[Vote] Who did 911?

[BADecker]

Spendulus you are off on a red herring. It doesn't really matter why flight 93 went down. It is a peripheral issue.

The evidence indicates it was shot down and that was then hidden from the public. But it doesn't really matter here, it is not central to the broader 911 question.

There is little doubt that passengers were going to try to overwhelm the hijackers and there is little doubt that while that process was developing the plane was shot down, a tragedy within a tragedy. If it was shot down most people would reluctantly admit the decision was justifiable based on everything that was known. It is the rampant deception surrounding so many aspects of 911 that is not justifiable.

Who does the deception serve and who pays the price for it?

No, the evidence does not show it was shot down.  

Have you actually looked at the so called "debris fields?"  They are not typical of either in air breakups or planes being "shot down."  There really isn't much debris there at all.

I am saying this.  You admit the complete story of the passengers counterattacking, but conclude then that a fighter jet shot it down.  (No SAM batteries are deployed....)  

So missiles were pulled from storage, mounted on a combat aircraft that was fueled and ready to go, the aircraft launched, and the attack commenced....and that combat aircraft is going after 93 WHICH HAS IT'S TRANSPONDER TURNED OFF???   This encounter is successful, and the aircraft is shot down.  But no major parts such as wing, tail section, etc are found scattered?  No seats?

This is a conspiracy theory that makes no sense.

No debris says no plane. We watch many things in movies. It's part of the way Americans are so easily led to believe that the impossible can happen. They saw the impossible happen in movies.

But there was debris.  Unfortunately for the conspiracy theory, the debris was exactly where the Government guys and first responders said it was - in a hole in the ground.

The hole was little, like a garbage pit. Who dragged some make-believe debris into the garbage pit to make it look like there was a cleanup process taking place?

[no-rice-peas]

If this was an inside job like many believe, those that perpetrated the whole thing aren't likely going to ever be prosecuted until the afterlife.

Well said.

OP:
In my opinion is the whole conspericy theory completely absurd.
No goverment would like to have this type of damage on their capital, its just out of porportions.
The same political goals could be made with much less damage.
This is without any doubt in my mind the work of nasty teoriest.

You talk like government is made up of people who are all on the same page, who all agree, and who have complete control of themselves in every way. Sounds kind of absurd to me.

Those two try to construct a false consensus. Ignore them.

A vote is always a good way to determine truth. It's how we knew the Earth was flat for thousands of years.  

It is only democracy that allows us to know how dangerous our neighbors are.

[BADecker]

If this was an inside job like many believe, those that perpetrated the whole thing aren't likely going to ever be prosecuted until the afterlife.

Well said.

OP:
In my opinion is the whole conspericy theory completely absurd.
No goverment would like to have this type of damage on their capital, its just out of porportions.
The same political goals could be made with much less damage.
This is without any doubt in my mind the work of nasty teoriest.

You talk like government is made up of people who are all on the same page, who all agree, and who have complete control of themselves in every way. Sounds kind of absurd to me.

Those two try to construct a false consensus. Ignore them.

A vote is always a good way to determine truth. It's how we knew the Earth was flat for thousands of years. 

It is only democracy that allows us to know how dangerous our neighbors are.

We don't really want majority rule... the thing that democracy is. I mean, if you are in the 49% that lost, you wouldn't be happy.

Rather, lets get into "no government rule" so that we are free. Government should only exist to protect private property for the people. Some of that protection comes in the form of judging between claims of wrongdoing between people.

That's it. No other government over the people.

[no-rice-peas]

We don't really want majority rule... the thing that democracy is. I mean, if you are in the 49% that lost, you wouldn't be happy.

Rather, lets get into "no government rule" so that we are free. Government should only exist to protect private property for the people. Some of that protection comes in the form of judging between claims of wrongdoing between people.

That's it. No other government over the people.

You are saying that morality is the responsibility of some vague other, 'government', rather than oneself.

If you go to the most primitive society on the planet and a hostile person attacks you then the primitive people will grab the attacker.

In a government oriented society like ours people will usually either join the attacker if it seems he might win, or wait for 'the government' to solve the problem.

There are some things government is useful for. Building roads, organizing complex projects etc.

Freedom of speech is the first protection against any dangerous gang, including the scum who hide in governments. As long as speech is free, unhindered, it is clear who is dangerous. Democracy ideally is just free speech with a few other trivial bells and whistles.

