My approach toward difficult questions has been largely shaped by the late Carl Sagan, who believed, to paraphrase, that empirical data and the scientific method should be revered as an undeniable path to the truth, while at the same time one has no right to have a completely closed mind toward anything but the relatively few things that can be proven conclusively to be false. For example, one has a right not to believe that Bigfoot exists, because of scant evidence or questionable human testimony. However, it would be incorrect to counter this belief with your own belief in the non-existence of such a thing, no matter how far fetched. This is simply because science is much better at confirming truths than it is at denying them.
I raise these points not because I believe in the Yeti Monster, which I don't, but because these types of truths tend to frustrate the narrow-minded the most. This is because they deny one the privilege of dismissing points of view almost immediately before any serious examination of facts. Sadly this practice of prematurely dismissing ideas because they don't fit into convention has become all the more prevalent in America since those ungodly attacks.
For example, we were told that the terrorist attacks signified a need for our nation to revise its post-cold war mentality, to 'think outside the box,' in terms of foreign policy and our world-view. However, if someone were to think so far outside 'the box' as to suggest the possibility that 9/11 was some form of sabotage attack waged by the richest men in the world, against their own soil, then that someone is promptly and enthusiastically neutralized; by dismissal and mockery to begin with, then with intimidation, torture, and murder if the need should arise. Sometimes it's hard to find the patience to maintain a dialogue with a majority that vehemently rejects and condemns a point of view without offering any rebuttal of the most central and crucial tenants of that belief. This fact becomes even more intellectually insulting when one considers that the average supporter of the mainstream explanation of 9/11 demonstrates no understanding of the need of such supporting facts when posing a good counter-argument.
This apparent lack of understanding, on the part of the mainstream media and its adherents, of how a debate works, or how a criminal investigation should be properly conducted is not only disturbing and insulting, it is simply childish. For example, it is ridiculous that someone who moments before was not even aware that a third building had collapsed that day, would then accuse me of being completely out of line for pointing out the striking similarities between the collapse of building 7 and every other controlled demolition. One moment they're completely uninformed, the next moment they're casually dismissing an extensive body of evidence years in the making. This fact compels me to repeat the comparison between 9/11 mainstreamers and children. And that's a discredit to a lot of bright children.
But what about the 9/11 Commission report? After Dr. David Ray Griffin's utterly overwhelming critique, it's difficult to find much trustworthy information left within it. There are ample reasons why this report cannot be taken at face value. One of the most striking, however, is the fact that Philip Zelikow, the man essentially in charge of the commission, is a close friend of the Bush Administration, and had even co-authored a book with Condolezza Rice. No credible investigative body would allow such a conflict of interest, especially not from the director of the entire affair!
Not only is much of the 9/11 Commission report unreliable to the critical observer, but entire aspects of the attacks are ignored completely. Building 7's collapse is ignored entirely. Not one word is spent on the third steel structure to collapse that day, and the first in the world to ever collapse due simply to fire, at least according to the official story.
Q: If Al Qaeda didn't do it who did?
A: How should I know? It doesn't make sense that one should be expected to know who did commit a crime before determining who didn't. According to that logic, since I can confidently state that my uncle Eddie did not kill Jimmy Hoffa, then I should obviously know who did.
Q: How could it have been an inside job, when it would require such intense secrecy and elaborate planning for members of our own government to conspire on such a level?
A: It would have required elaborate planning and secrecy for anyone to have perpetrated the attacks. If given the choice between members of the U.S government, who had control over NORAD (and therefore the skies), and a group of terrorists who would have faced the challenges of training pilots, successfully hijacking four aircraft simultaneously, and then permeating our air defenses four consecutive times in one day, then I'd be inclined to choose the former.
I raise these points not because I believe in the Yeti Monster, which I don't, but because these types of truths tend to frustrate the narrow-minded the most. This is because they deny one the privilege of dismissing points of view almost immediately before any serious examination of facts. Sadly this practice of prematurely dismissing ideas because they don't fit into convention has become all the more prevalent in America since those ungodly attacks.
For example, we were told that the terrorist attacks signified a need for our nation to revise its post-cold war mentality, to 'think outside the box,' in terms of foreign policy and our world-view. However, if someone were to think so far outside 'the box' as to suggest the possibility that 9/11 was some form of sabotage attack waged by the richest men in the world, against their own soil, then that someone is promptly and enthusiastically neutralized; by dismissal and mockery to begin with, then with intimidation, torture, and murder if the need should arise. Sometimes it's hard to find the patience to maintain a dialogue with a majority that vehemently rejects and condemns a point of view without offering any rebuttal of the most central and crucial tenants of that belief. This fact becomes even more intellectually insulting when one considers that the average supporter of the mainstream explanation of 9/11 demonstrates no understanding of the need of such supporting facts when posing a good counter-argument.
This apparent lack of understanding, on the part of the mainstream media and its adherents, of how a debate works, or how a criminal investigation should be properly conducted is not only disturbing and insulting, it is simply childish. For example, it is ridiculous that someone who moments before was not even aware that a third building had collapsed that day, would then accuse me of being completely out of line for pointing out the striking similarities between the collapse of building 7 and every other controlled demolition. One moment they're completely uninformed, the next moment they're casually dismissing an extensive body of evidence years in the making. This fact compels me to repeat the comparison between 9/11 mainstreamers and children. And that's a discredit to a lot of bright children.
But what about the 9/11 Commission report? After Dr. David Ray Griffin's utterly overwhelming critique, it's difficult to find much trustworthy information left within it. There are ample reasons why this report cannot be taken at face value. One of the most striking, however, is the fact that Philip Zelikow, the man essentially in charge of the commission, is a close friend of the Bush Administration, and had even co-authored a book with Condolezza Rice. No credible investigative body would allow such a conflict of interest, especially not from the director of the entire affair!
Not only is much of the 9/11 Commission report unreliable to the critical observer, but entire aspects of the attacks are ignored completely. Building 7's collapse is ignored entirely. Not one word is spent on the third steel structure to collapse that day, and the first in the world to ever collapse due simply to fire, at least according to the official story.
Q: If Al Qaeda didn't do it who did?
A: How should I know? It doesn't make sense that one should be expected to know who did commit a crime before determining who didn't. According to that logic, since I can confidently state that my uncle Eddie did not kill Jimmy Hoffa, then I should obviously know who did.
Q: How could it have been an inside job, when it would require such intense secrecy and elaborate planning for members of our own government to conspire on such a level?
A: It would have required elaborate planning and secrecy for anyone to have perpetrated the attacks. If given the choice between members of the U.S government, who had control over NORAD (and therefore the skies), and a group of terrorists who would have faced the challenges of training pilots, successfully hijacking four aircraft simultaneously, and then permeating our air defenses four consecutive times in one day, then I'd be inclined to choose the former.
No comments:
Post a Comment