I read through about 200 conspiracy comments about United 93 on the Huffington Post before I got frustrated.

What gets me is how much credibility the conspiracy folks give the Bush administration. If the Bushies have proved anything these last 5 years, it's that they can't do anything right. I think it's pretty clear that they simply weren't capable of dealing with the hijackers on 9/11, to say nothing of controlling them. And even if you extend them that much credit, how could they possibly cover it up? They haven't shown any skill at subtlety in all these years, all their "secrets" are coming back to haunt them, and I can't believe that they could hide something as major as this.

I think the truth is as simple as it seems. The planes were taken over by a group of very focused maniacs. The white house was powerless to deal with that fact, or even understand it. They have since spent the last 5 years using their incompetence on that day to justify a massive, terrifying power grab.

Go ask Charlie Sheen. He knows everything. He knows the frequency. Ping ping ping.

Isn't your out-of-hand dismissal of that theory on the grounds that it says unflattering things about the people who advance it just as logically flawed as the one you are criticizing, namely the conspiracy theorists' assumption that it must be true because it supports an unflattering view of the administration? Whatever it says about the people who believe it, its truth or untruth hinges entirely on whether or not it actually happened and not on what it says about the people who believe it.

I've heard all kinds of theories about things that happened that day, ranging from "the government or agents within the government planned and executed the attack in order to seize power" to "the government or agents within the government allowed an attack to occur without intervening because they saw an opportunity to seize power" to "the government ignored warnings because they didn't take the threat seriously" to the official line, "the government did everything in its power to prevent terrorist attacks but its hands were tied by excessive regulation of intelligence-gathering and counter-terrorism agencies."

All these versions of the truth have their ardent adherents. Regardless of how each one makes us feel, the important question is still what actually occurred. (Which, admittedly, we may never know.) One of the favorite logical dodges of conspiracy theorists is always "Well if this were true of course they'd cover it up!"

This little bit of logical jiu-jitsu is made all the more irritating by the fact that it makes perfect sense and yet by itself proves nothing.

"Why would the government want to deny shooting down United Flight 93?" Are you serious Annie? You think the government would want it known that it shot down a plane with, what? 40? citizens aboard? You think people would find that action "protective?" I think the government would much rather cook up an official story like the one we got than risk the fallout (ahem) from knowledge that it deliberately killed its own people.

That being said, I agree that the govt doesn't have the competence to pull off that kind of coverup with all the richness and complexity of the received and official story. That's reason enough not to believe the conspiracy theorists. But no way would the public be comfortable with shooting that plane down--even if doing so might have had a morbid lifesaving calculus to it. Besides, if memory serves, not much was known about the number of deaths the hijackers caused at the WTC and Pentagon at the time Flight 93 went down. If that's right, it's hard for me to believe that W or even a coldblooded Commander Cheney would have issued a shootdown order at that moment.

Whehter or not people would find shooting a plane on a suicided attack favorable is not the issue. I think the better question is how much "patriotism" the Bush admistration could cull from a story of the army thwarting a terrorist attack vs. ordinary americans thwarting a terrorist attack. I think they chose the latter and that this story has worked out pretty well for them.

There are some crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories floating around. Ignore the crazy part and go straight to building 7. Remember that about six hours after WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell, WTC 7, a 47-story steel frame building on the next block, fell straight to the ground in a pile of rubble. No planes hit it. It was not part of the post-attack cleanup demolition (as were other, small buildings on the block with WTC 1 and WTC 2). There was fire on a few floors -- but no jet fuel. Besides WTC 1 and WTC 2, other steel frame buildings have never fallen to the ground due to fire. Others have burned for nearly 24 hours without falling.

The official stories, 9/11 Commission Report, NIST report, FEMA report, don't explain WTC 7.

If a building like this can be totally destroyed due to fire, we need to study it and find out how to avoid it. Why is everyone ignoring this?

Annie, please go back and consider the facts before dismissing the possibility that we've been presented with something other than what really happened. Here's a good place to start: http://911research.wtc7.net