1. “fallible humans” - Aside from the fact that this administration has gotton everything it wanted and wrote about BEFORE the 2000 election, including a pre-emptive war with Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the almost complete destruction of the constitution of the United States (done to profit some of the very companies and banks that the BBC has interests in on your side of the old pond)… aside from all of that, humans are remarkably capable of adapting to whatever the situation is, as long as their jobs and their lifestyles, and those of their offspring are on the line. Do you know what I mean there, Mr. Brooker? Or am I being to subtle?
2. “sheer magnitude” - yes it’s a big plan hatched over a long period of time. Check out some of the many sites that offer a glimpse into the evidence trails left by several key figures. I mean, you are a writer correct? You can do SOME research, right? I’ll GIVE you one and you find the rest: Journal of 9/11 Studies.
3. “hundreds of tons of dynamite” - That was an oldie too, till I found a listing by CDI from 1998 where they demoed a builidngof almost the exact same sq. ft. of Building 7 with 2,100 pounds of explosive (and most of that was det cord. just rolled into place).
“It’s hard enough to successfully operate a video shop with a staff of three, for Christ’s sake, let alone slaughter thousands and convince the world someone else was to blame.”
Really? At one time they “convinced” the world that Saddam was to blame. Remember the “coalition of the willing”. Tony Blair lost his job over that, now didn’t he? The FBI most wanted poster on bin Laden doesn’t list 9/11 as one of his crimes. The reason: not enough credible evidence. Do you remember the Downing Street Memo?
“That’s just one broad objection to all the bullshit theories. But try suggesting it to someone in the midst of a 9/11 fairytale reverie, and they’ll pull a face and say, “Yeah, but … ” and start banging on about some easily misinterpreted detail that “makes you think” (when it doesn’t) or “contradicts the official story” (when you misinterpret it). Like nutbag creationists, they fixate on thinly spread, cherry-picked nuggets of “evidence” and ignore the thundering mass of data pointing the other way.”
It seems to me, sir, that the only “bullshit” theory is the one based on personally derogatory remarks about those that share it; and nothing else. You have offered NOTHING by way of the ”thundering mass of data” you mention here. Nothing. I see none. So, which argument is based on reality based scientific fact and which is based on generalizations and slander?
“And when repeatedly pressed on that one, basic, overall point - that a conspiracy this huge would be impossible to pull off - they huff and whine and claim that unless you’ve sat through every nanosecond of Loose Change (the conspiracy flick du jour) and personally refuted every one of its carefully spun “findings” before their very eyes, using a spirit level and calculator, you have no right to an opinion on the subject.”
I’m not “huffing and whining”. Now, you might THINK a plan this big is “impossible to pull off” but that doesn’t make it so. For instance, let’s say, perhaps, oh, I don’t know, convincing a couple of democratic countries that they HAD to illegally invade a sovereign nation so that 4 oil companies could get their hand on their oil reserves. That’s kind of a big conspiracy, wouldn’t you say? And guess what? They pulled it off with the help of the 4th Estate or 5th Column (however you prefer, Mr. Brooker). Meaning; without the COLLUSION of the media, both here and in the UK, then that WAR-CRIME would not have been committed and a MILLION IRAQIS would not be dead and we wouldn’t be poised to do it all over again in IRAN.
Now, genius, tell me… which “conspiracy” is bigger? And were they successful?
“Oh yeah? So if my four-year-old nephew tells me there’s a magic leprechaun in the garden I have to spend a week meticulously peering underneath each individual blade of grass before I can tell him he’s wrong, do I?”
I won’t discuss your children only to say I hope for their sake that they are not being home-schooled.
“Look hard enough, and dementedly enough, and you can find “proof” that Kevin Bacon was responsible for 9/11 - or the 1987 Zeebrugge ferry disaster, come to that. It’d certainly make for a more interesting story, which is precisely why several thousand well-meaning people would go out of their way to believe it. Throughout my twenties I earnestly believed Oliver Stone’s account of the JFK assassination. Partly because of the compelling (albeit wildly selective) way the “evidence” was blended with fiction in his 1991 movie - but mainly because I WANTED to believe it. Believing it made me feel important.”
If somehow or another, you used the situation with JFK’s assassinationto feed your own ego, that is your business. It certainly falls right into line with what others write about you. But when you transfer your own shortcomings onto others to make yourself feel better, there’s a word for that… look it up, writer.
“Embrace a conspiracy theory and suddenly you’re part of a gang sharing privileged information; your sense of power and dignity rises a smidgen and this troublesome world makes more sense, for a time. You’ve seen through the matrix! At last you’re alive! You ARE the Emperor of Pluto after all!”
Except for the fact that we are not hiding the information. We are sharing it with as many people as possible hoping to start a real call for a new investigation into the officialaccount of 9/11. You see, that doesn’t make us “special”, that makes us ‘tired”. Tired of being ridiculed by people with almost no facts who are willing to support any idiotic story their bosses tell them to just to keep a paycheck and some supposed “status”.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
