Here is an excellent summary of why the official version of 9/11 should be questioned, by Paul Craig Roberts, a former US administrator.
Also, a link asking whether it has become acceptable to question the official version, from a popular alternative-media organ.
Last May, I posted on my blogsite a series of three tributes to a Canadian friend who had just died. We had breakfasted together just about every Saturday for the past few years, and discussed and argued about every subject under the sun, pretty much. In the first of the blogs (called "The engineer and the auditor" - you can find it in the Archives) I wrote about our coverage of the 9/11 myth:
"As an engineer, he was professionally offended by the (to him) plain lie that WTC #7 had collapsed and crumbled to dust in its own footprint without the help of explosives. As an auditor, I questioned the plausibility of the claim that nineteen barefoot Arab boys had breached the defences – not once, but four times – of the world’s strongest military defence, without help."
What does The Team think? Who believes those who lied the Western world into the Iraq war, and who doesn't?