detained after being observed celebrating in the aftermath of the WTC attacks, and bomb-sniffing dogs reacted to the presence of explosive residue in the Israeli's van.

Implication: The WTC was destroyed by deliberate demolition, probably by Those Damn Jews...er, that is...Zionist Israelis (in cahoots with Bush and the military?). Seemingly overkill after being hit by jetliners, but whatever.

It would take a truckload of high explosive to collapse the WTC as they were seen to have collapsed. Said explosives would have to be planted at dozens of the external support structures and restraining beams, cutting holes in the interior walls, ripping out floors, and otherwise highly inconviencing the office workers who happened to be sitting there at the time. Maybe you could do it at night, and then carefully rebuild the walls and floors and repaint them before the workers came in the next day. It could happen--Israelis are very industrious.

Next, one would have to place the explosives EXACTLY WHERE THE PLANES WERE GOING TO HIT to make the buildings collapse like they did. This is an impressive display of either precognition, or the ability of amateur pilots to collide with a building at precisely the correct floor level WITHOUT damaging any of the preplaced explosive charges that would be on that same floor.

It would look pretty stupid if for some reason either the hijackings didn't come off, or the planes missed, or they hit the wrong floor, or they were shot down. The Evil Conspirators would either have to set off the charges, which would probably look a little suspicious in the absence of airliner impacts, or go back in and REMOVE THEM ALL, ripping out all that nice carpentry work they had to do to conceal the first set of charges, and rebuilding it back again. A lot of work. They had a LOT of faith in those Arabs.

10. The WTC was designed to absorb the impact of a fuel-laden 707.

It wasn't hit by a 707. It was hit by a 767. Which is a bigger airplane. But more importantly, if you noticed, both buildings DID absorb the impact, and held up for an hour or more. The fires eventually softened important lateral structural elements, and the outer structure collapsed when the supports at that floor collapsed. This was not something properly anticipated by the designers.

For something spooky, check this out.

11. WTC 7 collapsed without being hit by a fuel-laden aircraft.

It collapsed because it caught fire and was next to two other collapsing buildings. Lots of burning buildings collapse without being hit by airplanes. And one would have to wonder if you were setting demolition charges to fool everyone, why bomb a nearby building with no special propaganda value, and that had not been hit by a plane? Wouldn't that be a little suspicious? What's the point?

Doesn't it bother you at all that if you combine all the many conspiracies you apparently swallow without them even hitting the sides of your mouth, that most of them make no sense? Or are mutually inconsistent?

For God's sake, THINK.