Sep 11, 2006

Norm, Charles, Give me a break.

Norman Singleton and Charles Featherstone are congratulating each other over at Lew's Blog for their "reasonable" conclusions about the whacko conspiracy theorists out there.

Those of us who think that the government is capable and willing to carry off something like 9.11 are just not that bright. Norman writes:

These people were likely taught at a very young age that the government had the power to make all things right and protect them from all evil. Thus, they cannot accept that the government could be so incompetent as to fail to stop something like the 9-11 attacks.

Earth to Norm, all of us, unless homeschooled were taught this. Some grew up and abused ourselves of our ignorance.

Charles has a similar view:

Those peddling the view that the attacks of September 11 were an "inside job" are selling the idea of an omniscient government, one that controls all and is capable of everything. They also have a strange faith in technology -- that it simply cannot fail in strange and unpredictable ways. Not to mention the belief that nothing happens by accident, and that everything is somehow planned in advance

Listen guys, I'm not stupid, and neither are many of those who follow the research. Contary to the strawman arguments you've both raised, there are other possibilities.

WT7 wasn't hit by an airplane. That was a demolition. There is no controversy there as it is the only valid explanation for the way it collapsed.

Controlled Demolition, the same company that was responsible for carting away the evidence from the OKC bombing, received the contract for carting away 9.11 evidence a mere 11 days after the event. That is a fact. Government *never* operates that fast.

The same sort of thing occurred at Waco. All of the evidence that might have given credence to surviving Branch Davidian's claims that the BATF fired first, was destroyed before investigators could look at it. The steel front doors were important. Gone forever. What did the government have to hide?

Why not stage the main core columns somewhere local instead of shipping them to China and India? That would have allowed investigators to completely debunk the "conspiracy theorists."

But in point of fact, those who believe that 19 (oops 12) terrorists from the Middle East were able to execute this action are also conspiracy theorists. So it is all a matter of perspective, which is the acceptable theory? The one put out by researchers with nothing in particular to gain, or the government which has been so honest to us? Who benefitted from 9/11? The terrorists? Or the government and in particular PNAC the agenda of which government is now enacting verbatim?

You can claim the government is evil and incompetent when it comes to the wars it is fighting or the lies it is telling to justify those wars, but it's just too "out there" to consider that they would go so far as to kill their own citizens in order to advance an agenda. Perish the thought. Where did that perspective come from guys? Private school?

2 comments:

Charles H. Featherstone said...

It's not that I don't believe the government *wouldn't* kill American citizens to advance whatever agenda was on the mind of those in charge. However, in this particular instance, I do not find the evidence compelling to prove or even suggest the government *actually did* such a thing on September 11, 2001. The alleged "evidence" simply is not compelling.

You mention 7WTC. I was there, at the WTC, on September 11, and can tell you a number of buildings surrounding the complex were seriously damaged in the collapse of the two towers -- 1 Liberty Plaza, the Deutsche Bank Building, 3 World Financial Center (the building I was in). There was concern that because Battery Park City was built on landfill -- fill from the great big hole they scooped out for the WTC -- that the entire World Financial Center might not be viable because of damage to the foundation. I also recall press reports from later that day about the damage 7WTC had sustained from the collapse, and saw the wreckage of 7WTC as it lay across West Street, looking nothing like a building that had been blown deliberately. So, it's collapse has never been much of a mystery to me.

There are lots of questions to be asked about who knew what, when, and what might have been allowed to happen by elements of the Bush administration that would have been happy for an attack to justify never-ending war. But to focus on the collapse of the towers themselves is to make the weakest and most foolish argument, and one that simply doesn't hold any water based on what I saw that day.

Rick Fisk said...

The video of WTC7 collapsing cannot be explained by collateral damage. It defies the laws of physics. Furthermore, there was not as much damage to the building as was alleged. But I wasn't there. I have just never heard of any structural steel building collapsing due to fire. Niether has anyone else because in the history of such buildings none ever has collapsed due to fire.