Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: 9/11 Free Fall 7/18/13: Dr. deHaven-Smith and "conspiracy theory" [View all]Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 10, 2013, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)
meaning "anybody who is concerned about, and knows more than I do about, an issue that I know nothing about and don't want to think about" when employed by people like yourself.
The theory of the 19 hijackers' suicide flights as officially stated and as believed by lazy fools is hardly "highly plausible" given that it requires that 1) warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA had to be ignored; 2) the military had to do next to nothing for 100 minutes in response to a plot that had been known to the intelligence community since 1995 and 3) three skyscrapers had to exhibit physical behavior so bizarre that government agencies tasked with explaining it threw up their hands and declared that they could not explain it.
The hijacker theory is NOT well-supported. It's supported largely by testimony extracted under torture and by evidence that well-deserves suspicion that it was planted.
The fact that the attack was unnecessarily complicated and risky makes very unlikely its perpetration by poorly-funded Arabs. They had so slight a reasonable expectation of success that the plot was lunacy. They could not have known that there would be no air defense. The fact of its unnecessary complications and risks is consistent with its perpetration by arrogant, lunatic, rank amateurs with prestigious university degrees who had been encouraged to believe themselves to be uebermenschen--in other words, neocons.