Conspiracy Theorist, Writing in UK MSM: Flight 93 Was Shot Down

Idiot-- even if it were shot down, it wouldn't be "sinister." For crying out loud, liberals have been screaming for years about Bush's alleged ineptness in not scrambing the F-16's sooner to shoot the second, third, and fourth planes down before they could hit their targets.

I suppose the cover-up would be somewhat "sinister," but then, I'm not sure why it simply would't be stated that yes, faced with a plane we could not control, hurtling towards DC, we took the extreme but necessary measure of destroying it over a relatively uninhabited bit of forest and farmland in Pennsylvania.

Anyway. The Daily Mail gives this lunatic lots of column-inches for his Application For Voluntary Confinement To A State Medical Health Clinic.

To a nation still reeling from the attacks on New York’s World Trade Centre and the Pentagon that same September morning, these were men and women every bit as heroic as those who had fought at the Alamo.

Yet my own exhaustive investigations have led me to conclude that the story of Flight 93 is far from being the straightforward account of supreme courage that the authorities would have us believe.

Instead, the real story is mired in cynical manipulation and warmongering propaganda. I am convinced there is evidence to suggest a wholly sinister twist to the tale that already holds pride of place in American folklore. For I believe that Flight 93 may well have been deliberately shot down as a means of stopping it from reaching its ultimate target — even at the expense of the 40 blameless people on board. It is a suspicion that was held even by the FBI, but was swept aside as a shaken America clung on to the official version of selfless sacrifice and raw patriotism.

Today, with the approach of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, some will still say that such speculation only serves to lend comfort to terrorists and does a disservice to the dead.

Others, however, will feel there are too many disquieting circumstances and unanswered questions to simply ignore.

This is why they are so determined to prove Flight 93 was shot down-- because they need, for some sick, viciously anti-American reason, to prove that there was no heroism aboard that flight, or, if there was such heroism, it was futile and doomed by the actions of the American government.

I remember an MSM article that puported to "debunk" the heroic version of events. The evidence? Sure, the recordings indicate the passengers breached the cockpit door (meaning they had killed or incapacitated the terrorists in the cabin), but who could know if the struggle resulted in the crasing of the plane, or the terrorists, realizing they were beaten, plunged the plane to the ground to take them with them?

Again, the writer stated that this possibility all but negated the "heroic legend" of Flight 93.

Which I find baffling. Even if we assume that the terrorists themselves crashed the plane upon realizing they were about to be torn to pieces by the heroic passengers and crew of Flight 93, how does that diminish their heroism? Crashing upon a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, was obviously not their goal.

Whoever directly plunged the plane to the ground, the Flight 93 Rebellion caused it indirectly, at the very least. And in doing so, they saved hundreds of lives.

Just not their own, alas.

This makes their actions less heroic?

It was a truly disgusting moment in MSM "storytelling," one of the many moments we've seen lately where the mask has slipped completely away and they've indulged in their most vile anti-American, anti-patriotic biases.

The writer of the current conspiracy book gives the game away several times. Here's a telling example:

Why had the FBI failed to put the record straight over the previous four-and-a-half years?

One answer is that it suited the heroism legend to keep silent as the Pentagon banged the drum for war in Iraq.

"Heroism legend"? Again, assuming arguendo he's right -- how does this diminish the heroics of the Flight 93 Rebellion whatsoever?

In his own mind it diminishes their courage, because he needs physical courage to be denigrated and exposed as futile. His entire worldview depends upon this.

For the rest of us, the planes crashed into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Shaksville, Pensylvania.

For the left, the planes crashed into their entire worldview, collapsing it as surely as the Twin Towers were collapsed.

And since then, they've made a determined and relentless effort to substitute in their own preferred narrative, in which the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition by the CIA, the Pentagon was simply blown up with an American missile or planted American bombs, and the first soldiers in the Greater War on Terror shouldn't even have bothered, because the Sidewinder missiles were on their way no matter what they did.

What links all these conspiracy theories? The unshakable belief that there is no enemy except the US Government (except, perhaps, for the Mossad), and that heroism, patriotism, and a physical defense of one's country and one's very own life is a doomed venture hardly worth the candle.

Admitting there is an external, implacable, and deadly threat to us strongly implies we need to fight it.

But they've decided a priori that fighting is never the correct response.

Ergo, somewhere the syllogism must be flawed. They focus their attention on the premise-- that there is in fact a deadly external threat. That must be demonstrated as incorrect if their preferred conclusion -- pacifism at any price -- is to remain viable.

In their own minds they've rebulit the Towers so they were never destroyed that day, but they now stand on a foundation of magical thinking and a childish retreat into dreamworlds and fantasies.

For some, the choice between adapting one's worldview to the real world or adapting the real world to one's worldview is a fairly easy call.

Thanks to Asher.

posted by Ace at 11:55 AM

| Access Comments