I write this totally without want for personal gain, folly, or to get some personal agenda accomplished. I urge you, as an American with the ability to draw conclusions for yourself to seriously consider listening to what I'm writing. Pay attention to the points I've presented, and then remember them when you watch all of the upcoming 9/11 programs on television. Almost all of the points I present you can either confirm or deny with your own two eyes.

Another message to the reader: I've researched for hours what I saw with my very own eyes on 9/11/01. The only reason I bothered doing so was to convince myself (with no outside influences) that the doubts I had floating in my head were wrong, and that everything I had been told about the attacks was true. I could not.

I now pose some of the same questions to you, and hope that through logical thought, free of whimsy, that you'd not necessarily come to any conclusions, but acknowledge the fact that most of the story doesn't add up-it's all in the visual evidence, and if you believe nothing I write, remember the things I tell you can be confirmed by merely watching them. I INSIST you to continue reading through, and keep whatever mindset you had before, or freely change your mind.

Once again, I write this piece with no political affiliation, I offer NO conspiracies or my ideas of what happened, and there are no instances of me telling you how to think. Thank you in advance for reading this piece.

I could write countless hours of drivel (as is done widely) on how US Intelligence should have protected us, national security failures, a lack of credible evidence, or whose fault it may or may not have been. But let's skip through all of the accusations and get right to the events of 9/11 themselves.

Four airliners were hijacked on 9/11, when the hijacking of just one would have been unprecedented in the history of US commercial airline travel. (These kinds of situations have frequently occurred in many other countries). This had never happened before, but all of a sudden four planes have been hijacked-not at all impossible, but highly unlikely-I will always give the benefit of the doubt when possible.

These planes all contained abnormally small numbers of passengers for transcontinental flights at any time of the year, not just for that particular season. It is a FACT that American airspace is the safest in the world. That is due mostly to an incredible air defense system that operates 24/7 with the utmost vigilance for protecting our skies. The main reason that America, the country with the most airports, flights, and passengers has never had a situation like the one over Lockerbie is because we know where and what everything is up there.

The most famous example of how good it is? Remember a couple years before 9/11-back when famed golfer Payne Stewart's plane depressurized while flying over the Midwest US? Mere minutes after it was determined that everyone in the jet was most likely dead, and that there was no one flying the plane, Air Force jets were scrambled to intercept the craft (which flew for several hours on autopilot) in case it reached a metropolitan area where it might crash into a building or neighborhood.

The plan (which is S.O.P.) was to shoot down the jet over a sparsely populated area where no one on the ground could be injured in case the plane crashed, or if debris from the missile strikes rained down to the earth. Fortunately, the plane did not have to be fired upon, but instead ran out of fuel and careened into a pasture, ending the morbid ordeal. www.bushoccupation.com/3610_o1a.pdf

Let's fast forward to 9/11, and let me BEG a question of you: Why were none of those jets engaged by fighter jets, even though one was in the air at the very least 30 minutes, and the plane that "crashed" in Shanksville, PA proceeded unmolested for more than an hour and a half. There were Air Guard planes that can reach the World Trade Center in less than 10 minutes-at less than maximum speed.

If there were jets with visual contact of Payne Stewart's 15-person private jet after minutes, then why did not a single jet reach any of the HUGE commercial airlines, especially when they're headed at not just any city, but NEW YORK? What's so ironic is that a failure on the part of air defense would have been better than not even reacting to it…Think about that. The fact that these planes crashed into ANYTHING, when they should have been scrapped, is in itself inexcusable. If you didn't click on the link, then do it now, and see for yourself exactly what I mean.

Which brings us to the inside of the planes

No one outside of the people on that flight knows EXACTLY what happened inside, but there are certain facts that have made themselves clear. The hijackers apparently overtook the plane using knives and/or box-cutters. They couldn't have had anything larger. A machete, which is much more fearsome than a box-cutter would have been noticed by any TSA employee, no matter how incompetent they may be.

I fully understand the perilous situation the passengers were in, and the terror that must have ensued, but I have another pointed question: Why were 40-75 people on each flight containing no more than 4-5 terrorists unable to overtake their captors-who are "wielding" box-cutters and kitchen knives? You have GOT to be kidding me. If I were on a plane with 65 people, of only 11 of which are grown men, there is NO WAY in hell that 5 scrawny middle-eastern guys are going to hijack my flight and threaten our lives.

That's just ridiculous. (If the hijackers had some ANY kind of gun, even a six-shooter, then I wouldn't be writing this section-honestly) The men on Flight 93 said "Let's Roll!"-What happened then? Was every one of them methodically sliced and diced by the all-powerful box-cutters? I don't think so, but I'll never know now. For all of you skeptical guys, surrender your virility and tell me that you believe that 4 men (average stature and build) could successfully take YOUR plane with box-cutters and then fly it into a building?

