Thursday, September 21, 2006

I couldn't wait...

This is my response to a piece written by Matthew Rothschild, a journalist who until today, I held in high regard:


> 9/11 was an inside job.

Not all believe this, but most.

> Arab hijackers may not have done the deed.

The BBC has reported that at LEAST four of those named on the list are still alive.

> On top of that, the Twin Towers fell not because of the impact of the
> airplanes and the ensuing fires but because the Bush Administration got
> agents to plant explosives at the base of those buildings.

You want the proof? If you are willing to challenge your pet theories, then watch this.

Go ahead. I dare you.

> Building 7, another high-rise at the World Trade Center that fell on 9/11,
> also came down by planted explosives.

Watch the video. It would be good to note that not all believe this but I'm pretty sure that everyone who has seen this does.

> The Pentagon was not hit by American Airlines Flight 77 but by a smaller
> plane or a missile.

Again, SOME believe this. You do a disservice to all forms of activism by taking vast amounts of people and lumping them together. There is no way around it: if at this point you think that Al Qaeda pulled this off, you have apparently devoted a deal of energy to avoiding certain information. You would do well to leave 911 research to those with the time and energy to conduct it. What is glaring to anyone that has done a moderate amount is that you are lacking in this department. We can't be knowledgable about everything now.

You can always delete what you don't want to see, though I'm not sure that is a good thing. However, there are people that have put their jobs and livelihoods, and even LIVES on the line over this issue and you take a great big poop all over them here, whether you wish to admit it or not.

> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

See the video.

> I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories. Everyone's an
> engineer. People who never even took one college science course can

Every day scientists make claims, certified scientists, about global warming that we all know are wrong.

I trust you'll not be posting anything on global warming, since accredited scientists have "DEBUNKED" it en masse.

> Problem is, some of the best engineers in the country have studied these
> questions and come up with perfectly logical, scientific explanations for
> what happened.

Trust yourself and check out the video. It is a sad fact that often in circumstances such as this, I can often expect an individual to spend most of their mental energy TRYING to see such evidence as flawed. If you watch this video with any emotional attachment whatsoever to your worldview, then it will be an exercise in futility and I can see from your having avoided certain facts (you must have a wall up man, though it might not be of your own construction) that such an attachment is, indeed, there. You may have already made up YOUR mind but I hope others will realize that our problem is not lack of provability but an issue of people being fatigued from the issue itself. This dynamic drives people to not listen to others, to deny what has become uncomfortable for a variety of reasons.

It doesn't take a co-conspirator to perpetuate a falsehood. As we have seen all over the place in recent years, all it takes is someone with an emotional attachment to a worldview for their "results" and opinions to come out skewed.

I think that you need to watch the video but I doubt that it will happen, at least not in good faith. Such people invariably look at such evidence with only half of their awareness while the other half is usually engaged in constructing rhetoric and rebuttals and arguments.

> Of course, any conspiracy theorist worth his or her salt will claim that all
> these people are in on the plot.

An equivalent statement: any black person worth his or her own salt hates whitey. You may think in terms of generalizations and stereotypes but the world exists apart from them. I had never though of you as existing in an ivory tower but I am beginning to think you do.

> First, Osama bin Laden has already claimed responsibility for the attack
> several times and boasted of the prowess of the suicide bombers who hijacked
> those planes. Why not take him at his word? And if bin Laden were working in

So if Osama says it, then those living hijackers must actually be dead. Damn those corpses for always speaking out of line.

> cahoots with the Bush Administration, why was the President warned on August
> 6, 2001, in a Presidential daily briefing that Osama bin Laden was about to
> attack the United States? Wouldn't that risk exposing the conspiracy?

It has been said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and you have just that: a little knowledge. Had you actually had as emotional an attachment to challenging your worldview as to preserving it, you might have actually spent the amount of time necessary to see that there is a lot more to it. Again, the 911 truth movement is misrepresented.

> Second, if the Bush Administration plotters carried out 9/11 to justify
> attacking Iraq, why didn't they have Iraqi hijackers do the deed? In
> actuality, there was not a single Iraqi hijacker, and Bush propagandists had
> to do all sorts of gymnastics to link Iraq to the actual attackers.

