It all depends

I  am by far not the supporter of any conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 except for one: there was no proper investigation, no trial, no police and no criminal charge. The way it was assigned as a 'war' act enabled Bush and his cabal to do what they did. They certainly benefited  from the APPROACH to the event while in reality such events usually bring the govts down. That simple. As such I think  that  the official version  cannot be trusted; it is only one of the possible versions and the mechanism of seeking the truth was never engaged.

  It is one of the very old tricks in the books- if something is really fishy and  you are afraid  that people will find out- bury it in similar nonsense.  Examples are numerous: Say, Israelis  surely knew  many things about 9/11  but instead of investigatiing it we throw in the 'Israeli conspiracy' and ' Jews not attending the building that day' and it is all gone in smoke.  Whether LBJ or whoever  participated in the JFK  assassination we do not know but what we do know that  the behavior of Jackie  after that was the behavior  of a person who was desperately afraid for her life and the life of her children.  If it was  Oswald only why should she be so desperate? But..nobody looked at that and off we went not even noticing the career of Arlen Specter, for instance.

Another stunning example is  the story of Princess Diana.  In that case the  conspiracy theory was the vehement  'no conspiracy'  although it was pretty obvious that the Buckingham Palace would   not be against if something happens to ' that woman'. And we all know that if someone is  'actively OK' with someone's death there could be people ready to oblige. This version, though was hysterically dismissed so many times that you really start to think there is something in it. Especially  considering the hysterical support of Iraqi war by the British elite. Maybe they pay for a favor?

Hey, sometimes we all believe in the conspiracy. Take the "Polonium nonsense' - the story of  killing of  A. Litvinenko- the Russian govt conspiracy theory is practically the only one used in the West.  It is all a bluff and www.antiwar.com by the article of Raimondo ' Framing Russia'  says that but we do not listen. We like conspiracies when applied to other people: where is the outrage against  the ' Doctor's plot'  of recent bombings in Britain? It is so laughable that you can choke yourself but we all are hunky- dory with it.

Oh, yes. In case the conspiracy applies to either some poor guys, guys with strange names or some foreign govt- that is OK. Those folks are evil anyway. But  ' Bush did it..'- no way. That is all silliness  and it distracts the readers from.. From what? From the truth? But   the mechanism is not engaged. Vincent Bugliosi, the best US jurist ever  proved beyond any doubt that in the Y2000 the appointment of Bush as President was an act of Treason and what?  Any Congress investigation? Hey, how about Katrina handling? Any thoughts? A city is killed and not even one casualty ( I mean, really) among the powerful. Not even one.

If you do not cultivate the grass, weeds will replace it soon.  If there is no truth sought, rumors and conspiracy theories will flourish. That is obvious.  If we want the truth though we need to apply the criteria to everything. OK, Pentagopn was hit by a jet liner. But there was no shoebomber conspirary, Danny Pearl died in vain, there was no WMD in Iraq,  the retarded man was really murdered  in the Miami airport, there was no ' woman- shahid' in the case of Jordan blast,  Russian govt was not involved in the death of Litvinenko and yes, the Lebanese war was deliberately orchestrated by US and Israel.  How about them apples?  Can we handle the truth? And if not, let the conspiracy theories be. Any  plant life is better than the barren ground.

by Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3453 comments) on Friday, July 20, 2007 at 12:50:35 PM
 

9/11 cover-up

Here we have another government apologist who lacks the courage to list each of the 9/11 irregularities and try to explain them away with scientific fact.  Instead, he sweeps them under the rug of "conspiracy theory" to discourage others from looking at them.

How do you explain away the fact that the WTC towers were the only steel frame buildings ever to be felled by fire?  How do you explain away the fact that thermite, a steel cutting substance used in conjunction with high explosives, was found on pieces of WTC steel beams?  How do you explain away the fact that first responders seen and heard explosions? How do you explain away the fact that Dick Cheney, in charge of NORAD on the morning of 9/11, didn't immediately send jet fighters into New York and Washington?  It goes on and on.  

by Dan Merica (21 articles, 72 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 47 comments) on Friday, July 20, 2007 at 1:09:20 PM
 

Gulf of Tonkin

real conspiracy. So was Watergate. Those, we know about now, but it's safe to assume that there others we don't, at least not yet, and some will never be publically known as the years pass.