[BitMos]

...
Freedom of speech is the first protection against any dangerous gang, including the scum who hide in governments. As long as speech is free, unhindered, it is clear who is dangerous. Democracy ideally is just free speech with a few other trivial bells and whistles.

f.e. 4 foreign enemies - d.e. for domestic enemies - total troops 546,047 ready - time since inception 239 years, 10 months - total asset values deployed not quantifiable - chance of f.e. and d.e. not to be klized? none.

will be fun against the private guards or public that will try to defend the clington and epsteins of this world... I hope their private island mansions are big and very remote, it provides nice R&D opportunity (in secret, for the various projects)... ahaha... once restored THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will be cool. Once Jade Helm is deployed it will be easier to start the "inquisition" for the lack of a better world... please don't resists it's useless... and frankly boring (a message of the combat AI to the vmr categorized d.e. and f.e.).

until then... The Mainland is better.

gl&hf, it's a one in a lifetime opportunity and the historic opportunity to write a great chapter in the history of the us armed forced... or it's last chapter. both way it will be epic.

[BADecker]

We don't really want majority rule... the thing that democracy is. I mean, if you are in the 49% that lost, you wouldn't be happy.

Rather, lets get into "no government rule" so that we are free. Government should only exist to protect private property for the people. Some of that protection comes in the form of judging between claims of wrongdoing between people.

That's it. No other government over the people.

You are saying that morality is the responsibility of some vague other, 'government', rather than oneself.

Are you telling me what I said? I don't see that in there at all. What do you mean?

If you go to the most primitive society on the planet and a hostile person attacks you then the primitive people will grab the attacker.

In a government oriented society like ours people will usually either join the attacker if it seems he might win, or wait for 'the government' to solve the problem.

What if government is the attacker, like most often in the United States?

There are some things government is useful for. Building roads, organizing complex projects etc.

Government is simply organization. If I and a few of my neighbors get together and build a road through our properties, we better be organized in our effort or it won't work. The organization is government. When the job gets finished, the government is not needed any more; disband it. If somebody who is not of our group wants to travel on our road, charge him. Toll road. If we need to form a government of ourselves to enforce our road toll, then we need to do it.

Have as many governments as you want. But as soon as I am forced to be part of your government, then that is slavery.

Freedom of speech is the first protection against any dangerous gang, including the scum who hide in governments. As long as speech is free, unhindered, it is clear who is dangerous. Democracy ideally is just free speech with a few other trivial bells and whistles.

Freedom of thought comes ahead of freedom of speech.

The United States is not a democracy. It forces taxation. That's slavery.

[TheButterZone]

Government is useful for awarding road-building and/or maintenance contracts to cronies, who subsequently build shit roads and maintain them shittily, if at all. And the same for complex projects.

[no-rice-peas]

...
Freedom of speech is the first protection against any dangerous gang, including the scum who hide in governments. As long as speech is free, unhindered, it is clear who is dangerous. Democracy ideally is just free speech with a few other trivial bells and whistles.

f.e. 4 foreign enemies - d.e. for domestic enemies - total troops 546,047 ready - time since inception 239 years, 10 months - total asset values deployed not quantifiable - chance of f.e. and d.e. not to be klized? none.

will be fun against the private guards or public that will try to defend the clington and epsteins of this world... I hope their private island mansions are big and very remote, it provides nice R&D opportunity (in secret, for the various projects)... ahaha... once restored THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will be cool. Once Jade Helm is deployed it will be easier to start the "inquisition" for the lack of a better world... please don't resists it's useless... and frankly boring (a message of the combat AI to the vmr categorized d.e. and f.e.).

until then... The Mainland is better.

gl&hf, it's a one in a lifetime opportunity and the historic opportunity to write a great chapter in the history of the us armed forced... or it's last chapter. both way it will be epic.

The problem is not really the Clinton's and the Epsteins, or Rothschilds or whoever. It is human nature. You can fight against individuals who represent something endlessly and never get anywhere.

Throughout history there have been people who recognize this and they always put up a simple rule to protect the harmless people from the stupid people. An example of this kind of rule is 'free speech'.