"But Brandon", you say," what if they were holding hostages?" Then those hostages were just a very unlucky little group, because survival instinct tells you that those couple sacrifices will save many, many more lives. (Same concept as shooting down errant planes over non-occupied areas of land-kill a few to save many) As far as saying the hijackers (two EXPERIENCED pilots are required to fly a 757) then crashed the planes is like saying you learned how to drive on the NASCAR circuit by playing Spy Hunter for Nintendo.

Flight 77 at the Pentagon (here's where you can start seeing for yourself)

When I really looked at the damage done to the Pentagon was when I first lost faith in the integrity of what I'd been led to believe. This is a shining example of why others I know have changed their minds too. I've kept this very simple up to know, and I will continue doing so. Flight 77, after flying aimlessly around our airspace does a beeline for the Pentagon. We have the flight paths-were we just watching 'em? I never noticed anything very peculiar about the Pentagon damage that was aired-until I saw the damage BEFORE THE ROOF COLLAPSED. www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/collapse.htm

You don't even have to worry about that smaller hole that was formed before the collapse, because the hole AFTER the roof collapsed is still TOO SMALL and free of 757 wreckage. A 757 is 155 feet long, two stories high, and is 124 feet wide. The hole itself is only 65 feet wide! There is no damage where the wings should have hit! There is no massive fire damage that would lead you believe that it was able to consume the ENTIRE plane. The smoke from the fire was INCREDIBLE, but isn't consistent with the amount of fire damage done.

None of the pictures I've seen are doctored, they all come from mainstream media, and the ones above are from the government! If you look at the hole, you can also see how when the roof fell. It was almost intact, aside from having fallen downward. Luckier even that the plane hit in an area of the Pentagon that was being RENOVATED-what good fortune! It was reported that 125 employees of the Pentagon perished, and their bodies were recovered.

Hold on just one second: You're telling me that 120,000lbs of bodies, luggage, 757 fuselage, wings, engines, and seats were all incinerated, but we managed to recover 125 bodies of Pentagon workers amidst all the carnage. The websites I've listed all give excellent high quality shots of not a scrap of plane. If you don't trust them, go to MSNBC or CNN and look up the pictures there-it's all the same.

Did you see all the guys in white suits on all of those pictures, too? Who are they? Did you see (watch your documentaries) the more than 15 men carrying away a large crate covered by a blue tarp? What's in there? "BUT BRANDON, there's a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon!"

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. There are 5 whole frames of Pentagon parking lot security cam footage that has been released to the public. http://thepowerhour.com/postings-four/french-911.htm (there are many authentic pictures, too) I won't over-analyze it for you, but I will describe it, in the hopes it will encourage you to look further.

What you don't see (strangely enough) is a 757-what you WILL see is the extreme tip of something white, blurry and obviously moving very fast right to left (into the Pentagon) it is on (of course) the edge of the screen-which is why you only see the tip of "it". The next frame shows an explosion from the Pentagon. If that plane was traveling a 400mph-it was doing slightly under 300, (or so we've been told) then you should be able to see the plane crossing the camera's line of sight-but you don't, you only see the explosion.

Which brings me all the way around to the safe airspace topic again. Another question too: If a commercial airliner full of fuel and people were flying towards the Pentagon-the most secure facility in the world, then why wasn't AT LEAST that one plane engaged. Jets could have been there in less than 10 minutes! (There are air bases in close proximity to the Pentagon) But I guess it really doesn't matter, since it crashed into the part that was being renovated, right? Riiiiight. People, do you understand yet? Have I presented any theories? No I haven't. Facts speak for themselves. Put it together people-but not until we talk about the World Trade Center.

The Horrific Collapse of the World Trade Center

Minuro Yamasaki, a prominent engineer in the 60's and early 70's, designed the World Trade Centers. He beat out 12 other companies for the contract to build them on the west side of Manhattan. Pay Attention here. The design of the World Trade Center incorporated a steel skeleton around a series of 47 independent steel beam structures that bore the brunt of the building's weight. They were located in the centers of the structures. These steel beams were the strongest, and tallest in the Americas-of any building of the era. They were after all, the world's tallest structures.

Keep in mind the structural integrity and composition of these buildings, until a pair of planes turned them into scrap metal. (Literally) When the towers were constructed, they were "made a safe place to work, even more safe than the time period's requirements." That's straight from the mouth of a WTC historian. Most, if not all of the people associated with them had the same comments about it. Oh, I almost forgot-the World Trade Center was built to withstand the impact of a BOEING 707! (A smaller plane than the 757)

Yamasaki and his design team did not think it was necessary, but incorporated the designs anyway. (The History Channel Documentary "The World Trade Centers: Rise and Fall of an American Icon) Sure, a 707 was slower, but how much room for errors do you plan for when doing these things? A bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945, and the only damage was a hole, and fires that were put out. Wreckage fell more than 60 stories to the ground. Where's the debris from those 9/11 planes? The same documentary documents that the World Trade Center were designed to also withstand 150mph winds!