Conspiracies exists everywhere, always. Lumping everything under the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is no more helpful than looking for space aliens in the closet.

You say "In the seventy years since the “saucer” crashed in the New Mexico Desert, the little grey guys have yet to make a public appearance (except at costume parties and in motion pictures), so it seems safe to say that whether they exist or not has little consequence for most earthlings."

There is no logic to that: we didn't know anything about agent orange, depleted uranium, HIV, lead poisoning, or all sorts of other things for a time -- sometimes a very long time -- while they were damaging people. If greys exist, even if we don't know it, they might be having a huge effect on us. What we don't know can certainly hurt us. Vibrio cholerae was never seen to make public appearances either -- and yet killed thousands.

You say "The biggest question of all is simply this: With the large number of people required to successfully implement this conspiracy, how is it that not a single person has talked in the six years that has elapsed since the event?"

Actually, many people have talked; but not many, especially in the media, have listened. Have you heard about the fellow who took the tapes of the initial interviews with the air traffic people and cut them up and tossed the pieves into different trash cans around the building? Is that not a rather curious thing? It's not hard to find plenty of example of people who have talked.

And how long did it take before the public became aware of the first research into making the atomic bomb? Why would anyone assume that a secret conspiracy would be made public? Secrets and cover-ups are a dime a dozen. The Brits just recently again took action to cover up the murder of Dr, David Kelly -- and it's only recently that it's been made public that British forces were involved in supposedly Irish terrorism -- and what of Bloody Sunday and how long tiik for the facts to be known?

Making an argument from ignorance is an established logical fallacy.

You say"When three Republican candidates for President express their outright disbelief in evolution, you know you are in trouble."

Well, yes -- but evolution is hardly a secret conspiracy, and yet here are people denying it. Goes to show that truth and what people take for truth are often very different. There are even those who say that 'evolution' is a conspiracy.

I'm afraid I don't see anything compelling in your arguments about 'conspiracy theories' being invalid in themselves. I don't see a stake in any hearts here. We KNOW that 9/11 was a conspircy -- by someone -- and also know there has been coverups and conflicting information about it from government sources and hearings. It might not be useful at this time to try to make this a central case to get rid of the fascists (and that's pretty much my opinion), but that doesn't mean various theories are wrong, or that the truth will never be known.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Friday, July 20, 2007 at 1:43:27 PM
 

My Response

Gulf of Tonkin - real conspiracy. So was Watergate. Those, we know about now, but it's safe to assume that there others we don't, at least not yet, and some will never be publicly known as the years pass.

No argument here. There have always been conspiracies, yet best response to events would appear to be based on what is known and verified, rather than speculation

If greys exist, even if we don't know it, they might be having a huge effect on us. What we don't know can certainly hurt us.

I did not say they are not present, nor that they cannot be present. Only that there is no evidence available that should demand some action being taken. We can conjure up an infinite number of “might be,” but probabilities suggest that based on available evidence, we need not concern ourselves with developing responses. The non-existence of anything is impervious to proof.

If we go back to the canons of our criminal justice system, the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” is the central driving concept. If we think of the 9/11 Commission’s explanation of the attack as the defendant, the burden is on the “prosecution,” (conspiracy theorists) to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that this explanation is not accurate, with some other named or identified individual(s) to be held accountable.

Yes, past government officials have engaged in conspiracies, discovered years later. Yes, Bush and Cheney have done much to suggest that they would be willing to engage in any activity they considered in their self interest or a part of their personal agenda.

That these are factual statements we can agree; that either, both, or other government officials had pre-event awareness, assisted in the success of the attack, or engaged in activities causing damage beyond that caused by the 19 terrorists is yet to be supported by any chain of evidence to be offered by the prosecution.

by Sherwin Steffin (15 articles, 24 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, July 20, 2007 at 4:27:31 PM
 

Were you one of the Simpson jurors?