If a person can literally say or think whatever they like, as long as they are not stepping on someone else, then the harmless people remain both harmless and safe. But for whatever reason the stupid people in every epoch must feel that they are qualified to decide which speech etc is permissible.

Til the end of time there will be no shortage of people willing to throw wrenches in that.

[no-rice-peas]

We don't really want majority rule... the thing that democracy is. I mean, if you are in the 49% that lost, you wouldn't be happy.

Rather, lets get into "no government rule" so that we are free. Government should only exist to protect private property for the people. Some of that protection comes in the form of judging between claims of wrongdoing between people.

That's it. No other government over the people.

You are saying that morality is the responsibility of some vague other, 'government', rather than oneself.

Are you telling me what I said? I don't see that in there at all. What do you mean?

If you go to the most primitive society on the planet and a hostile person attacks you then the primitive people will grab the attacker.

In a government oriented society like ours people will usually either join the attacker if it seems he might win, or wait for 'the government' to solve the problem.

What if government is the attacker, like most often in the United States?

There are some things government is useful for. Building roads, organizing complex projects etc.

Government is simply organization. If I and a few of my neighbors get together and build a road through our properties, we better be organized in our effort or it won't work. The organization is government. When the job gets finished, the government is not needed any more; disband it. If somebody who is not of our group wants to travel on our road, charge him. Toll road. If we need to form a government of ourselves to enforce our road toll, then we need to do it.

Have as many governments as you want. But as soon as I am forced to be part of your government, then that is slavery.

Freedom of speech is the first protection against any dangerous gang, including the scum who hide in governments. As long as speech is free, unhindered, it is clear who is dangerous. Democracy ideally is just free speech with a few other trivial bells and whistles.

Freedom of thought comes ahead of freedom of speech.

The United States is not a democracy. It forces taxation. That's slavery.

1) You say 'govt should only exist to protect private property' and 'judge claims of wrongdoing' etc.
Those matters were well handled before govt took over. Among people who lack some necessary civil value there is a transfer of responsibility from the group to the individual, so the individual learns. That process is eliminated when you have a 'responsible' govt.
Example
A person does not know that it is wrong to steal someone's hat.
They steal someone's hat.
~here the scenario forks
fork 1 / People who have that value act as individuals and correct the mistake. This has been the history of mankind. It works.
fork 2 / Responsibility for teaching is transfered to a group, e.g. govt. Long story short it does not work and has never worked and will never work. It is a sly gang trick, not civilization.

2)  "Government" does not really contain something that is capable of being responsible, except for individuals. If you are in the United States govt or any other govt, and you kill a whole bunch of innocent people, is it your fault or the fault of whichever govt? I'm happy to criticize the scum in the United States govt who act malignantly. Those individuals are responsible for their acts. Some vague 'government' is not responsible. When you have a gang in which each member can be trusted to act poorly then it is reasonable to generalize, but it's a stretch to do that with the entire U.S. govt.

It is reasonable to say "this group of people acting for govt x, e.g. the U.S. govt, is responsible for their mischief".
It is not reasonable to say "Govt x is responsible for the mischief of the people who did such and such under its banner".

So you can say colloquially that "The U.S. or whichever country attacked xyz", but the truth is that it was individuals who attacked, even if those individuals were hiding behind a flag.

3) Sure, if you and your neighbors can build a road without govt, and you need a road, do it. But there are, in general terms, a lot of useful things that are best done by govt. The. problem arises when ambitious people see opportunities in this.

4) Freedom of thought is even less anyone's business than freedom of speech. There is a serious problem in many countries with gangster scum who limit freedom of speech. Not so much an obvious problem yet with limiting free thought.

As for taxation I don't care. In most countries taxes are not oppressive. Maybe they are not fair. A capable government would be limited by the revenue it could earn rather than what its citizens could afford in taxes. But that kind of minimalist government is not realistically likely any time soon.

[Spendulus]

Spendulus you are off on a red herring. It doesn't really matter why flight 93 went down. It is a peripheral issue.

The evidence indicates it was shot down and that was then hidden from the public. But it doesn't really matter here, it is not central to the broader 911 question.

There is little doubt that passengers were going to try to overwhelm the hijackers and there is little doubt that while that process was developing the plane was shot down, a tragedy within a tragedy. If it was shot down most people would reluctantly admit the decision was justifiable based on everything that was known. It is the rampant deception surrounding so many aspects of 911 that is not justifiable.

