Why don't you believe the official story?, page 3

I wouldn't say I doubt it so much as that I simply not convinced yet.

Firstly, I do believe terrorists flew three commercial aircraft into the WTC and the Pentagon, and that the fourth was shot down. I do not believe these were UAVs or military aircraft of any kind, and I do not believe any missiles or other ordinance were used. I know that those are popular theories, and some would argue that they are even well supported theories, but my gut just doesn't jive with them. It would be too obvious, and no matter how much media suppression or magic was used to conceal such acts, the risk of exposure would be too great. Besides that, there are more subtle ways of bringing buildings down and blaming it on terrorists than wasting military aircraft and precious ordinance. It just wouldn't make sense to me.

I feel that the various conspiracy theories popular around here and elsewhere share a flaw many conspiracy theories share: they are too visible and obvious to be kept secret. My father - and no I am not claiming to be anything even approaching knowledgeable about these things, but I still need to say it - was in the green barrets, and then worked in the CIA for a brief stint after an honorable discharge (spinal injury), and one thing he has always told me is, "Son, if something happens that don't look quite right, and the information coming out of it makes you suspicious of foul play yet also overwhelmingly implicates one party or person, then you got yourself a little thing called misinformation." That's what I feel has gone on in this instance.

Has anyone else noticed that the high profile officials that tend to get away with the most are also often - at least by all appearances - the least, shall we say, "sharp?" I believe there is a reason for that. They are the most malleable and the most easily manipulated. Let's face it. Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. That isn't a personal attack, because I'm not either lol. Granted, I don't agree with Bush's policies, I wouldn't vote for him, I am anti-war, and I would be labeled - if I were to be labeled at all - as "liberal," but I also do not believe he is the evil monstrosity some seem to think he is. The reason I don't is because I can still remember him choking back tears during his first televised address after 9-11 when he spoke the word "children" while speaking of the dead. I'm a very empathic individual, or I try to be, and I don't think he's a good enough actor to have faked that. I find his policies abhorrent, and I condemn the war, but I do not believe he is the true architect of either one of those, nor do I believe he is evil incarnate itself.

It is convenient that everything points to him. His brother was responsible for security policies regarding the twin towers that could have allowed the much scrutinized (and not yet proved without doubt) controlled demolition to unfold, he was a bonesman, etc. We all know these things. That's my point, though. It's too obvious. Equally convenient is how easily he could be held up as the war president - the hero - after 9-11, and how easily he could be made the scapegoat now that things aren't as favorable for him in the public opinion department. As I said, he is malleable, and easily manipulated. I may loathe the decisions he's made, but I feel the real demons in his morbid procession are those we rarely see.

So, having established why - whether correct or incorrect, as the case may be - I don't entirely believe most of the conspiracy theories, I can move on to why I do believe something fishy was and is going on.

Ask yourself this question. What would be easier and of the greatest benefit for the powers that be to pull off, of the following two scenarios?

1) Have the brother of the president of the United States make it feasible for demolition-grade explosives to be concealed in the WTC, doll up four military aircraft to look like commercial airliners, fly them into the twin towers and Pentagon, have one of them shot down or crash, remotely demolish the buildings, rapidly conceal most evidence of this conspiracy, produce and doctor media footage, and get the nation behind a protracted war on terror.

or

2) Relax security enough to allow those who were already trying their best to hurt us to do so, and manipulate an easily manipulated president into carrying out the policies that advance your hidden agenda until such time as his popularity wanes, at which point the abuses perpetrated under your guidance can be pinned solely upon him.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Bush is some innocent who can do no wrong, and, again, I have deep moral distaste for many of his own decisions (as many have distaste with my own, which is their prerogative and shouldn't be cause for enmity - which is something many here seem to forget, in my opinion). I contend, however, that the number one reason why this whole scheme has worked, is because they have manipulated his ideological leanings into the sword with which to cut down the obstacles to their broader plan, and the simultaneous patsy who gets stoned while they escape into the night. It's convincing because it's what be truly believes - even if I sharply disagree with it - and it works because all he thinks is that he's following that, and the advice of people who appear to agree with him look like precisely that: validating advice, rather than manipulative leading. Those people are the ones we should be looking at, though, particularly in an administration that delegates tasks that are traditionally more hands-on affairs.

End act one.

What will act two be? That's what I'm really worried about. I fear the Bush administration is the beginning, not the end. This isn't about party, and it isn't over yet, I fear.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by AceWombat04]