Summary

So what does it all mean? Was 9/11 an "inside job"?

Yeah. I reckon it probably was. Because aside from the evidence it was, if you try to write it off as government incompetence instead (the only other explanation for everything that went wrong), it turns into a huge coincidence theory, with so many highly improbable coincidences that the whole thing is half a nanometer from impossible.

The strongest evidence for complicity, I think, is two things:

1. The World Trade Center collapses
2. The lack of fighter jets

I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the WTC collapses, including Building 7, were controlled demolitions. They exhibited all the signs of controlled demolitions (sudden onset, straight down, free-fall speed, lateral explosive ejections, total destruction, pulverization of concrete, steel cut into nice manageable pieces, chemical signature of demolition incendiaries, etc.) and none of the signs of fire-driven, gravitational collapse (gradual warping, unbalanced toppling along path of least resistance, partial destruction, large recognizable chunks of building left over, etc.). I think they really goofed when they tried to slip Building 7 past us. That was the first real "hey waitaminnit" moment. If I was them, I'd be a little nervous about that one. I mean, how stupid do they think we are? Pretty stupid, apparently. But we're not. Right? Anyway, if those were controlled demolitions (and they were), that just unravels everything else, because they had to be planned in advance, by insiders, and the whole official story is a lie.

And the fighter jets just not appearing? Nuh uh. Totally implausible. The military probably heard from the FAA about multiple hijackings by about 8:30. People quibble about the times, about when the FAA made reports, hey: at the very latest, everybody in the world knew there was a major terrorist attack by 9:03, the moment the second plane hit the South Tower. The Pentagon didn't get hit until about 9:36. It normally takes a fighter 10 or 12 minutes to intercept an off-course plane, and with Andrews AFB ten miles away, they could have had a plane over DC in two minutes or less. But we're expected to believe that given 30 minutes at a minimum, with certain knowledge of multiple hijackings by suicidal terrorists, the US military couldn't get a single fighter in the air to defend the capital? Might be a good idea? Even if they didn't know for sure it was a target? Sort of, you know, just in case? Better safe than sorry? What the heck, it is the capital. Get one plane up there? Just as a silly precaution? I'm sure terrorists would never target anything in the DC area, but no harm in getting a fighter up there on the off chance? "Oops"? It's just not plausible.

Those two things are big. They can't be explained away. Everything else, I have wiggle room on. Was the Pentagon hit by a plane or a missile? I don't know. Was Flight 93 shot down? I don't know. Did we have specific advance actionable intelligence? I don't know. Are we in bed with Al Qaeda? I don't know. Is the official Commission report a deliberate cover-up job? I don't know. What do I know? To a very high degree of probability, the three WTC buildings were controlled demolitions; to a very high degree of probability, the fighter jet failure was no screw-up.

Who, how, and why? I don't know. But those would be very good questions for a real investigation to pursue.