I would like to sum them up with one coherent story that I just pieced together for myself. It overlaps Webster Tarpley (who thinks there is a wider conspiracy), standard 9/11 truther stuff, and Flight of the Bumble-Planes (from which I stole the idea of the passenger transfer).
This story is consistent with all the evidence. No other story I have seen so far is consistent with all the evidence and with the basic laws of human organization, that you can't keep a secret in Washington.
The main points to keep in mind:
This makes it difficult to make a conspiracy, So it can't be a real conspiracy, everyone working on this must be working unwittingly on something else. This something else is a military drill.
You need 4 drills simultaneously going on the morning of 9/11:
Each drill can be easily justified on the grounds of terrorism preparedness--- you are testing readiness for multiple simultaneous hijackings.
So each of these drills is innocuous in and of itself. Drills identical to these (or nearly identical, up to secrecy) were going on on the morning of 9/11.
Now you change a few details in the drills.
Drill 1: You intercept and then shoot down one of the 4 drones early in the morning, and leave 3 flying. You duplicatively send the shoot-down forms to the 4 offices, so that each one thinks their drone is the one that got shot down, so you get no questions regarding what happened to the other drones. You then instruct the operators of the drones to fly the drones close to the three flights.
Drill 2: When the drones are close to the same spot, you instruct the folks on the flight to start the hijacking drill. A fellow on the flight stands up and says he has a bomb, some others brandish plastic knives half-heartedly. Another fellow in the cockpit tells the pilots to turn off the transponder and land at the nearest military base, and that it is a surprise drill. The crew becomes more or less aware it is a drill, the passengers are not aware, and at this point they call home with their plane-phones (which you enable) and tell their relatives they are being hijacked.
Drill 3: You switch position of drone and planes once the transponder is off.
Drill 4: You have hooked up the flight-simulator to the drones, so that instead of flight simulating the attack, the pilots fly the drones into the WTC and Pentagon.
While all this is going on, you transfer all the passengers and crew off the planes, as part of drill 2, onto the flight which is identified as flight 93 in the media, although it is probably flight 11 that was the actual plane used, since flight 93 was identified flying west to Cincinatti later (and also flight 175). These were the empty planes flown to another airport.
After the three attacks are complete, you order flight 93 shot down with an air-to-air missile, killing all 200 passengers on all four flights. It is obvious that the shooting will be covered up, and there is no need for the pilots doing the shoot-down to be co-conspirator.
That's the entire attack. It is consistent with all the evidence, and with zero co-conspirators. The official story is absurdly inconsistent with the evidence, and with any iota of common sense.
The rigging of the buildings for demolition is done months or years earlier, using a relatively small crew, requisitioned through the CIA. The demolition material is thermite placed on the core, to melt the steel over an hour or so, and some thermite charges on some intemediate floors and in the basement, to cut support columns when the time for demolition comes.
The stated purpose, for the handful of people who know about it, is demolition for the purpose of public safety in the event of a terrorist attack, so that the buildings don't topple over onto other buildings. The owner does not need to know the hijacking is fake, only that the demolition system is in place. If he took out a crapload of insurance in paranoia, and stayed the heck away from the buildings whenever there was a rumor of anything happening involving airplanes, it would be understandable. He does not need to be in on the plan. That's what makes it realistic--- nobody needs to be in on the plan, except the person in charge of the drills that day.
Similarly, the rumors and warnings not to fly on 9/11 might have simply come from those with knowledge that there were going to be surprise hijacking drills. Many people involved in the planning would know that there would be hijacking drills that would delay people for hours and hours, and get them to the wrong destination, so they warn their friends not to fly, and this rumor spreads to the whole government. It does not require foreknowledge of the entire plan.
Similarly, the insider trading on United and American could have been done by people who knew the drills were going to take place on these airlines, and might cause the stock price to dip, if the markets suspect the government has some intelligence regarding these airlines in particular. It does not necessarily mean that the insider traders knew what was going to happen. If they actually knew what was going to happen, they wouldn't dare do any insider trading, for fear of getting linked to the plot! All these put-option profits ended up uncollected anyway, nobody wanted to admit having any prior knowledge after they saw what happened.
If you review the drills, the flight 93 crash site, the ACARS and radar data (which shows the switch happening for flight 175), the eyewitness testimony, the phone calls, the information summarized on Engineers&Architects, Pilots, Scholars, for 9/11 truth, review everything, and check if this story holds up, you will see that it does hold up. Needless to say, the official story is ridiculous.
To hush it up afterwards is not so hard, because nobody knows anything more than that one or another innocuous drill was going on at the same time as the attack. The attack scale and type is also quite intimidating, in that you either believed that there were actual hijackings at the same time as the simulated hijackings, or else you believed there was a massive conspiracy of evil inside the government. Either way, it wouldn't be in your interest to say anything, because if there were real hijackings, you wouldn't be telling anyone anything interesting, and if there is a massive conspiracy, it is so enormous, you would suspect that you would probably end up dead.
