>> |
Rant Part 4
Anonymous
Now, all of this said, it does nothing to disprove the idea of a conspiracy. Let me be clear about this: the theories of an "Inside Job" and "Controlled Demolition" are mutually exclusive. "Inside Job", in fact, as a broad idea, is plausible. I say broad because the idea that an "Inside Job" must be a vast conspiracy is short-sighted. (Note that I'm not saying I believe there was a conspiracy, just that it's possible. I'm keeping an open mind.)
Orchestration of the attacks by Government officials needed only involve a few people. A little financing here, bargaining there, and 19 hijackers later, there you have it. Also, anyone who knew the system before the attacks; security, FAA tracking, escalation procedures, chain of command, bureaucracy, etc., would also know of the weaknesses and how to exploit them quietly, likely not even requiring any strings to be pulled on the part of those involved. This also could have been the case without any orchestration on the Government's part at all. Merely choosing to ignore intelligence and letting it happen because they knew it could succeed without help could be what happened.
In short, I ask that if you are one of those who feels the Government played a hand in this, step back for a second and understand that holding on to the "Controlled Demolition" theory when all the evidence points to the contrary only makes you look really dumb, and will make those you debate with immediately dismiss you and whatever "Inside Job" theory you adhere to, no matter how plausible it may be. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you have got to accept this: there was no "Controlled Demolition." All the evidence corroborates this. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of physics can tell you this. If you want to get anywhere close to the truth of who was behind it, you need to let it go. Concentrating on on the "what" instead of the "who" is drawing you away from the answers you seek.
|