If 9/11 was an inside job, we wouldn't call it 9/11
December 29, 2007 2:46 PM Subscribe
If you were pulling the strings in the Bush administration, and it was January 2001, what would you have chosen as the ideal site of a "Pearl Harbor-like" event?
It seems pretty apparent to me that 9-11 was not an inside job, and that the Truthers are grasping at straws that don't fit together, and are trying to arrange them into an explanation after the fact. I think this post makes a good point. If Bush knew it was going down he wouldn't have fumbled around with a children's book in front of a camera.
I just don't think that if they had orchestrated the attack, that they would have chosen to attack the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and another site. Too sloppy. They also wouldn't have flown planes in, AND rigged the towers with explosives. They also wouldn't have withheld video of the Pentagon. They also wouldn't have failed to get the other plane to where it was going. Et cetera. No, if 9-11 was a false-flag operation, there would have been simply too many people to keep quiet, and too many questions to be asked, as we can see now. It seems much more likely that they had intelligence about the attack, and chose to do nothing.
But when I tried to think of what the Bushies would have chosen to do, if they had been determined to carry out an attack, I found myself stumped. I don't think they'd detonate a nuclear bomb, for a couple reasons:
a) The damage from 9-11 was relatively well-contained, whereas a nuclear weapon could have devastated hundreds of thousands and an entire city.
b) (I hope) it would be much more difficult to get your hands on a nuke for this sort of operation, thus endangering the operation.
c) If a nuke was detonated, there would be nothing left to instill fear in the population with, aside from, I suppose, another nuclear attack.
On the other hand, maybe they would have had someone sabotage a nuclear plant? Other than that, though, I can't really think of anything. Do you have any ideas?
It seems pretty apparent to me that 9-11 was not an inside job, and that the Truthers are grasping at straws that don't fit together, and are trying to arrange them into an explanation after the fact. I think this post makes a good point. If Bush knew it was going down he wouldn't have fumbled around with a children's book in front of a camera.
I just don't think that if they had orchestrated the attack, that they would have chosen to attack the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and another site. Too sloppy. They also wouldn't have flown planes in, AND rigged the towers with explosives. They also wouldn't have withheld video of the Pentagon. They also wouldn't have failed to get the other plane to where it was going. Et cetera. No, if 9-11 was a false-flag operation, there would have been simply too many people to keep quiet, and too many questions to be asked, as we can see now. It seems much more likely that they had intelligence about the attack, and chose to do nothing.
But when I tried to think of what the Bushies would have chosen to do, if they had been determined to carry out an attack, I found myself stumped. I don't think they'd detonate a nuclear bomb, for a couple reasons:
a) The damage from 9-11 was relatively well-contained, whereas a nuclear weapon could have devastated hundreds of thousands and an entire city.
b) (I hope) it would be much more difficult to get your hands on a nuke for this sort of operation, thus endangering the operation.
c) If a nuke was detonated, there would be nothing left to instill fear in the population with, aside from, I suppose, another nuclear attack.
On the other hand, maybe they would have had someone sabotage a nuclear plant? Other than that, though, I can't really think of anything. Do you have any ideas?
This post was deleted for the following reason: My chatfilters. Let me show you them. -- cortex
Best answer: Flagged as everything that is wrong with the internet.
posted by dhammond at 2:59 PM on December 29, 2007
posted by dhammond at 2:59 PM on December 29, 2007
My theory is that he'd flag a post a chatfilter, but hey, what do I know?
Flag a post a chatfilter! Eyyyy!
My typing's been rubbish lately. Good thing this will have the plug pulled soon.
Of course, it will then attract the attention of everyone using the deleted threads GreaseMonkey script, but hopefully they'll assume it's an anonymous scorched earth thread an ignore it.
posted by SpiffyRob at 3:02 PM on December 29, 2007
Flag a post a chatfilter! Eyyyy!
My typing's been rubbish lately. Good thing this will have the plug pulled soon.
Of course, it will then attract the attention of everyone using the deleted threads GreaseMonkey script, but hopefully they'll assume it's an anonymous scorched earth thread an ignore it.
posted by SpiffyRob at 3:02 PM on December 29, 2007
I'll play around for the ten seconds this thing is still here.
I would have something happen to the White House. If you want people to rally around the President, why not use sympathy in addition to patriotic indignation?
Personally, I think the troofers blew it when they went so far as to allege that the entire thing was orchestrated by the gummint. They crashed the planes, but they also planted bombs, but they weren't even planes, but the planes were remote control, and the hundreds of people who saw it are all lying... it's all just idiotic.
Now, I don't believe a word of this, but they would have had a far sexier conspiracy theory if they suggested that the plot was actually carried out by actual terrorists, but that it was "allowed to continue" or even surreptitiously aided by the government. I don't believe for a second that such a thing happened, but a theory like that could at least make susceptible individuals go "hmmm". The actual loose change theory is just absurd.
posted by Doctor Suarez at 3:06 PM on December 29, 2007
I would have something happen to the White House. If you want people to rally around the President, why not use sympathy in addition to patriotic indignation?
Personally, I think the troofers blew it when they went so far as to allege that the entire thing was orchestrated by the gummint. They crashed the planes, but they also planted bombs, but they weren't even planes, but the planes were remote control, and the hundreds of people who saw it are all lying... it's all just idiotic.
Now, I don't believe a word of this, but they would have had a far sexier conspiracy theory if they suggested that the plot was actually carried out by actual terrorists, but that it was "allowed to continue" or even surreptitiously aided by the government. I don't believe for a second that such a thing happened, but a theory like that could at least make susceptible individuals go "hmmm". The actual loose change theory is just absurd.
posted by Doctor Suarez at 3:06 PM on December 29, 2007
Response by poster: This is a legitimate, though morbid, question that I don't have the information to answer. If vague and general questions like these could be asked, what's wrong with my more specific question?
posted by malapropist at 3:08 PM on December 29, 2007
posted by malapropist at 3:08 PM on December 29, 2007
Maybe if they'd picked the ideal site people would say "Jeez, this is suspicious. This is the ideal site for a Pearl Harbour-esque attack." They picked a less ideal site and people still give them shit over it.
posted by fire&wings at 3:12 PM on December 29, 2007
posted by fire&wings at 3:12 PM on December 29, 2007
It wouldn't matter what site they chose. Disneyland, Puerto Rico, Mt. McKinley, whatever...the important part is linking it with Pearl Harbor, which occurs afterward in describing the event, creating its history and making the news.
posted by rhizome at 3:21 PM on December 29, 2007
posted by rhizome at 3:21 PM on December 29, 2007
« Older Steve Jobs is holding my pictures for ransom. | What's a good wedding present for someone who... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by SpiffyRob at 2:53 PM on December 29, 2007