I've been pressing my denouncer to clearly state exactly what the "truth' about 9-11 is. There are so many so-called truths out there over the WTC attack its hard to know which one is credible. Was the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad the actual perpetrator, as many anti-Semitic sources claim? Or was it a cabal of American corporate and political players? Maybe it was the Illuminate, the shadowy group of elites that have descended from alien lizards, as put forth by author/lecturer David Icke?
My prosecutor writes that "9-11 Truth, at least at this juncture, isn't about fingering the guilty party. That comes after acknowledging that the fairy tale conspiracy theory, known as the official government explanation, that was foisted on us has as many holes as a block of Swiss cheese." So in other words, the journalistic standards of "who, what, when, where, and why" are supposed to be abandoned to promote a particular position on the 9/11 attacks as "the truth", even though the supporting evidence is shaky at best.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. And if people want to believe that 9/11 was a result of an inside government job, that's fine. But confusing opinion with "truth" is another matter altogether. The letter writer suggested a number of sources for me to check out the veracity of the 9-11 Truth claim. However, much of the information creates more questions in my mind about their claims rather than proves their case. But what fascinates me more is that those who put forth this alternative version are adamantly against any outward skepticism of their ideas, even though it was their own skepticism of the official version of events which led them to the alternative theories in the first place. Their certitude about what really happened is as steadfast as the version they're trying to refute.
Do conspiracies exist in the world? You bet. Enron's financial dealings were a conspiracy. So was Watergate. But in each case, there were mounds of credible evidence, much of which was linked forensically to the defendants. But when it comes to 9/11 Truth, the forensic dots just haven't been put together.
Honestly, I don't know what happened on 9/11. Until I see some forensic evidence to prove the official version is wrong, I'll stick with what is known. The problem for me is that a conspiracy theory creates the same kind of ripple effects as a rock thrown into a lake. If the theorist cannot get someone more qualified than he to agree with the theory, that person must be apart of the conspiracy, or too afraid of having a scarlet letter attached to them by the powers that be. It's all very convenient
Perhaps in time, that forensic evidence will come to pass. But for the moment, the claims of alternative theorists are speculation at best. And it would be foolish for any journalist to give credence to such speculation without giving the other theories due diligence. That's the reason I've avoided writing about the 9-11 Truth issue up until now. The investigations sited thus far haven't developed enough yet to be credibly presented in a wider forum.
Yes, perhaps that is a cowardly position to take. But it is prudent. And I'll take prudence over pre-mature courage every time.