Gulf of Tonkin - real conspiracy. So was Watergate. Those, we know about now, but it's safe to assume that there others we don't, at least not yet, and some will never be publicly known as the years pass.

No argument here. There have always been conspiracies, yet best response to events would appear to be based on what is known and verified, rather than speculation

LOL! First, there's nothing inherently wrong with "speculation". In fact, I hope I don't need to point out to you that if it wasn't for "speculation", lots of things would never be accomplished. So, generally speaking, the issue is whether or not it's REASONABLE speculation.

Second, apparently you're completely ignorant of history, or you're being dishonest, or perhaps a little of both. Look at the government conspiracy to cover up what really happened to the USS Liberty, 40 years ago, for example. As more information has come to light over the years, and some insiders have spoken out about how the Naval Inquiry was a pathetic farce, AND YET THE SURVIVORS OF THE ATTACK AND OTHER PATRIOTIC AMERICANS STILL CANNOT GET THE GOVERNMENT TO CONDUCT A REAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACK. Can you imagine that? Thirty four people murdered in cold blood in an indisputably deliberate attack, AND WE STILL CANNOT GET A REAL FUCKING INVESTIGATION...AFTER FORTY FUCKING YEARS.

Third, most 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" I've come across don't claim to know exactly what happened right down to most minute detail; rather, they claim the government's version of events is so utterly implausible, with many aspects of the government's behavior so self-incriminating, that a REAL, INDEPENDENT investigation is badly needed.

If we go back to the canons of our criminal justice system, the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” is the central driving concept. If we think of the 9/11 Commission’s explanation of the attack as the defendant,

ROTFLMAO! What an utterly ridiculous statement! Why must we accept the government's version of events as true and correct? In case you didn't notice, the government's "conspiracy theory" is merely another "conspiracy theory". Also, in case you didn't know, there is a robust historical record of government deceit and treachery against its own subjects. The government has no credibility whatsoever. The government, among other things, is a SERIAL LIAR.

the burden is on the “prosecution,” (conspiracy theorists) to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that this explanation is not accurate, with some other named or identified individual(s) to be held accountable.

As I've already endeavored to point out to you, the government's 9/11 "conspiracy theory" is a "conspiracy theory" too. The question is: Which of the various conspiracy theories best comports with the facts and with the laws of physics?

Yes, past government officials have engaged in conspiracies, discovered years later. Yes, Bush and Cheney have done much to suggest that they would be willing to engage in any activity they considered in their self interest or a part of their personal agenda.

That these are factual statements we can agree; that either, both, or other government officials had pre-event awareness, assisted in the success of the attack, or engaged in activities causing damage beyond that caused by the 19 terrorists is yet to be supported by any chain of evidence to be offered by the prosecution.

Ok, I'll tell you what, genius, how about putting your money where your mouth is?

Here's what I suggest you do: Make it publicly known that you wished you owned a heavily insured property that burnt down, as that's the only way you can imagine getting the money you need for some great purpose you have in mind. Then, go buy a house somewhere, and insure it heavily. Then, call the local TV station and tell them the house burnt down. Then, wait a day or so and burn it down. Then, before the state police fire marshall can come and do a proper forensic examination of the remains of the structure, haul the debris away. Then, go on record making public statements to the effect that the burnt down house provided you with "vast, new opportunities", etc. Then, try to claim the insurance money. Let's see what happens to you. When the cops come for you, tell them they're just idiot "conspiracy theorists". We'll see how far your argument gets you in court, especially after you publicly denounce the prosecutor as a nutty "conspiracy theorist". If you don't have access to a computer in you jail cell, maybe your lawyer can post back here and report your status.

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments) on Friday, July 20, 2007 at 11:37:09 PM
 

Purpose of Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theories are problem-solving devices.  Historically, such theories arise most often when the "official" version of events seems inadequate, flawed, or incomplete.

