Bart--

Common sense is too often wrong.

Common sense tells us that when struck by a high-powered rifle slug, the human head recoils away from the bullet. 
But the truth is actually the opposite. Common sense tells us that photographs of astronauts on the airless-Moon 
should also show bright stars in the background. But again common sense is wrong.

The problem with most conspiracy theories is that they are so full of common sense that they no longer have any 
room for rational, logical analysis.

Here are some logical, reasonable questions that the 9/11 conspiracy buffs either fail or choose not to ask:

1. If the Bush administration is the most incompetent of all time, how were they able to pull off the greatest crime 
in American history? They couldn't properly doctor evidence of Iraq's WMD programs, they didn't plant evidence 
in Iraq after the invasion, they couldn't abduct and torture thousands in secret; but they could pull off 9/11 without 
anyone but internet cranks finding them out?

What if they knew 9-11 was coming, but let it happen?
 

2. If they chose to fly airliners into the Twin Towers and were prepared to use Flight 93 in a similar fashion, 
why then did they use a missile or a fighter jet (it changes from theory to theory) to attack the Pentagon? 
(The often asked yet never answered Pentagon attack question deserves mention here: if Flight 77 didn't 
hit the Pentagon, where did it go?)

It's a big planet - my guess is the Atlantic or Pacific.
 

3. If they used C-4 or some other explosive to implode the Towers, why bother flying planes into them? 
Why not just blame the implosion on terrorists? If you wanted to evacuate the building before the implosion, 
why not pull the fire alarm or call in a bomb threat?

The spectacular and stunning blood-thirstiness of 9-11 caused more terror.
The point of terror is to change a people's behavior.
In that regard, 9-11 was a great success because we no longer live in America.
Bush can legally murder anyone on the planet and our Constitution is just a joke.
 

4. Why implode the buildings at all? Why not blow the lower floors apart and let the buildings fall like trees? 
Setting up an intricate implosion on multiple floors among thousands of potential witnesses seems like an 
awfully high risk maneuver. The only reason you implode a building is to minimize damage to the surrounding area. 
So I’m to believe that the same people who flew two airliners into the Towers showering jet fuel and debris across 
Manhattan are suddenly worried about collateral damage?
 

5. A lot of ink has been wasted on the collapse of WTC 7. Granted, it looks like an imploding building 
(albeit one without the tell-tale explosions). But while many like to point out that it was 'obviously' taken down 
by the government, none of them bothers to explain why. If the Towers were already down, what's the reason 
for imploding WTC 7? Especially hours after the Towers had fallen. And if we are to assume that the conspiracy 
was worried about collateral damage (see number 4 above), why bother with another building? Where is the 
gain for the conspiracy?
 

6. Many conspiracies out there claim that Flight 93 was shot down by the Air Force (on Dick Cheney's orders), 
and that the whole passenger revolt story was just an inspiring cover. But if 93 was part of the plot, why shoot it down? 
And if it wasn't part of a conspiracy and it was shot down, why cover it up? Wouldn't the fact that our brave leaders 
made the difficult and painful decision to shoot innocent Americans down in order to potentially save thousands more, 
play right into the right-wing-'tough men for a tough job'-patriotic-machismo angle? Am I to believe that in this one 
case Bush & company refused to take advantage of tragedy?
 

7. If the planes that hit the Towers were under government control (in some theories remote control); and the terrorists 
were CIA plants, gullible dupes, or just plain imaginary; why not put a few Iraqis (real or imagined) on the flights? 
12 Saudis wasn't enough? Was 15 some magic number? 
 

If one of the main reasons to perpetrate 9/11 was to make possible the invasion of Iraq, why not invent a direct 
connection between Saddam and the attack? (And no, Mohammed Atta in Prague doesn’t count) 
With an uncomplicated link between Iraq and 9/11, you wouldn't need WMD lies to justify invasion.
 

And you can’t use “they didn’t think of it” or “bad planning” as a legitimate answer for any of the above questions. 
The existence of the grand conspiracy requires that the current administration is much smarter than they seem. 
They can’t be utterly incompetent and master puppeteers at the same time. They can only be one or the other.
 

Bush and his cronies are evil, and I believe that many of them would see the loss of 3,000 Americans as an 
acceptable sacrifice for their cause (see the Iraq War). But just because somebody would do something if it 
was within their power, doesn't mean that thing is within their power.  
 

I am a true believer in the innate ineptitude of humanity. People are just too dumb, disloyal, and indiscreet for 
massive government-wide conspiracies to exist. The plot to kill Lincoln and others in his cabinet was a conspiracy. 
Enron cooking the books and playing with California’s power supply was a conspiracy. Both plots were successful
in that their main goals were met. Yet even with their success, the plots unraveled and the plotters were discovered. 
Now take Enron and John Wilkes Booth, add them together, then multiply them by a thousand and you might get 
something the size of the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. Again, people aren’t that bright (in my book, an IQ of 64 still 
puts you above most), I just don’t see how a plot of this size could possibly work.

As with most questions in life, conspiracy theories should be put through the filter of Occam's razor: 
“one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything” 
or, in other words, the simplest explanation is usually the best.

--Jamie
 
 

Jamie, take alllll of that and put it on Shelf One.
On Shelf Two is the fact that Bush did all he could to avoid questions about that day.
If there's nothing to hide, why refuse to cooperate?

Remember Jon Benet?
Her parents refused to talk to the murder police.
Who refuses to talk to the cops when your daughter has just been murdered?
Guilty people, or people protecting other people, that's who.

I have a feeling the truth about 9-11 is so mind-fucking awful, nobody would believe it
if the facts were all laid out on a big table, with the dots connected and sourced and everything.

We're talking about grabbing control of the entire planet.
Nobody in history was ever successful until Cheney got our military to be his enforcers.
 

  Comments?

 back to  bartcop.com
 

 

Current Issue Back Issues About BartCop.com Members (need password) Subscribe to BartCop! Donate Once Contact Us Advertise With Us BartCop: Entertainment The Forum  - bartcopforum@yahoo.com Live CHAT The Reader Bart Cook Sports Stickers Bookstore More Links Perkel's Blog Power of Nightmares Cost of Bush's greed White Rose Society Project 60 Chinaco Anejo EVEN MORE LINKS

Search Now: