Days of Infamy Live On Through Conspiracy Theories

[OneBlueSky]

how the 9/11 commission is attempting to debunk conspiracy theories . . . aka "let the coverup begin" . . .

By LANCE GAY
Capitol Hill Blue
Apr 24, 2004, 08:49

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4440.shtml

[Solon]

1. One thing I find slightly annoying...

Is the fact that many people will automatically assume any conspiracy theory is false, because it is a conspiracy theory. Think of the ones that are factual and perpretrated by agencies of our government (Operations Paperclip, Northwoods, MK-ULTRA, COINTELPRO, etc. etc.), many of them just now coming to light due to FOIA requests, makes you wonder what else the government is capable of doing. The only thing I would discount in regards to 9/11 is MIHOP, and only for logistical and cost analysis reasons. LIHOP I am open to, but I doubt that we will ever know what actually did happen that day, or how we were caught with our pants down.

[OneBlueSky]

2. the greatest (and most unbelievable) conspiracy theory . . .

is the "official" story of what happened on 9/11 . . . you REALLY have to stretch the facts to make them fit . . .

[Solon]

3. No doubt that is a concocted story.

I don't believe it for a minute.

[oblivious]

8. Indeed, the mother of all conspiracy theories

Off on a tangent here, both the writer and his "expert" have lazy intellects. Look at the following three comments:

1. "But some of his efforts to debunk conspiracies and correct the record appear to be making little headway."

2. "Michael Barkun, a Syracuse University political-science professor who studies conspiracies, sympathizes with commission efforts to correct errors."

3. "Conspiracies, he concludes, fill in the blanks and make incoherent events seem understandable."


Look how both fail to understand the difference between a "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory". A conspiracy is a secret plan to do something illegal. A conspiracy theory is an opinion about the illegal plan, somthing you think happened but cannot prove.

So in #1, you can't debunk a conspiracy. This is meaningless drivel. The author's an idiot. And #2 is surely wrong, since I suppose this guy studies theories, not conspiracies. One would think his "expert" interviewee would be more careful with his language, since he has devoted his life to the subject, but in #3, he says "conspiracies fill in the blank". Again, meaningless. The man's a fool. I hope no one bought his book.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

6. Please explain?

The only thing I would discount in regards to 9/11 is MIHOP, and only for logistical and cost analysis reasons.

What reasons would those be? Do you really thin it would be impossible for the Bush Cabal to coordinate with their friends (the Bin Ladens) a series of attacks on the US to gain unprecedented power?

Perhaps I am missing something, but logistically, it would be no harder - in fact a lot easier than Iran/Contra, and cost analysis wise it seems VERY cost effective, when you factor in the wealth and power that has resulted from it.

[teryang]

4. This commission is directed at a pre-ordained finding

...the so called wall or stovepipe explanation for a series of unexplained lapses in counterintelligence and national defense that defy belief.

Who sponsored Mohammed Atta's move to Hamburg? A US/German foreign exhange program which looks like an awful lot like a CIA front. Why is it that the mullahs who supposedly recruited al qaeda terrorists in London and Hamburg are still free men? Who housed 911 terrorists in south Florida? Why coincidentally, is it the same people who who worked with the first anthrax fatality? Is it or is it not a fact that the tabloid publisher afflicted by anthrax in S. Florida is a CIA front and/or was recently bought out by another CIA front? Why is it that Bob Graham and others met with the head of the Pakistani ISI immediately before 911? This is the same man who sent Mohammed Atta $100,000.00. Why is the FBI and the commission still covering up who speculated in AMR and UA put options in the few days prior to 911? Why is it that people in government are allowed to testify that there is no way they could have anticipated an air attack using airliners when this is exactly what was anticipated by the Pentagon and CIA? FBI field agents knew the WTC was a target because they heard a Pakistani ISI say so during a sting operation in 1999. The pentagon had conducted simulations of such attack on itself and the CIA was conducting one in Washington on the very day of the attack (an obvious cover for a real attack). Why is that the video of an airframe of some sort striking the pentagon on 911 is altered and that many frames are missing? Why was the crime scene of the WTC declared off limits, dissassembled, carted away and destroyed in record time? When the direct evidence from a crime scene is carted away and destroyed in a hurry you know the truth is being obstructed. Why isn't the commission or a grand jury investigating the biological warfare defense contractor who contracted with the big names in bio-warfare to experiment with scenarios to send anthrax through the mail?

The national security apparatus and this commission is being manipulated and controlled by the defense industry. Its leadership is in the white house. They needed a crisis to go to war so they manufactured one. There were seven investigations into Pearl Harbor. This commission will not be last.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Note how they are quick to talk of loony theories...

and very slow to say that the pResident & Co. may have heard of the hijacking plot and strategically did nothing.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. -snip-

"In our national security state of today, we are allowed to believe anything, and allowed to know nothing..."

[MrPrax]

9. Interesting red herrings...

They focus on the irrelevent to de-legitimae some important questions that the 911 commission should be asking...

Like:
"But a search on Lexis-Nexis found more than 50 stories written in various publications since the disclosure that stated box cutters were the weapons used."

but then later on

"But knives with blades less than 4 inches long were not on the list, and a review of purchases some of the hijackers made in the days before 9/11 suggests Leatherman-like knives with blades that can be locked into place were likely the weapons."

So in his attempt to debunk, he and the commission are not sure, but likely...

BUT "nine of the 19 hijackers received extra screening at the departure gates."...so they should be sure that they had--um--'sharp pointy things'

(As a sidebar--those 5 guys from Buffalo on a train were caught with 'box cutters' in their possession...maybe they should take this 'new evidence' and release them)

Why CapitolHillBlue would think that this is definitive PROOF that blows away the Nostradamus predictions or any of the 'really far out' stuff by the widows of 911, Clarke, etc ,

Wasn't Nostradamus French?