Reply #6: Depends on what you mean by "everything"

[William Seger]

I definitely think there was a huge amount of ass-covering in the administration, about a lot of things, and I'm not at all satisfied with either the scope or depth of the 9/11 Commission Report. (Specifically, I'm not satisfied with just saying "al Qaeda did it" or even "bin Laden did it" -- I want real names and real heads on platters for anyone having anything to do with it -- and I certainly don't think they addressed either the root cause or the accountability for the "intelligence failures" or the lack of effective response to the situation.)

However, it's a gigantic leap of logic from that opinion (which I believe is very common) to thinking that BushCo pulled off an absurdly elaborate hoax to fake plane hijacking (complete with faked phone calls to relatives) to fly substituted or remote-controlled or somehow faked planes into the building and then blow them up with either conventional explosives or science-fiction weapons in such a way that it looked exactly like the planes did it. And that's not because I think they're "too nice" to pull a "false flag" operation; it's just that I don't believe anyone would be that fucking stupid to plan something that ridiculously complicated, immensely large, and extremely risky (in terms of failure and getting caught), when there was absolutely no need to go to all that trouble and risk: They could have done something much, much simpler, using many fewer people, which didn't involve any gigantic and incredibly complicated illusion, with practically no risk of having anything going wrong or getting caught. Just a couple of people could have done something like park a big-ass truck bomb somewhere (or several, to make it look more like bin Ladin's signature) and simply blame it on al Qaeda, and that would have served the purpose presumed by conspiracists just as well. (Or actually, if they were going to do that for the presumed reason, I would hope they would at least involve one or two Iraqis, or somehow tie it to Saddam. Blaming it on al Qaeda necessitated invading Afghanistan first, when obviously BushCo wasn't much interested in either al Qaeda, Afghanistan, or bin Ladin.)

Sure, the fact that the premise is so ludicrously idiotic doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way. But it definitely does mean that you have to be at least a little bit out of touch with reality to think that's what happened without some solid evidence -- and there simply isn't any.

OK?