Interesting thoughts...

Very interesting thoughts from a dude on a matrix forum:

The official version is that Plane 1 (AA Flight 11) struck the North Tower, WTC, Plane 2 (United Flight 175) struck the South Tower, Plane 3 (AA Flight 77) struck the Pentagon, and Plane 4 (United Flight 93) was supposed to be headed toward the Capitol or the White House.

Now, I say, Planes 1, 2, 3, and 4 because this is how it went down chronologically. I try to think about the effect if the order of events that day were different.

And if you think about it for a sec, you probably could imagine it as well. We have been presented with the "attacks" from the vantage point of a "viewer", an audience.

The fact is, from the position of the passengers of any of the planes, there would likely have only been plane 1 - their plane.

And while the order of events make the resistance on 93 seem especially heroic in the face of 3 woefully unresisted strikes - from an audience point of view, in retrospect it seems odd.

Why this plane and no other? Was this group of passengers more aware of what was going on and were in a postion to act accordingly?

From the point of view of the "terrorists", the order would be by primary target and then down the line. If we go by the order of strikes and the subsequent media coverage, then the WTC seemed to have been the primary target.

But why such focus on WTC, which is mainly a civilian target, if you also have the military and political leadership targeted as well? It seems obvious that these attacks were intended for an emotional reaction rather than actual realised damage.

So which target would provoke the greatest consternation? If, as V said, 'a building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it', which attack would make the most appropriate symbol?

So, then, why this sequence? Perhaps flight schedules were off like usual so the planes weren't available in the order that was desired. But even if that were so, why such minimal damage to military targets and such overkill on the civilian one (2 planes to WTC!)

If these acts of terrorism are supposed to be, as we have been solicited to believe, in retaliation for US foreign policy, does it make sense in this context to send the last plane (93) in the direction of those who form such policy, the next to the last plane in the direction of those who carry it out, and strike first and hard at those who have little to nothing to do with it?

The more I look at this, the more it seems to make sense only when viewed from the position of an "audience" and the more convinced I am that this is the intended way to look at it. The Hollywood cliched plot progressions really show throughout.

You have a huge problem/dilemna/tragedy (WTC), you have a secondary act to reinforce the villainy of the first tragedy (Pentagon), and then you have the resistance show up in act 3 and unexpected resolution (the "attacks" end in a "defeat" for the "villains" in missing their "goal"). Roll credits.

The worst action movies have followed this formula too much for it to escape notice here. Too often, plot potential is sacrificed when following this formula. Holes are exposed when scrutiny is pointed at the actions of the characters. But I digress. (OR NOT)

You will notice that this post was not a so-called conspiracy theory. Everything said here was given some previous thought and presented with sound thinking, not too much jumps in logic, I hope.

If you see what I see, then you know what to do. If not, then let this 15th of September pass by unnoticed.