[FoRK] Pentagon 911 video

Matt Jensen < mattj at newsblip.com > on > Thu May 25 18:15:32 PDT 2006

Corinna wrote:

> 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  
Pentagon?

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.


Matt Jensen
http://mattjensen.com
Seattle





More information about the FoRK mailing list