April 20, 2006

I. Obstruction of Truth


Photograph taken by Aussie, now US resident, Harry Heidelberg, at the site of ground zero, last weekend.

Any sensible person with a modicum of intellect would look upon the events of 11 September 2001 as being so inherently unimaginable as to require no further embellishment, and certainly sufficiently quelling to defy any compulsion to dream up more colorful versions of the events that unfolded in America on that date.

It has taken nearly five years, but the conspiracy theorists have built up quite a library of “evidence” to disprove the official version of events.

All of the film footage, even the mobile phone calls from some aircraft and the buildings, were a fraud. We have been deceived by our own eyes and ears – oh, and by the US government – so we are told, with a snowballing amount of material being produced by a large number of, possibly, otherwise sane normal people sporting clean hair and trimmed finger nails.

I’m loath to give these fanciful stories any oxygen, and I haven’t delved deeply into the available material, but having read a number of the briefer articles I do feel compelled to examine the deadly serious material, which is proffered as proof of the falsity of the official version of events.

It’s notable that these people have collectively anointed themselves the “truth movement”, rather than the less preening “Alternative Loopy Opinions Movement”, for example.

It’s equally notable that they very carefully and deceptively choose their words to claim that their focus is on disproving the “official version of events”. The latter is important, since their claims are, supposedly, against the officially documented version of events and against the US government, in particular. By taking this pedantically defined approach they seemingly avoid – but only by the barest brush of the hair on their chinny, chin, chins – debasing every person who died, every family member who received a phone call, every rescue worker, the tens of thousands of eye witnesses in New York, not to mention every person on earth who has viewed the available real-time film footage.

What the “truth movement” want us to believe is that much of what happened was impossible, and therefore, we cannot and should not believe any of the factual and clear evidence. They assert that a “root cause” is hidden in the rubble and the broken lives; some “root cause” – anything, it would seem, other than the bleedin’ fucking truth.

We should have known this would happen, of course, because 11 September contains thousands of elements, all ripe for the picking. It’s not as if there was simply one naked, perfumed dead blonde and an empty bottle of pills; or just a car traveling at dangerously high speeds crashing in a tunnel – not a great deal you can do with so few elements; you can try, but it’s difficult. The existence of a grassy knoll, on the other hand, and some brief footage of a President being shot in the head (which is the correct direction for a person’s head to loll – exactly – when they’ve been shot in the head?) provides amble grist for conspiracy theorists.

Compare those events, and many others, all with simple and clear elements, a gun, a few bullets, a fast car out of control, an empty bottle of pills – not much to see here folks – compare, compare, compare, with the myriad of elements that constitute 11 Sept 2001. It’s a piggy-heaven smorgasbord, a scared landscape of pickings for a seemingly ubiquitous lunatic thinking.

The proliferation of the “truth” about 9/11 continues at an unseemly pace, and the articles under examination for the purpose of some future posts (yes, yes, this is just a precursor – you’ll have to wait for installments) are the result of unplanned and random link-clicking. One was selected because the title assured me that simple mathematics could be applied to disprove the official version of events – well, I wanted to see that! A second article was selected purely on the basis that it was written by the author of the maths piece. In other words, there’s nothing special about the writer or the articles, other than that I have read them. They may or may not be indicative of the rigor of other material.

One preliminary point of guidance first (others to be included in future posts):

Am I the only person in the blogosphere who wants to scream every time they see a comment, or even a post, accusing someone else of making “nothing more than an ad homian attack, blah, blah, blah, blah…”, as if this is a crime, and as if no decent living human would ever countenance doing such a thing, and most especially not in ‘polite society’?

This isn’t reserved for the left of politics either, although they are particularly fond of tossing the term around with hyper-indignation; however, the right has also adopted it with a little too much relish.

See, the thing is, when I was growing up, and all through numerous university degrees, and – well, for many decades in fact – this term didn’t exist, at least not in the sense that anyone used it in real life. It’s only in recent years that you see people throwing it about in every second comment, and in MSM opinion pieces, because, apparently, they can’t come up with an augment themselves, but desperate to prolong the combat, they resort to the “ad homian” blustering nonsense.

If any of the commentary in future posts appears to be offering-up nothing more than an ad homian attack, then yes, I probably am, and I do so with no shame whatsoever, and with zero intellectual cringing.

For all this, and I’ll be up front about my conclusions ahead of time: the material being produced by the affiliated individuals of the “truth movement” stands quaintly naked in all its’ dressed up pseudo-intellectual clap trap glory.

14 comments:

  1. Here are a few choice comments from the crazy Charlie Sheen

    "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."

    but WAIT, there's MORE

    He noted, "I was up early and we were gonna do a pre-shoot on Spin City, the show I used to do, I was watching the news and the north tower was burning. I saw the south tower hit live, that famous wide shot where it disappears behind the building and then we see the tremendous fireball."

    Just listen to how he makes a conclusion...

    "There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?"

    http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27265009.shtml

    what a fucking nutbar

    ReplyDelete
  2. Charlie Sheen's story is the only one I've heard about (btw, I like Charlie and his program, "Two and a Half Men" and I like his Dad and Brother).

    That said, thanks for stoppin' by my place and have a Great Day! :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just got back from a weeks holiday.. Hmmm ..I dunno Caz but there's something mighty fishy about this blog now.!! Maybe it's just me?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kathy - fishy, FISHY?!! They were penguins I tell you, not fish!

    ReplyDelete
  5. What! Harry H. has moved to the U.S.? We demand immigration reform!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Aww... Caz ..Cut me some slack mate.. After all I am a blonde!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kathy1:16 PM

    Reminds me of this blonde joke Caz....There is this Blonde sitting in a canoe in the middle of a field. Another blonde driving by spots her and shouts 'Its blondes like you that give us all a bad name and if I could swim I'd come over and kick your arse!'

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kathy – for the purpose of this blog, and to help your self esteem, we will always think of you & treat you as a brunette.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I couldn't stand Two and a Half Men before I even watched it, but one of my close friends in hospital maybe watcher with him one night with a few beers and I thought it was hilarious. Goes to show, you never should judge a book by its cover!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I meant to say made me watch it, not "maybe watcher"

    Freaking voice recognition software

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rachy – have to agree: Two & a Half Men is one of those lame, peculiar shows that has nothing going for it (and the casting of the kid seems so wrong), and yet, and yet, and yet – it works, it’s fluffy, it’s forgettable, it’s funny. Weird.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There are folks who believe the earth is flat and other who believe the moon landing was faked. Go figure.

    BTW Charlie Sheen doesn't know his left elbow from his ass so I wouldn't consider his opinion as expert on much.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The world is full of people who choose to believe the unbelievable because it's more exciting than believing the believable.

    As a brunette. I love the brunette reference in the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cubicle - me thinks that Charlie Sheen has more than a few more important problems to worry about at present; at least it should divert him from making dumb comments for a while.

    Miss Anya - I think we brunettes should extend kindness to others not so blessed.

    ReplyDelete