We all know that conspiracies exist.  There is ample indisputable historical proof in such matters as: Watergate, Enron, tobacco and drug companies suppressing adverse data about health-related consequences of their products, Mafia, military-scandals such as Tailhook, Abu Ghraib, Haditha and military academy cheating, criminal prosecutions of politicians and law enforcement or correctional officers who lied under oath to protect themselves or others, KKK, CPUSA, etc.

What Sherwin has not addressed adequately are these fundamental questions or issues:

1.   Based upon our historical experience, how long (on average) has a conspiracy been able to successfully exist without being exposed?

2.  What methods do conspirators typically use to suppress knowlege about their conspiracy?

3.  When a conspiracy is exposed, what, typically, are the methods used to produce the exposure?

4.  When government officials or agencies are participants in a conspiracy, do you think that they have greater or lesser ability to suppress knowledge about their conspiracy compared to non-government conspirators?  Itemize for us some of the unique tools available to government officials to suppress knowledge.

5.  True or False?  Government officials and politicians routinely resort to deception or disinformation in an effort to produce favorable public perceptions about their behavior, policies, and programs and unfavorable perceptions about their political opponents?  

6.  Conspirators (by definition) seek to suppress data and public awareness about their identitity and their activities. 

Consequently, the absence of verifiable data regarding specific persons involved in a conspiracy and absence of specific details regarding the nature of a conspiracy currently in operation (or a past conspiracy) cannot be used as  "proof" regarding the purported non-existence of a conspiracy.  

This is like the old question:  "Does a falling tree in a forest make a sound if no one is around to hear it?"   Conspirators are like the falling trees in a forest....they can do their work without making a perceptible sound because no one is aware of their existence.

Therefore, Sherwin needs to explain WHAT METHODOLOGY he proposes should be used to "prove" the existence of a conspiracy.

In addition, it would be helpful if Sherwin would explain what type of data (in the absence of confessions by conspirators) he would find acceptable to DISPROVE his working hypothesis.

I copy below one recent comment by a conspiracy believer.  How would a rational, fair-minded person go about disproving the points made by this author?

"I have watched a video (In Plain Sight) and when the towers collapse they
certainly look exactly like a controlled demolition.

At the Pentagon. The initial impact from the missile strike is only 14, 16 feet
wide. And that is very unusual and mysterious, taken in connection with no evidence of a plane at the site either. And no crater at all in front of the impact site, as reported in a book that came out within weeks.

Interesting that the impact site at the Pentagon was an area that just happened to be under construction and thus did not have an office staff there - though reportedly there were casualties I believe at the Pentagon.

Clearly there were 2,000 or 3,000 deaths at the (WTC) towers, starting at the top floor where Irish and Turks posing as Semites worked well together and in harmony at the investment firm Kantor Fitzgerald. Of coourse, the top dog at Kantor Fitzgerald did not come in that day. But that could have been a sixth sense. (I have had an overwelming urge to stay at home on two occasions when something bad happened. I was not tipped off, just intuitive.)

The sum total of all the anomalies surround the Second Day of Infamy makes the event even more surreal in retrospect.

The hoboes behind the grassy knoll would be analagous to the people, later
identified as part of an Israeli moving company that disappeared, who were on a nearby roof cheering the carnage. and on and on and on.

You have to realize even the Congress and the Courts have a vested interest in never blowing away the smoke nor smashing the mirrors because if the event was fabricated the public acceptance of that knowledge would crash the government. Senators, Congressman, staff, courts -- all would be on the street and in the chaos. I am clearly aware of the self interest that makes anyone want to turn away.

The mass mind itself wants to protect itself and is thus prone to denial and not wanting to go there. It is just too uncomfortable. But a segment of the populace is clearly not afraid."

by ernie1241 (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 11:42:04 AM
 

You're the dangerous one.

