Questions for those who argue as skeptics against 9/11 skepticism

[JackRiddler]

(NOTE: No name calling. I want to open a serious discussion with those who are willing. I ask people who support inside job theories to comment on the OP if they wish but to avoid snark in this thread and wait on adding their own new questions for 48 hours.)

Isn't Cheney's continued linking of the Saddam regime to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 events the most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all? Did it not have more real-world impact than any other conspiracy theory? Note that he did it again yesterday:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/13/MNG7UOK2D61.DTL&type=printable

Should 9/11 have been responded to as a crime against humanity, or as an act of war?

Is it untrue that 9/11 was employed as the justification for military actions and domestic policies that would have otherwise been politically difficult or infeasible? Is it untrue that each of these actions and policies was explicitly desired and planned in advance by the main players of the Bush administration?

Do you justify the appointment of Philip Zelikow as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission? Does not this appointment on its face indicate a cover-up?

What did you think of the original appointment of Henry Kissinger to be the chairman of the 9/11 Commission?

Did Condoleezza Rice commit perjury with regard to the Aug. 6th PDB in her testimony before the Commission? Should this not be a priority for prosecution?

Do you agree with the 9/11 Commission conclusion that the question of who financed the alleged hijackers is "of little practical significance"?

Should the Pakistani money connection have been pursued? Should this not be a high priority?

Should Sibel Edmonds be allowed to speak openly on all that she knows? Should this not be a high priority for opponents of the Bush regime?

Should an investigation be pursued to determine which agencies and officials consciously and repeatedly upheld false accounts of the air-defense response timeline? (Suspects to include FAA, NORAD and Gen. Myers, who produced and repeated mutually contradictory accounts in the 2001-2003 period?)

Shouldn't the whereabouts of Gen. Myers (in light of his contradictions with Clarke's account) and of Donald Rumsfeld during the attacks be known?

Should Christie Todd Whitman be indicted for her false statements to the public concerning the dangers of Ground Zero emissions? Shouldn't it be a high priority to investigate which White House officials suppressed the initial EPA report? Wouldn't consciously downplaying this risk and ultimately raising the fatality rate constitute a high crime?

Were the questions posed by the Family Steering Committee the right roadmap for the 9/11 Commission, as Jamey Gorelick and others acknowledged? Is it untrue, as two members of the FSC have detailed, that 70 percent of these questions were fully omitted from consideration the 9/11 CR?

Would you support a new investigation that uses these questions as its basis?

Do you agree there is probable cause for a criminal investigation or grand jury into as-yet unsolved crimes relating to the events of September 11th and their aftermath?
(See http://justicefor911.org - Have you read the actual 2004 complaint to Spitzer up at that site?)

Do you agree with the Commission's deal with the White House on WH documents including PDBs?

What do you think of Cleland's resignation, and his statements that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash and White House treatment of the investigation was a scam?

Should we know who the sources were for the alleged discovery of the "Brooklyn Cell" including Mohamed Atta by Able Danger in 1999-2000? Was Able Danger of minor historical significance, as the 9/11 Commission claimed?

Wouldn't a serious investigation of September 11th pursue all stories of foreknowledge and forewarnings, especially those from foreign intelligence agencies, with the goal of finding out the sources of such information? (I.e., avoiding any assumptions about their significance until the sources are known?)

Are you aware that claims of put options and suspect financial deals suggesting foreknowledge range far, far beyond the well-known sets of put options placed on United and American stock on the CBOE?

Do you believe that United 93 crashed at 10:03 am without causing a measurable seismic event, and that a natural seismic event of the size usually associated with a plane crash followed in the same area at 10:06 am by coincidence?

Why do you think the anthrax mailings were sent to Daschle and Leahy? (Reports of any other anthrax targets in the government have since been discounted as hoaxes and mistakes.)

What do you think of the FBI's investigations of leaks from the intelligence committee senators and their staff during the Joint Intelligence Committee Investigation of 9/11? Might the FBI actions have been intended as intimidation?

Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer were disciplined. The FAA tapes of accounts by air traffic controllers who handled the two flights that hit the Towers, taken on the afternoon of September 11th, were destroyed. Myers, Eberhard, Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman all received promotions after 9/11. George Tenet got a medal. Would this combination have an effect on potential whistleblowers contemplating coming forward with whatever bits they know?

Do you believe all hijacker identities have been resolved beyond doubt?

Where was Mohamed Atta in the period from April to June, 2000?

When if ever do you think the al-Qaeda networks that grew out of the "Afghan Arab" movement during the 1980s anti-Soviet jihad stopped having links to US intelligence networks?

Was Osama Bin Ladin allowed to get away from Tora Bora? Was there an airlift of Pakistani ISI and al-Qaeda operatives out of Kunduz, Afghanistan via an air corridor cleared by US forces in November 2001, as Seymour Hersh reported?

Do US intel/military agencies or related networks amongst their contractors have a significant history of engineering false-flag terrorism? Should this enter at all into considerations of 9/11?

What is the significance of Ali Mohamed? Was his story worthy of inclusion in the official 9/11 investigations?

Do these questions, most of which relate to official statements and actions of geopolitical consequence, not indicate higher priorities for skeptics to pursue than the debunking of errors and distortions by amateur researchers as seen in "Loose Change 2," Alex Jones's works, dustification theories, "no planes" theories and the like?

Have you read Michael Ruppert? The 9/11 Timeline edited by Paul Thompson? Nafeez Ahmed? Michel Chossudovsky? Daniel Hopsicker? Were these not the most prominent 9/11 skeptic-researchers by far until 2005?