Which brings us to the collisions. When the first plane hit, it smacked DIRECTLY into the middle of one of the sides, about 80 floors up www.wtc.pkl.net/photos/wtcboom.jpg. You can immediately see a large gash cut in the side of the building. You can also see a fire start to develop on the inside of the building. The fire itself is very black and sooty-as you would expect it to be.

At this point in the attack, people are running from the fire, not because they think that the building's going to collapse on top of them. The first impact didn't even cause the building to shudder farther away from the initial contact. If you look at the camera footage of the WTC lobby, it looked as if IT had been bombed. The explanation for that was that jet fuel had traveled down the elevator shaft, where it had exploded down in the lobby more than 1100 feet below, yet there were no reports of fire throughout the building…strange.

Another problem with that explanation is that the elevator shafts used large elevators, which you took to a certain higher floor, and from there you took a more direct elevator to your office. You had to get off the large elevator because they were in different shafts-no shaft went directly to from the top to the bottom floors.

And now to the collapses…

The fuel that supposedly weakened the steel beams enough to cause them to melt is not hot enough to completely shear through metal that would have to be uniformly weakened piece by piece in order to create the IMPLOSION you all saw with your own two eyes. So the fire burned through the skin of the building, through all of the offices, and the elevator shaft where it then began to eat away at the steel, while dripping down the elevator shafts to the lobby, right? The most perfectly done non-controlled demolition in history was done by jet fuel-why do the real demolition crews just not pour jet fuel on the structures they're going to level.

I can AMAZINGLY let all of these far-fetched explanations ride, but wait! The second tower! The second collision happened about 17 minutes after the first impact, but collapsed first-strange enough, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt. But then you must look at that collision and ask yourself how that tower fell first when the impact almost hit DIRECTLY at the corner, causing MOSTLY ALL of the jet fuel to erupt in a gigantic fireball. (Of jet fuel)

So I ask, how that building fell first even though it suffered nowhere near the dousing of fuel that the first building did? "Because it hit the steel beams!!" people will say, but remember, those are in the center of the building. Again, and it should be much easier with this one ask yourself: "Is it really possible for jet fuel (almost all of which burned up in the explosion) to burn itself back into the building (explosion went out of the other "side of the corner"), eat through offices, floors, walls, and desks, eventually getting to the steel beams-all without warranting more fire warnings??

If what we're being told is correct, then a projectile that DOES NOT score a direct hit causes MUCH, MUCH worse damage. We don't we just start bombing the corners of all the buildings of our enemies. Again, don't fool yourself.

The manner in which the towers fell indicates a total structural fracture that had to have occurred evenly at equal points around the supports, not from one side, or one corner. In pure physics, the side that was weaker would've tilted and fallen away-maybe not totally missing the building under it, but not imploding directly on it. It would have tipped-as the top section of one building did, before it disappeared in ALL THAT DAMN DUST! Have you even seen something so strange? (Maybe if you live near Mount Kilauea)

A final event I don't have the proper info to discuss is Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, PA. -Leaving a debris trail of more than a mile-even though it did a nosedive into the ground. Look also at that footage, and you'll never see a large piece of wreckage, but you will see an almost empty crater.

If you've been trying to heavily scrutinize the content of my writing, I'm sure you've noticed that I have presented no theories, only dealing in fact. Theorists are stupid; they don't understand that you can't piece together puzzles you don't even have all of the pieces to.

If everything that happened on 9/11/01 added up, then I wouldn't be asking questions like this-because they would have ABSOLUTELY no grounds, and solid proof would destroy any arguments I might have presented. I voted for G.W.B when I was 18, and believed in the good of his causes, until they became specific actions to further our (his, US) domain all over the world. Again, this is not fueled by any grievances against the Republican Party or Bush himself, but by the declining quality of the true American way of life. Are you surprised that no independent investigation has been launched into 9/11/01 after reading all of this? They would rip though everything in almost a day.

In Parting, remember these six random things:

1. There are no confirmed Iraq-Al Qaeda ties
2. There hasn't been ONE WMD found in Iraq, and our troops are STILL being killed there. If we find ONE, I will take back everything I've said about the War in Iraq.
3. There has only been one thermonuclear attack ever in the history of the world-actually, there were two. They happened at two places you might have heard of-Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
4. Where's Osama?
5. 5. GWB is asking the UN for 86 Billion dollars after spitting in their faces before we Invaded Iraq, and the economy is good because it costs 4 billion a month to keep our boys in Iraq, we're giving more tax cuts, all the while making our borders safer than ever. Right.

"IT IS BETTER TO WRAP YOURSELF IN THE CONSTITUTION AND BURN THE FLAG THAN IT IS TO BURN THE CONSTITUTION AND WRAP YOURSELF IN THE FLAG"

Brandon T. Age 20, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.