Who does the deception serve and who pays the price for it?

No, the evidence does not show it was shot down.  

Have you actually looked at the so called "debris fields?"  They are not typical of either in air breakups or planes being "shot down."  There really isn't much debris there at all.

I am saying this.  You admit the complete story of the passengers counterattacking, but conclude then that a fighter jet shot it down.  (No SAM batteries are deployed....)  

So missiles were pulled from storage, mounted on a combat aircraft that was fueled and ready to go, the aircraft launched, and the attack commenced....and that combat aircraft is going after 93 WHICH HAS IT'S TRANSPONDER TURNED OFF???   This encounter is successful, and the aircraft is shot down.  But no major parts such as wing, tail section, etc are found scattered?  No seats?

This is a conspiracy theory that makes no sense.

No debris says no plane. We watch many things in movies. It's part of the way Americans are so easily led to believe that the impossible can happen. They saw the impossible happen in movies.

But there was debris.  Unfortunately for the conspiracy theory, the debris was exactly where the Government guys and first responders said it was - in a hole in the ground.

The hole was little, like a garbage pit. Who dragged some make-believe debris into the garbage pit to make it look like there was a cleanup process taking place?

Aluminum is the primary structural material of an aircraft.  It is a ductile metal.  Ductile means that at certain pressures the metal flows, essentially becomes a liquid.  An aircraft looks big, but is mostly empty space inside.   All parts of the aircraft would continue on their velocity vectors into the ground, then the volatiles (kerosene, water, hydraulic fluid, etc) would after being seriously compressed, vaporize and shoot back up.  At that point the kerosene plume would ignite.  That would create a small "mushroom cloud."  Aluminum burns quite nicely with kerosene.  Powdered aluminum has been used as fuel in torpedoes.

There are numerous examples of aircraft crashes where "there was little left."  There are other examples of crashes where there is a lot of stuff left.  There are well understood reasons for the differences.

This appears to have been dynamically similar to meteorite crater formation.   

Disproof of "dragging make-believe debris into the garbage pit", eg the conspiracy theory, should be very simple.  One would simply look at artifacts from the garbage pit, in particular the metal.  They would be examined to determine if they were in fact subjected to a 500 mph impact.

Proof of "an aircraft being shot down" would typically be evidence of high explosive traces.  It simply appears that this particular conspiracy theory about flight 93 ignores most of physics and chemistry, doesn't it?

[no-rice-peas]

We don't really want majority rule... the thing that democracy is. I mean, if you are in the 49% that lost, you wouldn't be happy.

Rather, lets get into "no government rule" so that we are free. Government should only exist to protect private property for the people. Some of that protection comes in the form of judging between claims of wrongdoing between people.

That's it. No other government over the people.

You are saying that morality is the responsibility of some vague other, 'government', rather than oneself.

Are you telling me what I said? I don't see that in there at all. What do you mean?

If you go to the most primitive society on the planet and a hostile person attacks you then the primitive people will grab the attacker.

In a government oriented society like ours people will usually either join the attacker if it seems he might win, or wait for 'the government' to solve the problem.

What if government is the attacker, like most often in the United States?

There are some things government is useful for. Building roads, organizing complex projects etc.

Government is simply organization. If I and a few of my neighbors get together and build a road through our properties, we better be organized in our effort or it won't work. The organization is government. When the job gets finished, the government is not needed any more; disband it. If somebody who is not of our group wants to travel on our road, charge him. Toll road. If we need to form a government of ourselves to enforce our road toll, then we need to do it.

Have as many governments as you want. But as soon as I am forced to be part of your government, then that is slavery.

Freedom of speech is the first protection against any dangerous gang, including the scum who hide in governments. As long as speech is free, unhindered, it is clear who is dangerous. Democracy ideally is just free speech with a few other trivial bells and whistles.

Freedom of thought comes ahead of freedom of speech.

The United States is not a democracy. It forces taxation. That's slavery.

1) You say 'govt should only exist to protect private property' and 'judge claims of wrongdoing' etc.
Those matters were well handled before govt took over. Among people who lack some necessary civil value there is a transfer of responsibility from the group to the individual, so the individual learns. That process is eliminated when you have a 'responsible' govt.
Example
A person does not know that it is wrong to steal someone's hat.
They steal someone's hat.
~here the scenario forks
fork 1 / People who have that value act as individuals and correct the mistake. This has been the history of mankind. It works.
fork 2 / Responsibility for teaching is transfered to a group, e.g. govt. Long story short it does not work and has never worked and will never work. It is a sly gang trick, not civilization.

