- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
From dictionary.com --
con·spir·a·cy [kuhn-spir'-uh-see]1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
Just to point out that, by any definition, the official version of the events of 9/11 is itself a "conspiracy theory," which makes its official government proponents, technically, "conspiracy theorists."
Here's what's most interesting about this movement: 9/11 conspiracy theorists... all rely on photos to make their case, the same images that the rest of us use to support our version of the story.
Wrong: they "all" do not. There are a number of prominent people in the 9/11 Truth movement who have questioned (and even ridiculed) notions such as "controlled demolitions", drones and missiles. There are many questionable aspects of the official theories (Google "The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11" for an ample list that picks apart the official theory's numerous flaws. Regardless of your preferred theory (I don't have one), it's food for thought and suggests that the truth must be somewhat more complicated than generally supposed by either side in this debate.)
Beyond your blinkered assessment of the so-called "9/11 deniers" -- does anybody deny it happened? -- your piece as a whole is a fascinating reflection on our emerging Rashomon culture. The multiplication of meanings isn't limited to the multiplicity (and duplicity) of images. Information of all kinds are now available in vast torrents and we all must find ways to navigate between the spin that fits our world-view and the facts that could transform our perspective, if we would only open our eyes.
For example: you could have easily changed the tenor of this discussion and inoculated yourself from accusations of "official" bias by pointing out how data -- including supposed "photographic evidence" of mobile WMD labs -- was either misinterpreted or misused by various officials in the run-up to the Iraq War. How many neo-cons still stubbornly believe in those imaginary WMD labs they once thought they saw?
It's rather disappointing that you focus primarily on those who dissent from the "official" story when there are so many examples of the "official" story being wrong because government leaders saw what they expected or wanted, not what truly was.
