Conspiracy?

[jungesam] Check out this site, it is very detailed. Especially look at the complete timeline of the day of 9/11. I haven't had a chance to read it all yet. The whole Cooperative Research site looks really sweet, it also has timelines of Katrina, Iraq, and other hard-to-track historical themes involving sketchy US business.

Did you know that the president of my school, Bob Kerrey, was on the 9/11 comission?

Since saying I was thinking about the fact that Flight 93 was shot down, I checked up on it, and it seems not only likely, but probably certain that it was shot down. The failure to admit this doesn't seem so much "conspiracy" as it was just stupid run-of-the-mill doublespeak, just like the US denying it is spying on Venezuela (my favorite of example of bullshit as status quo). My wonder is, if Bush did give the order for this plane to be taken down as [tanseybe] says, then what part does this play in the entire conspiracy of the day? Was it done to make it seem that the government was actually trying to thwart the attacks? If so, why wouldn't they have publicized it? Or is it just to convince the people within the government who know that it was shot down that the attacks were legit? Like, the typical terrorist response finally caught up with the last plane, and then they had to take it down or else it would be obvious to all the air traffic controllers and military etc. that the take down was deliberately stopped even though by that time the threat was very clear. Or was Bush not in on the conspiracy? Or was the motivation to show "heroic" Americans who thwarted the attack (the passengers) and the whole thing was orchestrated? That one doesn't seem very likely to me, considering the rescue workers were plenty of lambs to the slaughter already. Or, maybe if the entire day was allowed to happen rather than being deliberately orchestrated, once the towers collapsed then the decision was made to shoot down 93, because the carnage exceeded the expectations.

[jungesam] I've been looking over some 9/11 conspiracy shit on the inter'web. Mostly on this one www.whatreallyhappened.com. It's not a bad site, not great. Anyway, it seems much more plausible to me that if there was a "conspiracy" (not to assume causality or anything) that it would've occurred in the failure to stop the planes flying into the buildings. I've found several interesting ideas, alot of them relating to Israeli spies and Israeli communications companies that are supposed fronts for spy organizations (have you read about the alleged gun on Flight 11?). Which is all slightly suspicious, because it would put Israelis behind everything (and most of the sites seem to lead slightly or more than slightly to right, and not the christian right) but then again if you (whoever in the US was planning the whole thing) were going to have a foreign government help you out, the Israelis would certainly benifit from a war on terror (Islamic terror that is), they would also be very competent and probably already have alot of networks in place, and also it would be really convenient to cry anti-semitism against the largely circumstantial evidence to throw people off. That's who I would pick to help ME plan such a conspiracy, anyway. I certainly wouldn't pick a European country like Germany or something, the small help they do give the CIA ends up all over the front page.

But, I have to say I'm pretty convinced that the planes did bring down the towers, and that a plane hit the pentagon. All in all, I think it would be easier to fly a plane into the Pentagon than to fake it, because there sure were alot of people who claimed to witness it. And while one could go to all that trouble of providing a sample of fake witnesses, why not just actually do it? As for the WTC, I've looked at a shitload of diagrams, schematics, videos, pictures, and even seismic readings. And while I have very little idea what all those mean from a technical point of view, the things I see is that in both collapses, the original "explosion" of debris flying out of the sides of the buildings comes from the upper area of the impact zones. So, if the buildings were rigged with explosives, they would have had to been placed at different floors (because the planes impacted, like 15 floors apart?), and then the pilots would have had to hit directly below the bombs to make sure the explosions would show up in the right place. Also I saw one video where it is very clear that the side of the first tower (on the "inside" of where the top of the tower fell outward) buckles inward before debris shoots out. Very much like a beer can being crushed. That just doesn't seem consistent with an explosion. I read some description that said there were bombs in the basement, but that really doesn't make much sense either, because it is obvious the towers fell from the top.

What makes much more sense to me is that alot of people just can't believe that something so big and symbolic could fall down, and when it did, to fall down in the way it was designed to, and so they believe something "must" have caused it that wasn't two "little" 767s. Which is all kind of awe inspiring in a really brutal way. But, I would be willing to accept the very likely and plausible possibility that the government allowed either by inaction or by planning those planes to hit those buildings.


Oh, and also watching those video clips over and over also reminds me just how fucked up the whole thing is.