I think some people are missing the point here. Yes, the "hijackers" were patsies. The point is that they were controlled patsies. The ISI is a CIA-backed organization. The fact that the ISI sent the hijackers money is stunning evidence that the CIA supported them. What better way to control patsies than to own them? The patsies were assets of the US-intelligence community.

The evidence shows that someone was supporting the patsies in the United states--and these people had ties to the bush family and the US intelligence community. A patsy is only useful if he does what he is told and looks guilty, like train at flight schools at US military bases. This is not a happy coincidence--it is made to happen, and the patsy is controlled to look guilty.

The "limited hangout" occurs when this is failed to be understood within the inside job paradigm and legitimate evidence is dismissed on false premises and baseless speculation that evidence is irrelevant.

Building a total case for 9/11 being an inside job involves looking at all of the evidence with the understanding that proving that the "hijackers" were indeed patsies with all of the available evidence is an important part of the equation. Showing that they had ties to the US intelligence community only further supports the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, and that those blamed were "controlled assets".
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth