Thursday, March 15, 2007


There was a comment--the only one, I might add--on my last post that I wanted to address. Just so you don't have to click away from here, here's the comment:

So, I guess that means the moon landings in '69 were fake as well...?

Are you suggesting that the Bush administration orchestrated the entire 9/11 disaster or that they were complicit in helping Al-Qaeda kill thousands of Americans?

What would be the benefit for Bush to do that? Surely the repercussions of being caught far outweigh the benefits of pulling off something like that...

I just don't get it...

I have never said that the Bush administration orchestrated the entire 9/11 disaster. I would not put it past the Bushies, but the only people who know who is responsible for 9/11 are the people who did it, and I am not one of them.

However, I think the argument the commenter makes about the cost-benefit analysis is not that strong. People are always doing things they'll suffer for if caught--that fact is almost what makes the deed even more delicious.

The Context Part

But anyway, here's why I have no problem believing that 9/11 was an inside job and why you shouldn't have a problem with it, either--governments always have and always will lie to get what they want, even if they kill their fellow citizens to get it. The United States government is no different.

Just because our grade school history books fail to mention things like the Top 10 False Flags That Changed The World doesn't mean those 10 things and many more like them never happened:

10. Nero, Christians, and the Great Fire of Rome
9. Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain
8. The Manchurian Incident
7. Secrets of the Reichstag Fire
6. Fake Invasion at Gleiwitz
5. The Myth of Pearl Harbor
4. Israeli Terrorist Cell Uncovered in Egypt
3. U.S.-Sponsored Terrorism: Operation Northwoods
2. Phantoms in the Gulf of Tonkin
1. The September 11, 2001 Attacks

Remember how they started a war almost exactly 4 years ago because they said there were WMD in Iraq? And remember how we knew before the war that wasn't true because UN inspectors went to every site the U.S. told them to go to and found nothing? And then remember how we went to war with Iraq anyway because somehow not finding WMD proved their existence? And remember how we're still there, wasting lives and money?

Most people who buy the official 9/11 story are probably skeptical about a lot of other things. There are a lot of liberals who cling to the official story but despise Bush and his war and his policies in general. And that's what I don't get--why question everything except 9/11?

Forget about the question of whether Bush did it--we can't answer that because we don't have enough information. But we do have some very simple, Occam's Razor-type facts in play concerning 9/11:

1. The WTC collapses all looked exactly like controlled demolitions
2. The second tower hit was the first to fall--i.e., it burned for a shorter period of time yet fell more quickly
3. No modern, steel-reinforced building before or since 9/11 has ever collapsed due to fire
4. Reporters were given foreknowledge of the collapse of at least WTC 7
5. Larry Silverstein admitted that he had WTC 7 demolished or "pulled"

And on and on. Put two and two together--just getting the facts doesn't mean that you hate Bush or hate America. It doesn't necessarily mean that George Bush pressed the buttons that pulled the buildings down. The facts mentioned above don't prove that the Bush administration had anything to do with it--they just prove that all the destruction was not caused by the planes that hit the buildings. Don't forget that WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane!


Anonymous said...

Ok...I think you're reaching here...

First, you say that fire did not bring the building down. Let's remember that full tanks of jet fuel were burning inside these buildings at temperatures higher than normal building fires. Also, let's remember that these buildings were built prior to new safety requirements for protecting steel girders. These girders melted and twisted under extreme heat and pressure from the floors above and caused a collapse upon itself.

If the towers fell over to the side, would that convince you that no other means were used to bring the towers down? Just the fact that they looked like controlled demolitions (like we see on tv when they bring down a casino) doesn't mean that's what did it.

And secondly, this would have to be a MASSIVE cover up with the ENTIRE government to allow demolition charges to be planted on buildings that were such a major fixture of NYC. The scale of this "supposed" cover-up is mind-boggling. Am I to believe that there are that many corrupt people and that no one, not even ONE person, would have second thoughts and talk? This idea is ridiculous to say the least.

Bush may be an idiot and a horrible president, but he would have had to plan something of this scale long before he even became president (I know you aren't saying he did, I'm just making a point). Maybe it's the vast right wing conspiracy that Hillary's talking about!

Anyway, that's my take on this. Thanks for engaging in the conversation.


JoeC said...

"...full tanks of jet fuel were burning inside these buildings at temperatures higher than normal building fires."

Just wanted to clarify something: No plane hit WTC building 7. The FEMA report didn't put forward any explanation except that there was a lot of diesel fuel in WTC 7, and the probability that it was the cause was unlikely. The official 9/11 commission report totally ignored WTC7. Watching the video of WTC7 collapsing, knowing there is still no explanation, and not questioning whether it was rigged for demolition---that's truly sticking your head in the sand.

Many people can keep a secret. Many people kept D-Day secret before we launched it. Nobody heard of Operation Northwoods before the documents were released several decades after the fact. And besides, not a lot of people had to know...most of the involved parties probably thought they were participating in a drill...until they saw what happened on CNN with the rest of us. Now, if you were participating in a drill and it turned out to really happen, and something you did was responsible for a disaster on this scale...I dunno, but I think I'd lay low and keep my mouth shut till it all blew over. Of course, very respectfully, just my $.02. Just, to me, foul play fits the evidence I've seen better than the official story, and I'm curious...