My take on 9/11

[Whiskeytide]

54. I have some questions for you...

... because I'm genuinely curious. The "inside job" accusation seems to focus on the pentagon strike. In other words - a missile hit the pentagon rather than a plane, and that proves something fishy was up.

But that simply doesn't make sense to me. We have all seen the footage of the airliners hitting the WTC buildings in NY. It's not CGI, it's not movie footage. Hell, millions of us saw the second hit live and in real time. By now we have all seen at least 4 different angles of that second hit, and they all match. It was a commercial airliner. We have seen the street level video of the first strike, and although it doesn't show the plane, you can hear it. Clearly a jet engine. So - there doesn't seem to be any question that commercial airliners hit the twin towers. We have to take that as a given.

But lets assume you can construct a theory that US, MIC or some other nefarious rouge, black ops agents were steering the airliners. Maybe they found guys who had terminal illnesses and did it in exchange for their families receiving millions. Maybe they found Libby-esque, radical war hawks that were just that freakin' committed. Or - maybe they just knew what these Saudi nationals were doing and intentionally didn't stop them. However you want to construct the premise that someone else was behind or at least facilitated the attacks, lets assume you can do so.

So WHY hit the pentagon with a missile? What is the strategic gain from that? The hits on the towers were certainly enough to lay the foundation for the war we have to assume they wanted. The pentagon strike added absolutely nothing to the cause. Do you think the eventual march to war would have been any different if all they had was the WTC hits? So why risk the public becoming aware that it was a missile (because of all of this evidence you point to) and thereby questioning the attacks? Why? The first rule of black ops is keep it as simple and undefinable as possible, right? Don't leave fingerprints, right?

For that matter, if you - as the planner of such a scheme - felt a pentagon strike WAS strategically necessary, and you couldn't hit it with an airliner like you did the twin towers (not enough psychos willing to die? - I don't know), then why not use a missile, say it was a missile, and then say a terrorist fired it? "OMG, they're not just hijacking airliners, they're shooting war weapons at us!!!! Fire up the military machinery!!!" That would have actually advanced the race to war, don't you think? What is the gain of using a missile and then trying to say it was AA77? Why add a "cover-up" to your plan unnecessarily?

And, of course - WTF happened to AA77 and its passengers if it didn't hit the pentagon? Ditched at sea? Flown to Canada? No air traffic controller saw that? Transponder was off, but still showing on radar. No one looked at the recorded blips afterward and saw a plane disappear 100 miles off shore or sneak off to Canada? OK. Lets assume they landed at some secret US base. No one saw that? Everyone at the base was in on it? OK. secret, abandoned base in the middle of nowhere. Are they still there? Of course not. A mercenary team must have lined up the passengers and dispatched them, right? Why do that? Could you really trust those mercenaries to murder US citizens - some children - in cold blood? And why risk a "Capricorn I" outcome where a passenger escapes and later shows up at the offices of the Associated Press? We know four planes went off course, and we know where three of them ended up. If the pentagon hit WAS a missile and not the fourth plane, then what the Hell happened to the fourth plane?

And then there is the secrecy thing. Your post implies that Warren Buffet might have known something was up and called his high ranking guys to a meeting elsewhere. I don't KNOW if that's what you're saying, but I took it as the implication. So - if Buffet was told, then presumably many others were told too. Why? Again, keeping it on the down low is rule #1, right? Your going to risk one of these people getting "murderer's remorse" and clearing his conscience publicly, thereby exposing the whole thing? What kind of conspirators would be capable of doing this, but then decide a few rich guys had to be spared and risk the whole thing by bringing them into the loop? And even if they didn't bring them into the loop, but just made anonymous calls to Buffet and 25 other guys, wouldn't there be a risk of one of them coming forward and saying "hey - I got this call on September 10..." - ESPECIALLY if they weren't in the loop?

Again - I'm not being snarky. But the "it was a missile" theory has just never made any sense to me at all. The absence of logic in it is, I think, the fundamental flaw. If you start with the assumption that this was pulled off by someone other than a group of Saudi terrorists sponsored by or at least following Bin Laden, you HAVE to assume that they are very smart people - evil, certainly - but still very, very smart. Smart people don't usually do incredibly dumb things when they have had an opportunity to plan their actions. Using a missile in this attack - unnecessarily as it concerns the goals you want to accomplish - and then trying to cover it up, hide it and lie about it ... just strikes me as incredibly dumb.

I'm just asking.

Edited for a couple of typos.