While I think he overreacted to the posting of this entry, and while I think "virtually" all the regular users of this site don't believe the "carried out entirely by Arab hijackers" myth, there have been a few instances, over the past year, where certain individuals have tried to vigorously defend various aspects of the official story. Not the entire official story, but various aspects thereof. And many of these various aspects are the aspects which most centrally revolve around the alleged Muslim hijackers.

In particular, there was a concerted effort to disprove DRG's research into the alleged phone calls from the airplanes, particularly Barbara Olson's call from Flight 77 which allegedly hit the Pentagon. It's an impressive blog entry lengthwise, and to those skimmers judging the book by the cover, Griffin might appear to have been successfully rebutted. To that I say: Don't forget that Vincent Bugliosi wrote a 1,600 page book "proving" Oswald was a lone nut with no government assistance! Oh, and in 10,000 pages, NIST MUST have covered the collapses as thoroughly as possible right? But like the NIST report, the aforementioned blog entry by jimd3100 about the phone calls didn't hold up under scrutiny, as seen in DRG's rebuttal.

Now, if a person is going to defend the claim that the phone calls were "genuine," that implies that the passenger was indeed calling from a plane that was actually hijacked by brown-skinned men wielding boxcutters - and indeed, Olson's call is the only one which mentions boxcutters, and was incidentally the phone call that was the most heavily defended as being "genuine."

Furthermore, some of the same people who defend the phone calls (particularly Olson's) as being authentic calls from hijacked planes (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) also defend the claim that the said plane, AA77, impacted the Pentagon from the official South of Citgo flight path (despite definitive evidence to the contrary, i.e. numerous on-location interviews with witnesses who say things such as "Bet my life on it" that the plane approached from the North of Citgo).

In short, they are defending the claim that Hani Hanjour and the other hijackers hijacked the plane, and Barbara Olson actually called Ted and told him about the said hijackers, and shortly afterwords, the plane approached the Pentagon low and level from South of the Citgo, knocked down the light poles (one of which allegedly speared Lloyde England's cab without leaving a scratch on the hood) and then crashed into the building causing the directional damage and the hole in the C ring.

So there are a small number of people who, while on the one hand certainly claim to want to know the whole truth and agreeing that "we don't know" what happened and therefore demand an investigation, on the other hand seem quite adamant on defending some of the central aspects of the official story with regard to hijackers hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.

But I agree that on the whole, the extreme majority of people on here are more skeptical of EACH aspect of the official story.

ESPECIALLY in light of what we now know about things like Operation Northwoods, which went as far as to suggest "fake passengers" with "carefully prepared aliases."

It's not logical to say, "Oh, I accept Controlled Demolition, but the other material aspects of the official story are true." That's not how it works with me. As we know 9/11 to be one big psyop military deception, I assume each aspect of the official story to be false until proven true, not the other way round.

Props to Joe below for posting Fabled Enemies.

ETA: Also, why is this entry on the front page while the one about the former Controlled Demo Inc employee is only in the blogs? Maybe it's anomalies like this that contribute to jpass' suspicion.