You have an unjustified and suspicious antipathy for the word conspiracy. Don't be naive. The conservatives machinations are all conspiracies. The famous Cheney secret energy task force meetings with Ken Lay were conspiracies by definition. Outing Valerie Plame was a conspiracy - unless you think Scooter was the lone identity assassin. These people can't even wipe their asses without a secret meeting, a few secret emails, and a shredder.

Yeah, people speculate, sometimes inaccurately. No danger posed there. Also - and apparently, you don't know this yet - people conspire. They would like all people to believe that they are paranoid for thinking so. They've succeeded with you. They are safe to perpetrate any conspiracy knowing that people like you will hear the word and go ballisic, rejecting the possibility out of hand, as you do.

You're the dangerous one.

by Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments) on Sunday, July 22, 2007 at 1:54:28 AM
 

Shill

"Conspiracy Theory" is a label that shills are programmed to parrot when they themselves refuse to acknowledge the truth.  It at it heart is cowardice.  One can tell when they hit close to the mark as the internet is replete with shills trying to browbeat those who refuse to be apathetic and lazy and have the courage to question the lying filth that our "esteemed institutions of truth" have spewed on us like skunks on a merry-go-round.

I can only laugh at these feeble attempts at obfiscation and intellectual distraction.

This one deserves only the obligatory "Ha..." 

Cheers

Roage 

by Roage (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, July 20, 2007 at 6:23:03 PM
 

Hardly!

"Driving a stake in the heart of Conspiracy Theories"

by Sherwin Steffin 

Dream on Sherwin... the stake you've driven here is more akin to a splinter driven toward the heart of an elephant... (I wish it was the GOP elephant... put that old cow out of her misery!)

Nice try pal. But Weak. Very weak.

Not even worthy of further comment. 

by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 295 comments) on Friday, July 20, 2007 at 10:28:16 PM
 

Nope -- not analogous

"If we go back to the canons of our criminal justice system, the concept of ?innocent until proven guilty,? is the central driving concept. If we think of the 9/11 Commission?s explanation of the attack as the defendant, the burden is on the ?prosecution,? (conspiracy theorists) to prove ?beyond a reasonable doubt,? that this explanation is not accurate, with some other named or identified individual(s) to be held accountable."

This isn't a criminal case in court, and even it was there is no reason to presume that the government is innocent of lying, and that the people should be in the role of prosecutors. Rather the government should present a believable case to show it was the alleged terrorists solely responsibly -- but this is not the sort of investigation called for at all. Nope -- I reject the frame you are trying to put this in, and I reject the idea that just labeling things "conspiracy theories" is at all meaningful. All it's really saying is that it's a possible explanation for something done by more than one person, generally in secret. Investigators do that all the time when there is a bank robbery, for instance, or embezzling. You are trying to introduce emotional reaction and discreditation by just using a label -- and that's not rational -- it's just a propagandist or rhetorical ploy. The people are not courtroom prosecutors, but the employers of the government, which can be fired even without any cause.

"Only that there is no evidence available that should demand some action being taken."

As far as I know, there is no evidence that flying saucer people have done any harm -- I can't point to any harm -- but we know there was certainly an attack, and a very great deal of action has been taken -- most of it turning out to be exactly the wrong action. The events of 9/11 are not conjured up possibilities.

"The non-existence of anything is impervious to proof."
The existence of conspirators making that attack is absolutely established. The question is, who were they? That they were the 19, or solely the 19, is hardly well established. Again you are trying to use analogy inappropriately. 

"The non-existence of anything is impervious to proof."
Actually, and a little bit off track, this is not really true. If there is a question of a letter being in a box, I can prove it's non-existence there by opening the box. But in case, no proof is ever absolute because all proofs depend on a pre-accepted system, which is fallible. Yet in the system of mathematics it is proven there is no rational root of the square root of two. It doesn't exist. Careful of getting in over your head in this area -- epistomology can be tricky.

But as I said there are no absolute proofs; yet there are relative proofs -- it's easy enough to prove there are no tigers in my town. It's not impossible, but for all practical purposes I can readily assume that. I can also assume there are no dinosaurs, or dodo birds, anywhere.

You were a research statistician, you say in your profile: will you accept it as proven that all the air in the room will never just happen to collect under the desk? There is no absolute proof, but there is practical, empirical proof. Probabilities matter.

When 9/11 is looked at, it is rather improbable that the official explanations are correct: there are many conflicting statements, explanations which don't make sense, obstruction and cover up, and very suspicious motives for other stories being the reality. And, of course, a long history of governments inventing such things and conspiring in false flag and deceptive events. No, there is no unbroken chain of evidence -- and that's precisely because evidence has been destroyed and repressed. If this WERE a trial we would still be in the preliminary investigations stage -- not even discovery. There questions which have not even been asked yet -- which you apparently don't want people to ask.

No, this will not be just swept under the rug, and it shouldn't be, even if making it a primary focus right now is not helping. There are many issues which should be resolved at some point, which also may not be helpful to focus on right now, but they should not be forgotten or dismissed (the questions about the US war on Haiti and the US backed coup there, for instance  -- a war crime in itself -- which in a sane nation would alone have been enough to impeach Bush).

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Friday, July 20, 2007 at 11:18:14 PM
 

Garrison's career ended...

..because Clay Shaw was found innocent. Then, later, evidence comes to light that Mr. Shaw was indeed the CIA agent Garrison said he was. Given the quality of CIA testimony, historically speaking, one now wonders whether there was a cover-up.

So Sherwin Steffin ended that particular aspect of his argument too soon.

by Rowland Scherman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 10:28:52 AM
 

Conspiracy Theories

I read your article, and now I believe even more in the conspiracies that you regard as theroies. A three hundred foot airplane doesn't make a 16 foot hole in a building, and then disappear. IF everything is on the up and up, why won't the Pentagon show any real-time movies of what actually did hit the Pentagon?

by Rowland Scherman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 10:34:45 AM
 

You gave yourself away with your credentials

"I am a retired educator, and research analyst. My working career ranged from classroom teacher, university administrator, founder and CEO of two software companies, independent consultant, ending as a research statistician for a large Internet Service Provider."

I speak with authority, because I've been there in the Ivory Tower, too. Until I saw the horrendous effects of bad medical practice on my father; understood how the law and finance are the REAL hammer and sickle, by seeing a friend's character assassinated by those who knew they were lying, and seeing educated and religious men lie, steal and murder.  They think it's okay because their targets were NOT in THEIR group.

You were paid to parrot the lies (lies by omission) as an educator.  Had you not done so, you would have been fired.  The classroom and  university are NOT the real world. Theory, but not practice. Efficient software mainly was used by the powerful to make themselves even more powerful and stronger.   I'm 60, started a software company in publishing in 1973. Recently retired.  Used UUNET in 1988 for Internet services, and studied economics (self-taught) for over 35 years.  

We're stuck in the same nonsense we've been in since 1600.  Every so often, times exist for money kings to try to run the world.  Every time, many die, many suffer, because certain men at key focal points lie, steal and murder.  Same opera, different actors, same stupid results.  Had educators not been forced to lie by omission, progress would have been much easier.  More people would have learned what really happened, and would be loath to put their own children through the same thing.

by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments) on Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 12:07:26 PM
 

Many conspiracies happened

In addition to the above, Pearl Harbor.  It is well documented FDR leaked foreknowledge of the attacks to multiple people, and orders from Washington actively aided the attack.

Iran hostage/Reagan:  Tremendous evidence Reagan made a deal with Iran, and his administration followed it up with Iran/Contra. 

by Richard Pietrasz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 5:47:57 PM
 

9/11 was a stake in the heart of American democracy

Sherwin Steffin states:

“The first, if not the biggest hole [in extant theories of the 9/11 attack], is the simple question of gain resulting from scenarios different from the official explanation.”

I answer both sides of this peculiarly convoluted question:

A. The American public would surely gain from knowing what really happened, if actually different from the “official explanation.”

B. Insider conspirators would surely gain from uncritical public acceptance of an incorrect “official explanation” by succeeding in (1) terrorizing the American people into accepting a fascist government and (2) justifying endless war that immensely profits the military-industrial complex.