This illusion of enormous power is what keeps folks in line, and increases the government power. This by itself is sufficient motivation for a single individual, and it is not necessary for more than one individual to be completely in on every aspect, although the rest will suspect if they have half a brain.
As for everyone else, they ends up suspecting that the entire government has been taken over by illuminati, who infiltrated whole agencies, thousands and thousands of them, as required for an attack this size.
The only people who the planner really needs to worry about are the three drone pilots, and these people were said to have been hushed up by ordinary methods, having them poisoned or killed, kidnapping their children, or otherwise making sure they don't speak out. But they would be intimidated like everyone else, and there would only be a handful of them, and their story would be uncorroborated by anyone.
The key is that it does not require a massive conspiracy, it's really consistent with the plan of a single person. You can see that it is not a large conspiracy, because the planner couldn't even get the flight 175 drone painted and modelled right. It was just a big grey military plane, with standard miltary bumps and attachments on the bottom.
You must have a lot of free time.
It didn't take long at all, I figured it out instantly a few months ago, I reviewed the evidence afterwards, changing a few slight details, and I filled in the transfer business from flight of the bumble-planes (originally I thought each of the 4 airliners were shot down separately--- this is not possible, there were no witnesses to this over NY state, and it doesn't explain the short passenger lists on the 4 flights)
Instead of making a half-assed snide comment, review the evidence and try to find a real flaw with this scenario. It explains everything, all the anomalies, all the official data, and also why there are no witnesses inside the government to any type of conspiracy. There is no conspiracy, it's basically just the plan of one person who organized a bunch of drills.
The question then, it seems, is "who the hell is that one person?"
When you figure it out (and it's very easy to figure out by looking at who ordered and managed the drills), it won't be a suprise. I don't like to name names, because it's potentially slander and it's potential liability, absent a formal investigation and a trial.
Oh, you sly boots. Investigation, away!
Richard Stallman is also suspicious about 9/11: New 911 Investigation
Yes, it was Stallman's suspicions that triggered my own. I couldn't understand how such an intelligent person was suspicious, and then I looked into it, and I got on board.
Ron, I see you've posted a 911 question on history stack exchange - how come? I thought you didn't like the political system there. I think you should have posted the question on skeptics.
I did put it on skeptics, it was erased quickly, and i was blocked for a year. I posted because there is a Truther march tommorrow, and I am doing propaganda for the march. I don't expect the questions to remain, or to get answered, but I propagandized about 100 people, so it's worth it.
I figured out roughly how the attack was done a few months ago (and at that point became a truther). It came to me in a flash: three drills
then you change the coordinates of the drones with airliners, and attach the drones to the simulation.
This doesn't quite work, because you can't shoot down things in airspace willy-nilly, and it is also not consistent with the details of the phone calls and the exact details revealed about the drills.
But when you add an additional drill
and you do the swap, land the fake-hijacked planes at air-force bases (these exist along the flight path), and transfer the passengers to flight 93 (which is actually flight 11 in terms of plane used), then shoot it down, at this point you get an exact match to the data.
This is really completely consistent with all the data, mainstream and truther all together. It is the first story consistent with all the data I have seen, so it's probably correct, up to irrelevant stupid details.
I patched up the details over the last few weeks. I wrote a bunch of answers here detailing how it was done. I also found testimony attesting to the flight-simulation part online from a reliable 9-11 truther filmmaker (who didn't ever think about or support this scenario, so there is no reason for him to make it up). He said the flight simulation pilots were kept quiet through kidnapping their children, and through poisoning them, and that they realized what they were doing because they had a TV set in the room, and saw the second plane crash (they weren't supposed to have a TV). The testimony is on youtube, I linked it here somewhere.
If his testimony is true, it would explain why there was a reported plane crash on the KY border--- the drone was no longer flown by the pilot when he realized he was doing an attack. In this case, there was a substitution at the Pentagon, which explains why the Pentagon attack is so crummy compared to the rest. Whether it was a smaller military plane flown by the mastermind himself, or a cruise missile, I don't know, but it is possible that it was just a small drone flown in the same way as the others.
The main point is the simultaneous drills allow you to stage it alone from a bunker with some FAA screens, with no help, just by yourself, if you are in charge of all the drills that day.
It is interesting, because it requires no conspiracy whatsoever, unlike any other story, including the official story, which requires a suicide conspiracy of 19 Saudis.
I'm under the impression that people are disciplined for posting their own theories on stack exchange, and you've had many warnings, so you ended up getting banned for a year.
Was it the same question you posted in history?
If not, can you post in the comment the full version together with the question?
Yes, I don't like this policy, and I am happy to be banned. What is the internet for, if not discussing people's ideas? The restriction means that the conversation is restricted to people who have authority, and this reinforces the status-quo, whatever it may be.