Aug. 27, 2006

Conspiracy theories. EXTRA!! EXTRA! Or Facts?

Nixon and Watergate, only a few people involved, couldn't keep it quiet. Duke Cunninhgham, nope. Tom Delay..nope. Enron...nope. The Iraq war and the revelation of the Downing Street memoes are something that men of power must always keep in mind as a possibilitry. For Bush to have coordinated the entire conspiracy would be to put his life in front of a firing squad if found out. For that reason alone, I find it highly unlikely that; 1. He had the balls to do it 2. Had he done it, that he would not have seized absolute control by now. Admittedly that appears to be his game, but that only proves PNAC, not the rest of it. Now tell me something that proves more than the PNAC/ Al Queda plot I believe.


Anonymous said...

In regards to your post on Infoclearinghouse about your amazement that WTC7 stood as long as it did. I just want to point out that there were other buildings much closer to the twin towers, not owned by Silverstien, that didn't collapse. I just wonder how you calculate this fact into your reasoning that WTC7's foundation architecture lasted remarkably long.

Mycos said...

My point was simply that I don't find it unusual that the two main buildings --- worlds tallest skyscrapers at one time -- fall in the vicinity of 5 others in the complex, damaging them all so severely that they could not be saved (were eventually destroyed) with the 7th collapsing from some form of damage, the specificity of which has not been determined with certainty.

When I say things like this, realize I am not saying your wrong, I'm merely trying to eliminate more benign causes. A problem I have with the demolition theory is why?
What was gained by destroying WTC 7? Insurance? Could be. Then what was the Pentagon thing all about? And if the Pentagon was in on it, why would they hit their own building? If it was only a small cadre of neocons, then what was the WTC thing for. And the one downed by the passengers? If the neocons were setting up PAX Americana, why would they undertake such an enormously complex plan when I Trade Center Building with one 767 full of passengers would surely have made a big enough pile of rubbish from which Bush could stand atop and do his battle-cry?

There's just too many really extraordinary questions raised by the "did it all" theory for me to go for it when the "let it happen theory" answers so much of it, so much better.

N Goodgame said...

I'm not sure of your stance based on your two comment here and at infoclearinghouse. It seems though that you are in agreement with PCR that there needs to be an open debate and official answers to the many questions. As far as you not being able to buy into a theory, that is PCR's position as well. "don’t ask me who was behind the 9/11 attack or what brought the three WTC buildings down. My position is a simple one. The official accounts are too improbable to be believable."

Mycos said...

Mine is that I believe the towers came down as a result of the airplabe strikes, which were an attack planned and executed by OBL but of which the administration was aware of (possibly not the EXACT plan, surely not the resultant collapse), could have disrupted it, but chose to either ignore it and allow it to happen, or possibly even smoothed the path for them....made sure that some security guard somewhere or the Air force couldn't stop it by shooting the planes down, etc). The admin already knew that t would take "another Pearl Harbor to galvanize the public" to implement the PNAC. This was the their best and only shot at finding another disaster of a magnitude to get the ball rolling, soi they took it. Everything since then is identical to the PNAC.

Thats what I think they should be busted for, and I feel all these other theories make any investigation of Bush easy to forestall. All he needs to do is point to some of the more stupid theories, and Congress wont take the chance of being branded kooks themselves by ordering an investigation. Indeed, if I were him, I would be pouring moiney into creating as much and as many of these theoiry websites as possible. "The more the muddier" is the legal slang.
There's plenty of circumstantiual evidence for negligence at the very least, with good evidence of foreknowledge. That's where the main guist of the conspiracy theories should be pointiong IMO. But PCR is stoking the demolition of the towers theory with ridiculous theories about "missing energy". He seems to have no concept of potential energy that is stored on the top floors that was released the second it start moving down and turned to kinetic energy. Nothing short of a force equal to another building of the same size falling the opposite direction is going to stop it once that happens. The supports built into the WTC were only neccesary to maintain them at rest. They become matchsticks once they were in motion.

N Goodgame said...

Would you care to comment about the video that has Silverstien admitting to "pulling" WTC7? I don't know if he admits admitting, or if he denies admitting, or if he claims he wasn't talking about blowing the building when he says "pulling" the building. I am interested to hear what your understanding of this event is.

With regards to your certainty that it was the two planes and the two planes alone that brought down the three buildings, I must say that it seems to me very unlikely.
You must admit that their is legitimate scientific criticizm against the two plane only theory. Didn't one professor find evidence of explosive material from some of the wreckage? The bottom line is the government has avoided questions about 9-11 like the plague. I am not a physicist and cannot say with certainty either way how the three buildings came down. I do know that many questions remain unanswered.

Mycos said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mycos said...

o you have a link for the video? I'll take a look and see what the correct context is. I should say however, that I've read snippets of that sequence from a couple different sources, and I hope that the distinction between "it" and "out" is unmistakable, because "out" would fit perfectly and mean nothing other than what it says.

But in any case, if he does say "it", having worked in the bush here myself where I can attest to the fact that each project is referred to as a unit (an "it" as in "Shut 'er down" "Shut it down"), then it's likely rescue personnel do the same. "Pull it" would simply mean "quit it" or shutting 'it' down.

Otoh, "Pull it down" could be an amalgam of "Pull out! I'm shutting it down!", spoken during a time of stress.

No, once again, I think this one stretches too far when there's a more common explanation available.

I should explain that I myself am not an anti-conspiracy person who knee-jerk defends the status quo. Far from it --- as you can see from the blog entries I'm sure. But as much as I hate Bush, I hate feeling like a fool even more. As such, I do have a knee-jerk response in that whenever I hear an "alternate" theory like this one, before I'm willing to repeat it to someone else as something I believe, it first must go through a "reality gauntlet".

I've found that one of the best ways to find any holes in it, is to take the theory and just assume its absolutely true. No more proving is necessary. And then, from that perspective, I start to look at the situation from the perspective of a world where such a thing has happened. Then I figure out how many people it must have taken to clear the various technical hurdles, to implement and coordinate the event, and all this must be kept quiet despite the fact that the mafia can't keep their own from ratting each other out. And yet it happened...!
So I think to myself what it could possibly be that is keeping these people so silent? And on that last one I start to have difficulties with the reality of my assumption.

Is it possible that X number of agents, politicians, profiteers, hacks, all with various motives can keep a secret like that? And if these people are that powerful, then why did they do it this way? If it was for insurance, was there any easier way? Or starting the Iraq war? Surely there must be....

Another test it must pass goes like "If it's true that they can do X...then why didn't they just do Y"?
Incidentally, this is the one that killed Von Daniken's 'Chariots of The Gods' theory, a disappointment that has a lot to do with the way I approach life since that time long ago.
And so it is with the theory that has the government in on the actual planning and execution of it. So far, the governments reluctance to investigate their part in it seems perfectly in keeping with what they would do if they knew about the Al Queda plan but let it proceed. This they did so that PNAC could proceed. It was their "Pearl Harbour"...a once in a lifetime opportunity to put into action "Pax Americana", literally a plan to rule the world.

The rest all appears to be a case of searching through the minutiae to find a measurement or strange reflection, anything unusual so that it can be presented in the way that von Daniken introduces pi as being proof of a technology not available to ancient Egyptians*. But all it really showed was that if you look hard enough for something unusual, and provided your determined enough to find it, you will. Guaranteed.

* Pi is inherent in the dimensions of a circle (Archimedes), any measurement the ancient surveyors laid out using units consisting of the circumference of a circle, pi can be found in distances measured using a wheel.....which they did in the form of a wheel with a mark for one complete rotation.