thing", But your wonderful rebuttle to any notion that the 'man in a cave" theory is to say that bush couldn't organise the WMD in Iraq so how could he have pulled off 9/11. It is a great way top avoid having to actually analyse the kean commission report and the official story. Your logic seems to be that your going to believe the official story without checking it and your not going to believe any other theory but will pick and mix only the most far out ones to attack. (maybe you should go for a job with Mike, he has a similar tactic. Orc, i am guessing you care enough to register, read and then comment on these blogs, so thats confusing saying that you don't care what we think or say. You clearly do. For example I could care less about the english cricket selection process so i never read about it or comment on it. You poor little fella. Good to see jon112 still doing his best to hold his own with the physics argument. Best you stick to the whole speed of collapse argument as it is one that neither side will ever win. Just make sure you avoid any of the ones you can't argue with. The salvage contracts signed before 9/11, the lack of anti-aircraft missile defense at the pentagon, the black boxes that have planes flying underground, the fireproof passports, the barry jennings testimony (i suppose you can argue about that one