In reading this piece from a Princeton web site which shows the pros and cons of the Internet when it comes to discerning credible information as opposed to non-credible information, this point jumped out at me, “This means that users always have to question the reliability of the available information. If students are not aware and conscious of this problem, they may use and learn wrong facts about anything from historical information to scientific data.”
They also point out, “If teachers are prepared to teach students to be critical in their perception of material derived from the network than this characteristic of the Web may not be such a problem, and it may even turn into a plus by enhancing their research skills. Teaching children to be critical of information presented to them, to check sources, and to try to derive information from various sources teaches them that a search for information entails more than just finding a source.”
While I will leave you to read what was written in full, it goes to the heart of what we believe as a people happened on 9/11. I will first state, is our anger towards the Bush administration the reason that some tend to believe he caused that attack? I really want those reading this to think hard on that.
On various political lists that I am on, this article has been circulated around in which Senator John F. Kerry stated that Building 7 was deliberately demolished. Instead of taking that article on face value, I went straight to the horse’s mouth so to speak. I called up Senator Kerry’s office and an aid that I spoke with knew of this article being circulated and he flat out told me that Senator Kerry never opined or stated that Building 7 was deliberately demolished. What he said was that “one wall had to be taken down” He never said that the whole building was intentionally brought down by a controlled demolition.
In circulating that verification response coming from the senator’s aid, I invited others to phone the senator’s office to hear exactly what I heard. In fact, should you wish to call the senator’s office, here is the number, (202) 224-2742. In listening to his aid he sounded angry. Who can blame him when the article misconstrued the words of the Senator according to his aid? I also told him of certain articles making their way around the Internet that the government was behind the shootings at Virginia Tech and if you could hear the reaction of Senator Kerry’s aid, he was equally angered over that one.
Just ask yourself is every tragic event that happens a result of a government conspiracy? When that Blue-Angels accident happened, I was ready for someone to come out and say that this government caused that accident. Someone may just do that.
In reading this article, 911 Debunkers Defend War Criminals, Liars, Mass Murderers it reminds me of the tone coming from the Bush administration shortly after 9/11 when Ari Fleisher (Pres. Bush’s former Press Secretary) stated, “Watch what you say” I am not a collaborator as the author states since I do believe that President Bush ignored the terrorist threats prior to this attack. Even Richard Clarke a counter-terrorism expert that served under several administrations including President Clinton’s was demoted and ultimately fired by the Bush administration.
The reason was that he was trying to bring into focus the threat of Al Qaeda. The Bush administration even ignored the Hart/Rudman report on terrorism. In his interview with Sixty Minutes correspondent, Leslie Stahl, Clarke said of President Bush, “He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."
What I do find astonishing is that several web sites that have posted that President Bush was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks would post this article on their sites, CIA told of al-Qaeda hijack plot before 9/11. This article reports, “FRENCH intelligence services warned their US counterparts, eight months before the attacks of September 11, 2001, that al-Qaeda was planning to hijack a US-bound plane, a media report said today.” It goes onto say, “Le Monde said the document, titled "Aircaft hijack plan by radical Islamists," was part of 328 pages of a DGSE file on al-Qaeda leaked to the paper which it said was practically the entirety of the French intelligence services' dossier on the network.” Do these sites believe the conspiracy or the ignoring of terrorist threats? That is where critical thinking comes into play.
Now we get to the juicy part. In an email to someone, I wrote, “I have read so many files concerning 9/11 stating that it was planned by the government as well as those that debunk them. I stand by my original column. As you will see, those that have taken time to respond disbelieve me. That is their right to as guaranteed under the first amendment. This is perhaps the best site that debunks various articles written on 9/11 called, Debunking the 9/11 Myths As you will hear in that pod-cast, often those who write of these theories will quote someone who has written of it without going back to the original source. In a court of law, that is called hear say which is often not entered as evidence.
Wait, it gets even better, for sometime, I have been in contact with Controlled Demolitions Incorporated and my source at that company has often said what comments they do give out are often misconstrued. In fact my source said that their words are “often twisted by theorists”. She went onto say, “they have had to resort to saying, “no comment”
1 | 2