Separating the Wheat from the Chaff
A major focus of this blog will be to try to understand "what really happened" on September 11th 2001 and to develop a more truthful and honest narrative for the terror attacks than the "official 9/11 story".
The major hindrance from doing this is two-fold.
First, the government has constructed an "official" narrative for 9/11, and the major media has consecrated the story. Thus, despite the incredible interest that thousands of people have in trying to better understand what happened on 9/11, the government and the media will simply not let the official story be questioned. It is obvious why the government doesn't want to allow any untoward questions about 9/11, but less clear why the major media guard this event so carefullly. One might think the media is actually afraid of something-- certainly they have been very deferential to the Bush administration-- but I suspect it is beyond that. It seems that 9/11 is a story that disturbs the media so deeply that they refuse to rock the boat on it. I think that this is because what really happened on 9/11 undoubtedly involved deeply ingrained governmental corruption, and the media cannot deal with this-- just like they have not been able to deal with other major stories that involve major governmental corruption. The CIA involved in drug trafficking and the crash of TWA flight 800 are similar types of stories on a smaller scale that spring to mind.
Second, and much more insidious, is there undoubtedly has been a large amount of disinformation spread about who might have been involved in 9/11 besides Al Qaeda (i.e. the CIA, the Israelis, the Saudis, the Pakistanis). Since it is unlikely that all of these groups were involved in a significant way, some of these stories must have been planted, likely on purpose by someone with an agenda. Then there are the many stories that point out inconsistencies in the official story -- an extreme variation of this is the issue of whether flight 77 really hit the Pentagon (I will not even deal with totally whacked out theories such as the WTC attacks were some sort of video hoax or that there were missile on the planes that attacked the WTC). Many of these stories can also be thought of as disinformation, and certainly they act as major distractions. Of course, some of these claims make sense, but certainly it is highly unlikely that all of them can be true. I also suspect that many of these claims, particularly the most ridiculous claims, have been spread intentionally by agencies affiliated with the government, specifically in order to paint people who question the official 9/11 narrative as "conspiracy nuts".
So, how do we separate out "the good stuff" from all the junk out there regarding 9/11? That will be my new job and a major part of this blog. We'll see how it goes. Hopefully this new enterprise won't get me into any trouble with "big brother"!
The major hindrance from doing this is two-fold.
First, the government has constructed an "official" narrative for 9/11, and the major media has consecrated the story. Thus, despite the incredible interest that thousands of people have in trying to better understand what happened on 9/11, the government and the media will simply not let the official story be questioned. It is obvious why the government doesn't want to allow any untoward questions about 9/11, but less clear why the major media guard this event so carefullly. One might think the media is actually afraid of something-- certainly they have been very deferential to the Bush administration-- but I suspect it is beyond that. It seems that 9/11 is a story that disturbs the media so deeply that they refuse to rock the boat on it. I think that this is because what really happened on 9/11 undoubtedly involved deeply ingrained governmental corruption, and the media cannot deal with this-- just like they have not been able to deal with other major stories that involve major governmental corruption. The CIA involved in drug trafficking and the crash of TWA flight 800 are similar types of stories on a smaller scale that spring to mind.
Second, and much more insidious, is there undoubtedly has been a large amount of disinformation spread about who might have been involved in 9/11 besides Al Qaeda (i.e. the CIA, the Israelis, the Saudis, the Pakistanis). Since it is unlikely that all of these groups were involved in a significant way, some of these stories must have been planted, likely on purpose by someone with an agenda. Then there are the many stories that point out inconsistencies in the official story -- an extreme variation of this is the issue of whether flight 77 really hit the Pentagon (I will not even deal with totally whacked out theories such as the WTC attacks were some sort of video hoax or that there were missile on the planes that attacked the WTC). Many of these stories can also be thought of as disinformation, and certainly they act as major distractions. Of course, some of these claims make sense, but certainly it is highly unlikely that all of them can be true. I also suspect that many of these claims, particularly the most ridiculous claims, have been spread intentionally by agencies affiliated with the government, specifically in order to paint people who question the official 9/11 narrative as "conspiracy nuts".
So, how do we separate out "the good stuff" from all the junk out there regarding 9/11? That will be my new job and a major part of this blog. We'll see how it goes. Hopefully this new enterprise won't get me into any trouble with "big brother"!
posted by spooked at 7:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home