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
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
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.