Why is it truthers always point to a number of other conspiracies that we learned about when people talked or papers were found but, yet, September 11th was the absolutely perfect execution of plan with nary a word ever breathed on a deathbed or scrawled notes found in a dusty drawer.
I mean, I hear them talk about how there were no planes, but, then, by nature, three planeloads of people have to disappear, and nobody ever mentions where all those bodies are. Why is this the only perfectly executed conspiracy of all time?
Itās not that they donāt do evil shit, itās that they do it because they rationalize āthis is in Americaās best interests.ā
I can see how some deluded American āpatriotsā could fool themselves into thinking āthis puppet of ours will support Americaās interests better than that democratically elected loser those guys chose for themselves,ā but thatās still pretty different than āIām gonna personally murder thousands of American men, women and children.ā Especially since no one has yet explained a decent motive for doing so, let alone a plausible means of doing so.
Yeah, I deleted the comment because it is a little more extreme than pretty much any other intelligence op Iāve heard of. On the other hand, life seems pretty cheap to the people who make these sorts of decisions, so Iām not totally convinced US intelligence wasnāt involved in, say, recruiting a bunch of Saudis to do this (through fronts in Saudi Arabia, or plants or turned agents in Al Qaeda itself).
I donāt think the U.S. did that either, but Iām a little surprised that the Truthers seem to avoid these kind of āremotely plausibleā theories. Itās never just āthe hijackers were actually brainwashed American black ops agentsā or āthe CIA fed the idea for the attacks to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.ā
Instead they always seem to go straight to batshit-insane stuff like āthe airplanes were holograms and the buildings were brought down with controlled explosions!!ā
But you may also notice in the history of false flag operations that they all use the poor and powerless. They donāt kill the rich and powerful in their own temple. The supposed conspiracy leaders could have gotten any war they wanted with just the attack on the Pentagon, or if need be attacks on other government buildings.
I wouldnāt call the ācontrolled explosionsā part batshit crazy. They really did look like controlled demolitions.
I realize there are rational explanations on offer now, but that probably wasnāt as clear at the time. Some truthers may just be stuck in a pattern they got themselves into back before 2005.
I call it batshit crazy for a few reasons, mostly because it makes no sense whatsoever.
If you wanted to blow up a building and blame terrorists, then just blow up a building and blame terrorists. You could do this with explosives (as conspiracy theorists claim) or do it with jumbo jets (as all evidence supports). As long as terrorists get the blame, either approach works equally well. But thereās no goddamn reason why anyone would do one and make it look like the other. That would only serve to create a huge, gaping opportunity for your plan to go wrong without providing any benefit whatsoever.
Rigging a building to go down in a controlled explosion also takes a lot of preparation. To date, the largest building ever demolished in a controlled explosion was the Singer building (which was demolished to make room for One Liberty Plaza). The Singer building was 47 stories tall, a small fraction of the size of the WTC. Even so, rigging the building took a number of workers months to complete, and they were working full-time in broad daylight without having to worry about hiding the charges out of sight or getting spotted by any one of the tens of thousands of people working in the area.
Also, the conspiracy theorists seem to think at least some of the fire crews were on board with āpullingā (i.e. exploding) the building (as opposed to āpulling outā of the building, which actually stands to reason). So how many people were supposedly in on this thing? Again, nothing about the theory makes any sense at all.
I mean, I can come up with some ad hoc reasons to disagree with you, but Iām not really interested in propping up truther narratives, especially when you guys have made it clear that youāll savage anyone who does that.
OK, I promise not to savage you if you have a remotely plausible-sounding reason why conspirators would use the ācontrolled demolitionā approach for staging an attack. Seriously, Iām curious and Iāve never actually heard one.
I seem to recall reading that if the Titanic had not been turned so hard, so that there was one (or was it two?) fewer sections that got torn open, it would have been fine until help arrived. It was the last minute panic to turn the steering wheel as far as it would go which caused at least half of one side of the boat to be sideswiped that was the problem.
Itās hard to say, given the lack of actual knowledge of the iceberg itself. But my question has always been this: If the Titanic stays afloat and thousands donāt die, how long would it take to create the Coast Guard and standardize emergency codes, which has saved multiple Titanic-sized disasters over the past hundred and twelve years.
Thereās only one thing that Iāve never been able to get past-
When a commercial airliner goes off course, and drops communication, the FAA calls NORAD, and fighter jets are sent to escort it. Itās been that way since I think the 70ās. The idea that four of them could go so far off course without this happening- I just canāt reconcile the number of failsafes, the number of cracks that even one would have needed to fall through.
Itās too much of a coincidence for there to have been a training exercise on that specific day. I just canāt bring myself to believe that kind of a perfect storm of circumstances.
It would have been so easy for one person to make one phone call, and just say- This is when the response will be slowā¦
Thereās an experiment Iāve been meaning to try that your ātry thisā example brought to mind. Buy three one pound packages of butter, the kind that contain four sticks each. Stand one package worth as the corner columns of a building and put some weight (a heavy book, perhaps) resting on top as the roof. Do the same with the other two packages. Put two of the ābuildingsā in the fridge and leave one on the counter (or in the sink, to avoid a mess) on a warm or hot day. See how long it takes for the one on the counter to buckle and the weight to fall; if itās a warm day, the butter should have softened but not melted.
Then pull one of the buildings out of the fridge and drop a bowling ball on top of the roof. [Or drop one of the buildings onto the other.] Watch as the building that could handle the weight of the roof just fine, collapses under the sudden shock.
This would be a version of your steel weakening torch demonstration that anyone could try, even those who live in places (like apartment buildings) that would frown upon a naked flame.
Iām picking on you because I know you can take it! But this is the pattern for all discussions of the events of 9/11, itās not confined to one commenter here on BB.
Then he goes on to mention several other glaring inconsistencies in the official government conspiracy theory, which also go unquoted.
Thatās the pattern of discussions of 9/11. Refuse to discuss any embarrassingly incongruous events, mock individual dissenting opinions, and lump all persons uncomfortable with the Bush administrationās destruction of evidence in with lunatic truthers who believe in alien space bats.
I donāt know what really happened on September 11th. And neither do any of the rest of you! Maybe our grandchildren will find outā¦
