Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Just show us the motherfucking plane, already
Apparently the aim was to put to rest any conspiracy theories that a 747 commercial airliner was not actually what crashed into the building.
Only problem is, you CAN'T SEE A FUCKING PLANE.
In fact, I don't think this is a new video. To me it looks exactly the same as the previously released video -- or, rather, the previously released STILL FRAMES of a video -- which simply show nothing, then nothing, then more nothing, then an explosion.
Although I'm EXTREMELY cynical about this criminal administration (hell, most of them were known war criminals before they were even sworn in), I'm willing to accept that the logical explanation is that a hijacked passenger plane is in fact what crashed into the Pentagon. But: I simply don't understand A.) why we've never SEEN that, and B.) why NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE.
The suspicions, of course, stem from the circumstances, which would lead anyone with a grade-school education to ponder with some skeptical curiosity:
1.) How did this happen? Why wasn't it prevented?
Even though it's standard operating procedure for the U.S. Air Force to intercept any plane within minutes of a SUSPECTED hijacking (or actually even within minutes of any plane either not responding or flying several degress off-course), somehow our government/military was too incompetent to prevent an attack on the most well-guarded military complex ever devised in the history of man, even ALMOST AN HOUR after not only was it known that at least two other planes had indeed been hijacked, but ALMOST AN HOUR AFTER TWO PLANES WERE KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN HIJACKED AND CRASHED INTO THE TWIN TOWERS. Despite this unbelievable failure and complete and inexplicable disregard for standard operating procedure, no one was ever reprimanded, demoted, or even mildly chastised for their treasonous dereliction of duty. This applies to all of the planes involved with the September 11th attacks, but most dramatically and undeniably with the attack on the Pentagon -- which is the most suspcious of the three.
2.) The actual hole in the Pentagon appears to be far too narrow to have been made by a Boeing 747.
3.) The lawn of the Pentagon was relatively unscathed.
4.) No eye-witness has been able to claim with any certainty that they saw a commercial passenger plane crash into the Pentagon (only describing sounds, and claiming to have seen some kind of plane in the area immediately beforehand -- which is consistent with the missile theory)
5.) As was clear at the time, but is even more abundantly clear today, the Bush Administration had ample motivation to allow such an attack to take place (the "New Pearl Harbor" outlined in the Project For A New American Century"), as a pretext not only for invading Afghanistan and Iraq but as an excuse for practically EVERYTHING they've done since. (9/11 was brought up about 50 times in the Republican National Convention in 2004, for example.) Precedents include the Reichstag Fire, and quite probably the attack on Pearl Harbor. Then there's the "Gulf of Tonkin incident." Etc.
6.) Far from begin unthinkinkable, precisely such an attack had in fact been conceived much earlier -- by the far more "liberal" administration of John F. Kennedy -- in "Operation Northwoods."
7.) Various senior members of the Bush administration (including not only Bush himself, but also Cheney and Condoleeza Rice, and others) are on record lying about what they knew about 9/11 beforehand. -- Why isn't this, in itself, grounds for impeachment?
. . . . . . . .
There are many more reasons to list. But the point is, until we see the tapes, any sane person SHOULD doubt the official story.
Why don't they release them?
The only reason I can come up with is that -- assuming the official story is true -- it is useful for such "conspiracy theories" to live, so that at some point the government can release the tapes and discredit these theorists, thus implicitly discrediting ANY AND ALL OTHER questions and theories about 9/11.
Now, before anyone labels me as a "moonbat tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorist," please note that
1.) I AM NOT saying that I necessarily believe that it WASN'T a hijacked commercial airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, only that the government has a responsibility to release the tapes showing that event -- ESPECIALLY if they're going to claim the attack as a primary reason for starting a war,
2.) conspiracies do occur -- quite often, in fact; it is only the dismissive connotations implied by the now cliche phrase [the use of which is frequently propagated by the conspirators themselves] that elicits a chuckle from the guilty, the ignorant, the blindly faithful and the merely gullible,
3.) the OFFICIAL STORY about 9/11 is itself a "conspiracy theory" (and a rather implausible one, involving somebody on a dialisis machine in a cave in Afghanistan directing operations, while coincidentally on that particular day NORAD was conducting an exercise aimed at preventing precisely such an attack as actually took place -- even though supposedly they "never could have predicted" that planes might be used as missiles -- and an apparent complete and total breakdown of command took place for reasons that have yet to be adquately explained . . .),
4.) [This is the elephant in the room]: if the "conspiracy nuts" are WRONG, then THIS deserves even MORE media attention than it has ever received. Because if THE PENTAGON can easily be bombed by some hijackers an hour after three other hijackings (and two successful airline bombings), then our nation surely must be the least protected and most vulnerable in the world! Hell, if it's that easy to attack the Defense Department of the United States Of America, in the most well-guarded Military Industrial Complex ever devised in the history of the world, then we're COMPLETELY fucked.
I have to admit I HATE being labeld a "conspiracy theorist." Before 9/11, in fact, I was one of those people who derided and ridiculed such people. And I have to say that, even now, I'm not at all certain about the truth of 9/11.
My good friend Adam who (if such a thing is possible) hates the Bush adminstration even more fervently than I do, has told me that he dismisses most such theories for one simple, sound and rational reason: they didn't plant WMDs. While they did come up with various excuses and scapegoats, they could just as easily have planted some "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq, and no one (or few people) would have been the wiser.
It has also occurred to me that if an attack such as 9/11 was premeditated by the PNAC, why would they implicate themselves so blatantly by publishing a statement saying they wished for a "new Pearl Harbor" in order to amass popular support for their imperial wars?
My answer is simply this: 1.) they don't care what the public thinks, they know they can get away with it (as indeed they have).
The simple answer to the question is best phrased as another question: Why has Bush not been impeached?
Or, why has Henry Kissinger not been brought before an International Tribunal in the Hague for War Crimes?
The question seems reasonable, but in fact it begs the question. It's like saying, "well, he's so OBVIOUSLY guilty, therefore he MUST BE INNOCENT!" It's an absurd paradox, which would never be taken seriously in any court of law.
We must figure out some way to hold them accountable. In the meantime, they can get away with it, so they simply do it.