[FoRK] Pentagon 911 video
Matt Jensen <
mattj at newsblip.com
> on >
Thu May 25 18:15:32 PDT 2006
> If it was their intention to put conspiracy theories
> to rest, they failed miserably.
Maybe I shouldn't ask, but what's the theory?
People consider conspiracy theories because a) it gives them a sense
of control and purpose, in the face of a world that sometimes offers
neither, and b) it gives them an undue sense of competence; that is,
all those so-called experts think they're so smart, but I know what
really happened. For those reasons, they're exciting. But it's up to
us to step back and realize when we're letting an adrenaline rush of
excitement overtake our critical faculties.
This Administration is headed by incomptent bunglers of the highest
order. Let's assume for a moment that the Pentagon strike was really
a missile, and not the missing aircraft. Give me some kind of
scenario that makes sense here.
Were the other three "planes" actually planes?
Were they hijacked by Islamist terrorists?
If so, were the terrorists set up by the Administration? That is, did
the plan originate in Al Qaeda, or in the White House?
If Al Qaeda initiated the plan, and the White House discovered it, why
didn't they stop it? What's the advantage to adding an attack on the
It makes no sense.
It's like saying "if Bush discovered Al Qaeda was going to detonate a
nuclear bomb in L.A., he would let them do it, so that afterward he
could rally the country and command more power." Isn't that
completely ridiculous, even for Bush and Rove? Isn't it a thousand
times more likely that Bush would have the FBI arrest (or kill) the
terrorists, and trumpet on the front pages how he saved an American
city from destruction?
If you can, please tell me a scenario where a fake/gov't-sponsored
Pentagon attack could make plausible sense.
More information about the FoRK