What always makes me chuckle when I read these types of articles is a bit of random substitution.  For example, in the original, we see:

"We are told that the group that planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks were highly trained (possibly by the CIA) experts, with knowledge of how to steal identities and forge fake IDs, yet at the same time we are being told that these men were incapable of correctly filling in US visa applications."

But what if it read:

"We are told that the group that planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks were highly trained (possibly by your mother) experts, with knowledge of how to steal identities and forge fake IDs, yet at the same time we are being told that these men were incapable of correctly filling in US visa applications."

or:

"We are told that the group that planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks were highly trained (possibly by KDB) experts, with knowledge of how to steal identities and forge fake IDs, yet at the same time we are being told that these men were incapable of correctly filling in US visa applications."

Now I don't really mean any offense, except to point out the ease with which those parentheticals can simultaneously inject something posing as "information," and yet offer up plausible deniability to the author of the piece.

"What, me?  I didn't claim that the CIA did anything--I can't be held to that statement!  It was all parenthetical!"

Haha.

Herring405