November 12, 2007
Tinfoil Hat Time

Send this article to all your mush-brained friends who believe that crafty Arabs were able to pre-install explosives in a building that had already been bombed once by terrorists, and then detonate the charges right after a bunch of other crafty Arabs flew planes into the World Trade Center.

Then ask your mush-brained friends what the planes were for.

Well, maybe just a little, considering that the Loizeaux clan still had to finish threading several hundred eight-inch sticks of dynamite with yellow ignition rope and race through the stripped-down carcass of the New Frontier Hotel-Casino stuffing the explosives into the correct pillars 

Posted by Jerome Doolittle at November 12, 2007 10:15 AM
Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):


I don't know anyone who thinks crafty Arabs pre-installed explosives.

Posted by: whig on November 12, 2007 11:21 AM

We are all dealing in theories about 9/11, it's just that some are more plausible than others. I favor theories that don't violate basic laws of physics over theories that postulate evil intent on the part of the government or a complex plot, either of which is more likely than a reversal of the basic laws of matter and motion.

Posted by: Charley on November 12, 2007 12:41 PM

Chomsky was recently asked if he believed the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and gave a very interesting reply. The video is at

In particular, his point about anomalous effects in laboratory experiments seems to me a killer app.

Posted by: Chuck Dupree on November 12, 2007 1:42 PM

Can't imagine the U.S. current Administration, or any predecessor exploitive Government, would manifest evil intent.

Posted by: Hoffmann on November 12, 2007 2:05 PM

The proof that the Bush administration had nothing to do with it is that the buildings fell down. Those clowns couldn't orchestrate a two-car funeral, let along a complicated job like this.

Posted by: Fast Eddie on November 12, 2007 2:24 PM

I don't know how much of the 9/11 conspiracy theories I buy into, but I am amazed at your ignorant put down. As has already been pointed out, I am not aware of anyone who thinks that Arabs placed the explosives, if explosives there were. I am aware that many of those who have studied this also doubt that Arabs were actually flying the planes. You are so eager to denigrate serious efforts like David Ray Griffin that there seems to be a fair amount of mush on your side too. At least get what they are saying right.

Posted by: Jim on November 12, 2007 3:26 PM

Whig and Jim are right, as far as "crafty Arabs" goes. Carelessness on my part; your average conspiracy nut does not in fact believe Arabs brought down the WTC or flew into the Pentagon. Probably this is because the average conspiracy nut can't imagine that Arabs could be crafty enough to pull the job off. I suspect they could be. They were smart enough to invent algebra, which is beyond me.

As to whether Wall Street, the CIA, the Masons, International Jewry, the White House, the Pope, the Mafia, Mossad, the Carlyle Group, Fidel Castro, the World Bank, the Trilateral Commission, or the Wizard of Oz were smart enough, I refer you to Fast Eddie's comment above.

While we're in tinfoil territory, how did Oswald's handlers know where to pre-position Oswald along a motorcade route that wasn't made public until a month after he went to work at the Texas School Book Depository?

Posted by: Jerry Doolittle on November 12, 2007 5:17 PM

Quite an alphabet soup of conspiracies you have there, Jerry. Do they all have to have the same truth values, logically speaking?

Posted by: whig on November 12, 2007 6:24 PM

How did Oswald's handlers know to have him defect to Russia? How did they know to station him at the Atsugi base in Japan from which U2 flights took off, and teach him Russian while he was there (Marina claimed he spoke like a native, and she didn't realize at first that he wasn't Russian)? How did they get William Greer, the Secret Service agent driving Kennedy's car, to slam on the brakes as soon as the first shot rang out (clearly visible in the Zapruder film)? Why did the Secret Service violate their rules against making turns of more than 90 degrees, and of not allowing the President and the Vice President to be in the same motorcade?

With respect to the JFK assassination, as with many other events, one ends up being either a conspiracy theorist or a coincidence theorist.

Posted by: Chuck Dupree on November 12, 2007 11:26 PM

It seems risky to base "analysis" of 9-11 on the assumption that the neocons obviously "flubbed" 9-11 "because they screw up everything"; ("Who benefits"). The outcome was certainly not a "fiasco" in their worldview. We don't yet know whether the BushCo Administration and the Democratic Party are incompetent "in all matters"; sure they are much worse than incompetent by U.S. Constitutional standards, and general moral standards--but who, by the way, is holding them to the Constitution? Or to general moral standards? By Neocon standards "the jury is still out" on whether they will succeed in selling the U.S.A. public on a wider MidEast or worldwide war against Iran and all other "terrorist enemies of the USA.", to support Israeli "defense" and USA oil requirements. Look soon for reinstatement of the draft.

Posted by: Hoffmann on November 12, 2007 11:38 PM

Do we know that Tim Osman isn't still a CIA asset?

Posted by: whig on November 13, 2007 12:17 AM

My mush-brained friends are still at the level of sending me jokes as attachments.

Posted by: Joyful Alternative on November 13, 2007 10:57 AM

How can they be failures when they are getting everything they want?

Posted by: Phil Graves on November 13, 2007 4:27 PM

Failures as human beings.

Posted by: Furber on November 13, 2007 6:02 PM

I highly recommend the Chomsky video:

One of his points is that the Bush folks would have been fools to plan 9/11 because it was an incredibly risky undertaking. Sure, they benefited, but every repressive power structure in the world benefited. Putin got cover for whatever he wanted to do in Chechnya; is someone going to claim he was involved? And suppose the planes had missed the buildings, which was more than possible. And how could such an enormous plan escape the tendency of government to leak? Al Qaeda could afford to take a huge risk because the only downside was the loss of lives that were to be sacrificed anyway. Suppose the planes missed, and were brought down, and a couple of hijackers lived to tell the tale: as Chomsky says, we wouldn't be talking impeachment, we'd be talking firing squads.

Then there's the whole anomalous-result argument. But, as he says, read Nature or any of those serious scientific magazines that report on recent experiments. A huge proportion of letters from readers are discussing what to make of the anomalous results of laboratory experiments; hardly any experiment produces only expected results. How much more true must this be in the real world? How can one imagine that a disaster of such magnitude would not include some anomalies?

Posted by: Chuck Dupree on November 15, 2007 3:06 AM

There is a world of difference, logically, prudentially, and practically, in planning a "black" operation totally from "Day-One"; as contrasted to discovering, sometime before the event, of the planned endeavor, and thereby deciding, for U.S. strategic benefit, to run silent, carefully tailored interference [shut down or delay standard procedure security-measures] so as to sharply improve the chances of success for an already planned, "very useful" enemy operation. Standard operating procedure---no novelty or sophistication to do that; simply requires a mindset which permits "appearing to help the enemy, but for good cause."

Posted by: Hoffmann on November 15, 2007 9:27 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?