1. the plane in question was small, lost in the fog and was not flying very fast.

2. the empire state building was a box steel frame with congrete reinforcement. the fire was short lived and the structural integrety of the building was never an issue. Only 2-3 floors were effected, and the hole it made was only 12 feet wide and 20 feet tall.

Does Operation Red (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901412_pf.html) offer an "historical presedence" (sic) for the coming invasion of Canada, too? There are plans for the discovery of sasquatch, for crying out loud: it doesn't mean they are going to be executed or are even feasible.

You have been asking why the government would purposly do something like 9/11...

Actually, I haven't asked that yet. I don't address speculations about why 9/11 might have been staged until the third part of this series.

yet you never address the Northwoods Papers presented at the beginning of the film.

I'm aware of Operation Northwoods, but I didn't discuss it because it has little relevance to the immediate subject at hand. The question is not whether there is historical precedent for the government staging a terrorist attack on its own people; the question is whether there is evidence to suggest that this is what actually happened on September 11. I don't believe there is. (I would also point out that that plan, outrageous as it was, nevertheless involved evacuating the passengers from a dummy aircraft before destroying it - a far cry indeed from deliberately crashing a piloted commercial airliner filled with passengers into a heavily populated national landmark.)

As always, I extend the same invitation to all comers: if you think there are any errors or omissions in my posts that bear on my conclusions, by all means, point them out and we can discuss them.

As you can see for yourself, I explain exactly where most of my information comes from, via the "(source)" links after most statements. LC, on the other hand, often does not explain this. For example, as I'll get to in Part III, their claim about the $167 billion in gold, which they believe to be the primary purpose for the entire 9/11 conspiracy, is sourced by referring to nothing more than anonymous "rumors".

If you dispute any specific claims I make, feel free to point out which ones and explain why you disagree with them.

If you do have professional documentation supporting your debunking theories I would like to read it, to help me resolve conflictions. Please state their name, company, and position held.

Just my 2 cents :)

I can't believe that even made it past the editors. In 1945 the B-52 didn't even exist. It entered service in 1954. Hmm... two numerical inversions? Must be another conspiracy.