Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Christopher: "Having been involved in actual forensic post-mortem investigations of security breeches..."
You investigated pants?
touche!
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.
It really seems to me that you are throwing things at the wall in an effort to see what sticks.
How so?
You start with the crime and you work outward from that. You have to start with the 5 "W"s of investigative journalism.. who, what when where and why.
Okay. For starters I assume that we both agree that al Qaeda (who) hijacked and then crashed planes (what) on September 11 (when) into the World Trade Center and elsewhere (where) because they wanted to score a high-profile attack on the United States in the name of wahabism (why).
I also assume that there's no debate about the who, what, where, when, and why's of al Qaeda in the Philippines or South America, nor in their smaller-scale blunders in New York City.
What I'm saying is that we also know that the Bush administration (who) ignored the warnings of a proven counterterrorism apparatus (what) throughout 2001 (when) as presented in intelligence briefings (where).
As for the why, that's the question. But surely we can't accept the conventional explanation that there was simply no way of knowing about this brand-new threat from "al Qaeda" and its mysterious leader "bin Laden."
I have to agree with Steve_D at least with regards to his editorial criticisms on the piece.
But fixing those errors would not change the general tone of the article, which I also agree with.
As for the why, that's the question. But surely we can't accept the conventional explanation that there was simply no way of knowing about this brand-new threat from "al Qaeda" and its mysterious leader "bin Laden."
Then we are, essentially, in agreement.
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?
The piece you're reading is an excerpt from my book; the book, in fact, focuses on many other examples -- such as the one you cite above -- of people becoming divorced from reality. It examines in full the Rashomon culture you discuss; that's its point, indeed.
The only thing we're sure about the Kennedy Assassination is that the Warren Commission Report was flawed in major ways and was not the definitive answer that we needed to reach closure. The government's failure to take a harsh look at itself opened a can of worms that can't be put back.
Similarly, the Bush administration's refusal to cooperate with 9/11 investigations opens the door to all these wild theories. The truth about the attacks seems simple. Applying Occam's Razor to the known facts makes some of the wild theories just too foolish to consider.
Bush's cowardice and failure to admit his own mistakes before, during and after 9/11 don't prove that the 9/11 Commission was wrong, but they don't provide the definitive answer that we need to reach closure.
There are still unanswered questions: Who was behind the anthrax attacks? Who made all that money from selling airline stocks short? Why were members of the bin Laden family allowed to leave the country before they could be questioned as thoroughly as many suspects who landed in Guantanamo who we now know are completely innocent?
We may never know. What should have been a straightforward investigation has been derailed by political ideology. The self-assessment after Pearl Harbor should have been the model. Alas, like the Kennedy Assassination, the government's failure to take a harsh look at itself opened a can of worms that can't be put back.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