“Suppose the twin towers were subject to the two plane crashes, but never collapsed. Would any of the national policies adopted by the Bush Administration have been different?”

Wrong question. What would have been different if the Twin Towers were left standing after the airplanes struck them is that (1) there would have been less shock value, (2) Larry Silverstein couldn’t have collected his $5B insurance payment on his pair of underoccupied buildings in need of $2B renovations, (3) the gold in the basement (between $230M and $170B depending on who you believe) couldn’t have been stolen to help the neocons manipulate the stock market, and (4) bringing down WTC 7 with out a plane strike would have been be far too conspicuous (but still necessary in order to the destroy the evidence of their attack-facilitating radio beacon and other apparatus, as well as the files of federal investigations of fraudulent dealings on Wall Street).

“More importantly, if [the damage to the Pentagon] was not caused by Flight 77, where did the plane, crew and passengers go? The Bermuda Triangle, perhaps?”

Good question! I worked out the likely answer. Download my research here:http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/publish/dlgriscom/911Research

“Moreover, there had to be coordination of timing of the events with the 19 terrorists.”

I agree that would have been impossibly hard. So they didn’t depend on incompetent Arabs, duh! I explain how they likely did all three attacks in my available downloads. By the way, “they” are a self-assembled conspiracy consisting mainly of true-believing neocons, officers, and officials of the U.S . Government and military-industrial complex.

“The biggest question of all is simply this: With the large number of people required to successfully implement this conspiracy, how is it that not a single person has talked in the six years that has elapsed since the event?”

That’s the easiest question of all to answer. Those conspirators who agreed to feign their deaths (a la Operation Northwoods) on the “hijacked” 9/11 jetliners were rewarded with tropical island or other exotic hideaways of their choice and numbered Swiss bank accounts. All of them are effectively in witness protection programs, but with the little twist that their protectors stand by to be their executioners in the event they even think of “blowing the whistle.” Just how surprising do you think it is that no one (that we know of) has decided to trade his or her paradise for a bullet in the head?

by David Griscom (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 30 comments) on Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 7:38:05 PM
 

Its not hard to be Paranoid

When the highest official of the land starts a war that leads to about 1 million dead innocent people, who also sits around the White House putting marks on lists of people to be contract murdered by government paid Felons. America, like England, sure loves their Death Squads.

Oh by the way, "ET" is blowing off all of our supposed "people in the know," by addressing themselves to the ordinary folks, many who are under some aspect of Mind control.

At Roswell in 1947, "ET" sent us a message allowing us to contemplate "The Magnitude of the Deception." Roswell was home to the only nuclear bombing base on the planet at the time. The nukes have all of our names on them.

How am I so sure that the "ET" really exist? If "ET" did not exist, we all would have been turned into nuclear waste many years ago.

The real conspiracy theory out here is the one that the government actually exists: When the decision was made in 1946 to go ahead with a full scale nuclear build up, that was understood AT THE TIME, CERTAIN TO LEAD TO THE EXTERMINATION OF THE HUMAN RACE, THE GOVERNMENT ENDED.

We are the Living Dead.

If not for "ET,"  we all would be the Dead Dead.

We are alive during a time in which our clever predator deceptor genocidal nuclear armed cannibal tribes, have been outed by a much higher level power.  Once the ordinary folks figure it out, we will never ever; be fooled again.

by Patrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Saturday, July 21, 2007 at 11:50:11 PM
 

Silly conspiracies

You have the dubious distinction of being probably the only individual who has written a summary exclusion of those explanations which bespeak of a coordinated plan of action in favor of a lunatic or group of lunatics.

There is abundant evidence that 911 was an inside job, as are many so-called isolated incidents. Your article is just plain silly in itself. As a schoolteacher, it is truly a blessing you are retired.

Moss Posner, M.D.

by Moss David Posner, M.D. (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments) on Sunday, July 22, 2007 at 3:45:31 AM