Letters to the Editor
-
@Paul R
Not so the alleged "9/11 truth movement" account of 9/11, which depends not just on a totally different level of scope, competence and daring, but also an action decidedly at odds with outward visible behavior. Leaving aside all the holes in the "9/11 truth" account--which dwarf those of the "official story," which doesn't just come from government officials, but from scientific investigators and others--this leaves us with the same sort of question such vast conspiracy stories always leave us with: how can such a vast evil be kept secret for so long?
I've read this blog long enough to recognize that I'll be ad hominemed to death for daring to take on the self-appointed sage of this comments section. But I think it's about time someone (who, like you, agrees with the bulk of what Glenn writes) called bullshit on some of your conclusions.
I get that you've read 40 billion books and can quote the most obscure historical references to support your point of view. I generally admire your scholarship and literacy. But the fact is, like many of us, you begin from a pre-determined conclusion and then marshal your arguments to support that conclusion. You've demonstrated a shocking inability to process information that doesn't conform to what you've already decided, and because of that rigidity, you fall into the same rhetorical traps you and others here are quick to point out.
If you had any interest at all in actually looking at "9/11 truth movement" material, the very first thing you'd be well aware of is that there is no "account" on which any of the parties involved completely agree. But not only do you seem to insist that there is a single refutable account, you advance arguments about that account without ever identifying what it is.
It would be far more honest for you to say, "I believe the people in power are capable of many things, but I refuse to accept they could do this." Because I believe that for you and many of the people here who accept such a paragraph as the one above, that's the bottom line. Emotionally, you draw the line in the sand and because you're all part of the mob that agrees, you can pretend that you have done actual investigation and that you have diligently uncovered facts to support a position. But whether you can admit it to yourself or not, the conclusion was never going to be shaken because it's too emotionally entrenched.
The same phenomenon is at work with your breathtakingly ignorant representation of libertarianism. Again, you can fool a bunch of people here by showering endless quotes that demonstrate how diligent you've been in your research, but the truth is, your understanding of the principles of libertarianism seemed to have been formed from the equivalent of a "Reefer Madness" pamphlet and then just gussied up with a lot of impressive sounding crap from people who say what you want them to say.
The points are these:
1) You say you want to put the brakes on what's happening in our government but not if it means accepting the possibility that some of them are complicit in the atrocity of 9/11. You're such an intelligent, clear thinking individual that you'd never be affected by the government propaganda (that you're well aware is being pushed on you daily), yet you eagerly swallow what would be (if true) the most terrible lie of all. And as demonstrated above, you really don't want to know.
2) You'd like the war(s) in the Middle East to end, but not so much if it means you have to give credit to people like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell because somebody told you once that they were racist. You can't supply documentation for that, but it's no matter, what your instincts tell you about these people weighs much more heavily than stopping the killing of innocent people.