Because, my dear friend, having Iraqi hijackers do it and then hitting Iraq is NOT a recipe for perpetual war, or global crusade. It would not have done the "job."

> The problems with a vast conspiracy theory are obvious. There's the
> likelihood that someone along the chain would squeal. Members of the

They have. Where have you been? You know, every time you delete an email just because it has 911 in the subject line, you CHOOSE to be uninformed.

I have been of the mind, for the last couple of years, that we just might be better off moving off, knowing what we know, and simply acting on it but there remains the fact that unless this stuff is thoroughly documented, unless the players are all solidly identified, we will be unable to determine who the enemies of social and ecological justice are; we will be crippled in our "activisms." Still, I dropped the 911 ball anyway and one reason is the level of harrassment levelled at me.

Then, I saw the video.

Remember when panels of "experts" convinced a soft-minded public that a bullet coming at the back of the head sends the head bouncing BACKWARD? That is a fine example of NOT trusting your senses.

government have been engaged in far less treasonous plots (such as Bush's
> designs on Iran), and whistleblowers have managed to get the information out
> to the likes of Seymour Hersh over at The New Yorker. And, on top of that,
> we're supposed to believe that this incompetent Administration, which
> brought you Katrina, was somehow able to execute this grand conspiracy?

Do you suppose that Bush is actually calling the shots? Don't you realize that getting away with all that this administration has gotten away with (let's not even consider 911 for the moment) requires that SOMEONE is making decisions (or groups of people) with sound strategies in mind?

Their agenda is implemented. This is our problem, not theirs, but another problem the left has is admitting that the right might not be made up of idiots but, rather, the greedy.

> Finally, in Pearl Harbor, Griffin acknowledges one enormous, unfillable hole
> in the conspiracists' theory: If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, where
> did it go? And where did all sixty-four people on board go?

Firstly, the inability to answer question V does not negate nor diminish the legitimacy of questions to answers B,C,D, and on and on. That said, I and others have theories but when one finds a bloody knife in a killer's hands, one does not exonerate him because one cannot find his knit cap.

> of this argument. The conspiracy theorists "still need to explain, of
> course, what became of Barbara Olson, and also whether it is plausible that
> Ted Olson would have participated in a plan with that outcome," he writes.

A) again, we needn't explain every detail when the prints are on the gun and the bullet matches it and

B)What outcome? Does the AUTHOR purport to know where these individuals are?

We regularly convict people on much, much less and I am talking about the guilty ones. The author implies that because an individual cannot explain everything that ANYTHING said person has an explanation for is suspect. By this reasoning, we cannot trust any climate scientist simply because we know there ARE things he or she cannot explain. Let's get rid of the double standard already!

> Or, as Griffin poses it in Pearl Harbor: "What other than explosives could
> turn concrete into powder and then eject it horizontally 150 feet or more?"
>
> Corley, who headed up the investigation for the American Society of Civil
> Engineers and FEMA, gives a quick response to that. "That is simply the air
> pressure being pushed down," he says.

Watch the video.

"Once the collapse started, then you
> had roughly a twenty-story building and roughly a thirty-story building
> acting as a very large mass to push everything down. The air pressure

I guess demolitions experts are no longer needed since most of the time buildings that are seriously damaged will fall demolition style anyway, as exhibited by three out of three that day. Those were the tallest and most awkward buildings ever created, in the sense that at that height, the chances of a building falling demolition style randomly are even slimmer, but we needn't be troubled with rationality.

"Experts" have helped you to abandon simple reason.

> What about Building 7?
>
> This is a favorite of the conspiracy theorists, since the planes did not
> strike this structure. But the building did sustain damage from the debris
> of the Twin Towers.

Hey, can anyone tell me why the scrap from the World Trade Center ended up in India. This was back in February of 2002, before any real investigation had been done, Bush backed or not. Much of it was purchased by various refineries and recyclers, meaning there was never any intention of checking it out but, perhaps, there was a desire to get rid of it.

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the
> bottom-approximately ten stories-about 25 percent of the depth of the
> building was scooped out," Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the
> National Institute of Standards and Technology, told Popular Mechanics.
>
> What's more, the fire in the building lasted for about eight hours, in part
> because there were fuel tanks in the basement and on some of the floors.

Watch the video. Please.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home





eXTReMe Tracker