2)  "Government" does not really contain something that is capable of being responsible, except for individuals. If you are in the United States govt or any other govt, and you kill a whole bunch of innocent people, is it your fault or the fault of whichever govt? I'm happy to criticize the scum in the United States govt who act malignantly. Those individuals are responsible for their acts. Some vague 'government' is not responsible. When you have a gang in which each member can be trusted to act poorly then it is reasonable to generalize, but it's a stretch to do that with the entire U.S. govt.

It is reasonable to say "this group of people acting for govt x, e.g. the U.S. govt, is responsible for their mischief".
It is not reasonable to say "Govt x is responsible for the mischief of the people who did such and such under its banner".

So you can say colloquially that "The U.S. or whichever country attacked xyz", but the truth is that it was individuals who attacked, even if those individuals were hiding behind a flag.

3) Sure, if you and your neighbors can build a road without govt, and you need a road, do it. But there are, in general terms, a lot of useful things that are best done by govt. The. problem arises when ambitious people see opportunities in this.

4) Freedom of thought is even less anyone's business than freedom of speech. There is a serious problem in many countries with gangster scum who limit freedom of speech. Not so much an obvious problem yet with limiting free thought.

As for taxation I don't care. In most countries taxes are not oppressive. Maybe they are not fair. A capable government would be limited by the revenue it could earn rather than what its citizens could afford in taxes. But that kind of minimalist government is not realistically likely any time soon.

Proof of "an aircraft being shot down" would typically be evidence of high explosive traces.  It simply appears that this particular conspiracy theory about flight 93 ignores most of physics and chemistry, doesn't it?

Some other reports.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html
and
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/shootdown.html

Ultimately it does look, at least to me, like flight 93 was shot down and that the downing was then covered up.

Does it mean some pilot or other officer did something terrible?
No. They reasonably assumed the people on the aircraft had little to no chance of survival and that the hijackers were going to crash into some additional people. Based on what they knew, and their training, they acted correctly.

The problem is, and please don't ignore this' by furthering this deception a huge number of people in the military have tainted themselves as being 'part of the 911 coverup'.

This flight 93 issue is completely separate from the core 911 conspiracies. But the people involved, who probably acted correctly, except for the coverup, are now coconspirators of the larger conspiracy, if there was one.

A simple, honest investigation would have solved this. Even the high level people involved in the official investigation admit that there were large aspects of the event that they could not discuss publicly.

[mladen00]

If it wasn't Jihadis, then why did the Muslim world celebrate it?

maybe because usa army killed millions of them

[Chabacano]

they are so many proof that the US did 911, but at the end of the day we cant prove it, theres a lot of rumors about it, but I think everybody wants to know the true. I will say that could be a possible that US did 911.

[erikalui]

I read some news reports which claimed that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for these attacks. He always targeted the US and when the news of his death was revealed, the officials claimed his involvement in the attack. I don't agree that US government played any role in it.

[Spendulus]

Proof of "an aircraft being shot down" would typically be evidence of high explosive traces.  It simply appears that this particular conspiracy theory about flight 93 ignores most of physics and chemistry, doesn't it?

Some other reports.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html
and
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/shootdown.html

Ultimately it does look, at least to me, like flight 93 was shot down and that the downing was then covered up.

Does it mean some pilot or other officer did something terrible?
No. They reasonably assumed the people on the aircraft had little to no chance of survival and that the hijackers were going to crash into some additional people. Based on what they knew, and their training, they acted correctly.

The problem is, and please don't ignore this' by furthering this deception a huge number of people in the military have tainted themselves as being 'part of the 911 coverup'.

This flight 93 issue is completely separate from the core 911 conspiracies. But the people involved, who probably acted correctly, except for the coverup, are now coconspirators of the larger conspiracy, if there was one.

A simple, honest investigation would have solved this. Even the high level people involved in the official investigation admit that there were large aspects of the event that they could not discuss publicly.

Here is a description of the "secondary debris field".  Not much there, is there?

Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.

Here is an early report from the local police head.

In a morning briefing, state Police Major Lyle Szupinka confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake. Investigators appealed to any residents who had come across such debris, in the surrounding countryside or even in their yards, to contact them, emphasizing that even the smallest remnants could prove to be important clues.....

In response to a question on recurring rumors that the plane might have been shot down, Crowley said that at this stage of the investigation, no possibility was being ruled out. He stressed, however, that no evidence had surfaced to support that theory.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, noted and discounted the same speculation here Tuesday, saying that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield had assured him that the government had not shot down the hijacked plane to prevent it from hitting a potential target.

I don't think you need to or should believe Rumsfield, Crowley, or the 911 Commission.  I simply think that by looking at the facts it is correct that "no evidence has emerged to support the shoot-down theory."  Your links do not show any solid evidence.  None whatsoever.

I am really curious, what do you think would be the result of an aircraft heading straight down and hitting the ground at close to the speed of a bullet?  Although vaporizing aluminum requires 13,000 joules per gram, melting it only requires 398 joules.  The incoming aircraft weighed some 60 tons or about 55,000 kilograms.

Assuming the plane did go straight down and using the basic formula E = 1/2*m*v^2, with the following numbers from taking the cross section of the fuselage and the total weight:

m = 13 g/square centimeter or 0.013 kg/cm^2
V = 209 meters/second
so kinetic energy was 564 joules/square cm

Now assume half of the weight of the plane was aluminum, 30T (metric 27 kiloton), what volume of aluminum are we looking for?

Density = 2667 kg/cu meter
Volume = 27,000 / 2667 or about 10 cubic meters.

Summarizing, you are looking not for "an aircraft" but aluminum about equal to a 7' cube.

[MiningAtlas]

a combination of a few different groups did it as that was what was needed to cover it up.

[Spendulus]

a combination of a few different groups did it as that was what was needed to cover it up.

The problem with these conspiracy theories is the huge numbers of people who would have to be killed or shut up to keep the facts from coming out.

Basically impossible to do that.

I am sure that the Ideas that the Jews did 9/11, or the US did 9/11, is attractive for those who think all of Islam is a religion of peace....

[BADecker]

a combination of a few different groups did it as that was what was needed to cover it up.

The problem with these conspiracy theories is the huge numbers of people who would have to be killed or shut up to keep the facts from coming out.

Basically impossible to do that.

I am sure that the Ideas that the Jews did 9/11, or the US did 9/11, is attractive for those who think all of Islam is a religion of peace....

The fact that the conspiracy theories DO exist, and have existed as long as they have, is the evidence that the facts are coming out.

[Spendulus]

a combination of a few different groups did it as that was what was needed to cover it up.

The problem with these conspiracy theories is the huge numbers of people who would have to be killed or shut up to keep the facts from coming out.

Basically impossible to do that.

I am sure that the Ideas that the Jews did 9/11, or the US did 9/11, is attractive for those who think all of Islam is a religion of peace....

The fact that the conspiracy theories DO exist, and have existed as long as they have, is the evidence that the facts are coming out.

No it is not evidence that "the facts are coming out".  It may be evidence that a lot of people want to hate the USA, and are okay with latching on half baked ideas to support their hate.

Conversely if "the facts are coming out" where exactly are those facts?  Some things have been asserted in this thread but on examination they don't really stand up.  Are those the best assertions that support this "theory?" 

[BADecker]

a combination of a few different groups did it as that was what was needed to cover it up.

The problem with these conspiracy theories is the huge numbers of people who would have to be killed or shut up to keep the facts from coming out.

Basically impossible to do that.

I am sure that the Ideas that the Jews did 9/11, or the US did 9/11, is attractive for those who think all of Islam is a religion of peace....

The fact that the conspiracy theories DO exist, and have existed as long as they have, is the evidence that the facts are coming out.

No it is not evidence that "the facts are coming out".  It may be evidence that a lot of people want to hate the USA, and are okay with latching on half baked ideas to support their hate.

Conversely if "the facts are coming out" where exactly are those facts?  Some things have been asserted in this thread but on examination they don't really stand up.  Are those the best assertions that support this "theory?"  

The lists of things that don't fit the official story go on and on. Check here https://duckduckgo.com/?q=9%2F11+conspiracy+website+list