- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Right -- you want us to believe that hundreds of Americans, from a huge variety of different agencies, supported a staged attack on their own people, with all benefit going to a small cabal of politicians and none to themselves; but the idea that an Arab crashed a plane into the Pentagon is ruled out because it's "unlikely?" Your "logic" gives inconsistency a bad name.
Sure, maybe Hani needed a lot of luck to hit the Pentagon; but that's nowhere near as much luck as your whole alleged conspiracy would have needed to work at all.
Yo, here's another question: what's the point of having a whole new investigation into 9/11, when it's perfectly obvious that the people demanding it would never accept any conclusions that differed from what they already believe? That would be like investigating the shape of the Earth at the behest of the Flat Earth Society. After all, if a conspiracy to stage an attack like 9/11 and disguise it as Arab terrorists is possible, then stonewalling another investigation into the matter would be child's play. Conspiracy or not, the investigation would discover nothing, the conspiracy-buffs would ignore every fact or piece of evidence that doesn't fit their delusions, and anyone ordering or participating in the investigation would look stupid and accomplish nothing.
Like all other conspiracy "theories," this one is totally untestable, so investigating it would only be a waste of time.
