posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 06:34 PM
I believe the "conspiracy" on 9-11 was a combination of deliberate inattention to the prospects of a terrorist attack followed by a fairly well
organized campaign to push through whatever broad new powers Bush wanted in its immediate aftermath.
I've looked through some of the old threads on this board, but because I'm not sure of a convenient label for what I believe, or even which keywords
to search, haven't been able to find anything that approximates my position.
When people talk about theories in which there are no planes hitting buildings or in which the collapse of the buildings was the result of controlled
demolition the most I can do is tell them politely that I'm afraid we are on two different planets. Don't get me wrong, some of these ideas are
pretty interesting, I just think they show a fundamental misunderstanding about how political conspiracies on this scale work.
There was no need for controlled demolition or theatrics involving planes and passenger lists. The conspiracy was this: The US knew a terrorist
attack on US soil was imminent. By all accounts, we had picked up sufficient chatter to be fairly certain something was in the works. Rather than
working to stop the attack, the administration chose to do nothing, thus making a success for the attack all but inevitable. All this time, the
powerbrokers were putting together a list of policies they wanted to push through in the inevitable public support they would receive after the
attack. I'll go so far as to concede that, because of bin Laden's CIA connections and George H W Bush's friendship with bin Laden's relatives,
the administration may have had a good idea of about where and when the attack would occur. They may have given bin Laden a wink and a nudge
Immediately after the attack, I believe a coverup began. There are some strange things happening with flight plans and rescue missions. Cheney and
Rumsfeld behave in some screwy ways, even by their standards. The investigation is botched horribly and deliberately from day 1. This isn't because
there is physical evidence of controlled demolition, it's because there are paper trails indicatign who knew what when.
The administration did take a lesson from the Reichstag fire, only they were a little more subtle. They didn't set anything on fire, they just knew
about when and where, and probably how, something was going to be set on fire and they looked the other way, too busy planning to capitalize on the
attack once it had happened.
I apologize if this is a position that has already been discussed to death, like I said, I just didn't come across similar threads and I'm not sure
exactly what I'd need to search to find them.