The 9/11 attacks sparked a new era of sweeping military conflicts all across the Mideast that began with two major invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of these nations had any significant involvement in the 9/11 attacks. 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the attack were from Saudi Arabia, but no military attack on that nation was ever even considered. And since then, the US has increased its military operations all across the Mideast, including the complete destruction of Libya which is now an Islamic State stronghold, and the on-going conflict in Syria where the US is supporting al-Qaeda and affiliated jihadist groups in furtherance of ousting Assad. All of these conflicts have made the defense industry trillions of dollars, and spawned a global terrorism epidemic and the largest immigration crisis since WWII. So the question of what really happened on 9/11/2001 is still very much relevant – a key factor in today’s vast military interventionism and dramatically increased global instability. Frankly I haven’t looked into that question as closely as I should have, because it’s an emotionally agonizing subject. But I’d like to compare and contrast the various arguments about the origin and the nature of the 9/11 attacks, to see if we can clarify the questions surrounding that day. Apparently The shadow has researched the collapse of WTC building 7, and I'd like to see what he found: Let’s try to keep it as factual as possible, rather than debating the hot-button issue of “could our own government have allowed this to happen, or been involved in it.” Because that question is purely an emotional and ideological one, rather than an empirical one. Personally I think that any government willing to destroy an entire nation like Iraq under the false pretense of non-existent WMD’s, which involved the wholesale slaughter of 100,000’s of innocent civilians, is capable of anything. But that’s beside the point – the real question is what happened and why. While I haven’t yet reached any firm conclusions, I do find the following facts to make a persuasive case that the official story is incomplete at best, and a cover-up at worst: * No large steel building has ever collapsed by fire, anywhere in the world, either before or since. This makes a strong case that the fall of WTC 7, which collapsed within hours and at essentially free-fall acceleration, was a controlled demolition event. * Both of the Twin Towers were designed to withstand a direct impact from a passenger jet airliner. While that fact may leave some wiggle room for the size of the jets that impacted the two buildings, the rate of collapse of both buildings, and the brief time before their collapses, and their collapse directly upon their building footprints, appears to indicate controlled demolition to my untrained eye. * A large group of professional engineers, architects, and demolitions experts agree that the collapses of these buildings appear to be controlled demolition rather than structural failure, and they made this 1-hour video to support their conclusions which I found to be very compelling: * The Pentagon attack seems bizarre and suspicious not only because the alleged plane that hit the building just happened to strike a section of the Pentagon which was closed for renovations at the time, but also because the impact area doesn’t look anything like a typical airliner crash site, which is usually littered with a lot of wreckage. Here's a photo of the 2016 jet airliner crash into the side of a mountain near Le Bourget, France, which shows the scale of some of the wreckage they found at the site: * At least seven CIA veterans have publicly rejected the findings of the 9/11 Commission report: Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report * The debris from the WTC buildings was whisked off to buyers in China and India before a forensic examination was conducted, which is bizarre and suspicious considering the importance of the event and its historic level of criminality. A scientific analysis would've answered key questions about the nature of the collapse and given building designers insight on how to prevent such a collapse again in the future. It would've also exposed the use of any demolition agents such as thermite. Destruction of Evidence from Ground Zero at the World Trade Center - SourceWatch * General Wesley Clark told this story about a brief meeting that he had at the Pentagon about 10 days after the 9/11 attacks where he was told that at that point we already had plans to destroy 7 countries over the next 5 years – and none of these countries were linked to the 9/11 attacks. This seems like strong circumstantial evidence to me that the Pentagon had these plans before the 9/11 attacks, and now intended to use the attacks to justify these broad new military operations. In intelligence circles, covert operations are often conducted to provide “diplomatic cover” for military interventions. Listen to what he has to say in this 2-minute clip: Altogether, these factors remind me of the duck test: “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” So the 9/11 attacks were either the perfect and yet totally serendipitous rationale for the Pentagon to suddenly and dramatically expand US military operations abroad, or they were some kind of neocon operation conducted expressly for that purpose. The case for US involvement is substantially magnified by a document called “Rebuilding America's Defenses” published by the neocon foreign-policy think tank Project for the New American Century, which was comprised of rapacious war criminals like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The document, which was published one year before the 9/11 attacks, states: "A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century 51 policy goals and would trouble American allies. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” I’d like to hear everyone’s views, and to examine the best evidence that advocates of the various positions have to offer. And let’s try to keep the discussion civil.