Tough Questions for Skeptics about 9/11

[Scepcop]

Dear Skeptics,

I have some hard questions for you about 9/11.

- Why do you feel that the official story is gospel truth, when there is no evidence to back it up? The FBI even admitted that they have no hard evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11, so why do you take it as gospel truth?

http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=tl&q ... den+to+9/1

- How can the official story be true if 7 of the hijackers were found to be still alive? Doesn't that debunk it?

http://www.google.com.ph/search?hl=tl&q ... anap&meta=
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://guardian.150m.com/september-elev ... -alive.htm

- Here is one question that NOT ONE of the debunking 9/11 truth sites ever answers: The NTSB report and video said that when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, its wings fell off, and that's why you don't see any impact from them on the Pentagon. But if that's so, then WHERE are the wings and WHY do none of the Pentagon crash photos show any wings lying on the lawn? NOT ONE website defending the official story has EVER EVER answered this question! NOT ONE! They avoid it like the plague.

- When William Rodriguez, the last man out of the WTC and a hero on 9/11, said that he heard a huge explosion from the BASEMENT level of the WTC that happened BEFORE the plane hit, ABC edited it out and made it look like he said that the plane caused the explosion he heard.

Is that dishonest to you? Do you have no quarrel with that? In your book, is it ok to distort and take someone's statements out of context, to protect the official story? Is conformity a higher principle to you than truth?

His testimony about that, which the corporate media does not dare broadcast, is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi0bDy-6m3o

- If the official story is true, and the media have nothing to hide, then why don't they report William Rodriguez's testimony accurately, along with many others, instead of censoring them? Why don't they also report on the hijackers being still alive? They did report it on their websites, but for some reason not on TV.

- Can you document any incident besides 9/11 where a 757 Airliner crashed into the ground or a building and then vaporized or disintegrated so that no debris of it could be seen? And aren't you using circular reasoning when you say that since the crash happened as the official story says, and there's no debris, then it must have disintegrated?

- So you really buy that for the first time in history, on 9/11, three steel framed buildings collapsed from fire, even though one of them was not even hit by a plane, all on the same day and owned by the same leaseholder (Silverstein)? And you buy that on 9/11, for the first time in history, two airliners crashed into land and vaporized?!?!?!?! Amazing coincidences wouldn't you say? And none of that raises your eyebrow? Is it because to you, everything official is Gospel Truth and that all conspiracies that go against the establishment's story are automatically false by default?

- Do you consider yourself an objective truth seeker and thinker, or defender of orthodoxy?

- Why do you defend something that has no evidence, just because it's orthodoxy?

- If you really felt that all the evidence contradicted the official story, would you disagree with it honestly, or deny it due to your allegiance to anything official and by the establishment?