"Rigorous Intuition" Slams 9/11 Research
Over the past year, I have developed increasing unease with Jeff Wells and his cryptic postings about UFOs, "magick" and metaphysics on "Rigorous Intuition". I used to visit the site regularly, but lately I hardly even want to look at the site.
Jeff is a talented writer, and his "Coincidence Theorists Guide to 9/11" was one of the things that helped convince me 9/11 was an inside job, but his latest post "Conspiracature" cements his current irrelevance to 9/11 research:
Why is it that people who essentially support the official 9/11 story (LIHOP with Islamic hijackers and hijacked aircraft; avoid all physical evidence) are always the ones who scream most loudly about dividing the movement?
Moreover, who ever said Morgan Renolds* was the loudest voice for 9/11 truth, except people like Wells?
And now even the strong evidence for demolition is disinfo, according to Wells?
Why IS IT that Wells REFUSES to comtemplate the strange 9/11 physical evidence?**
But what really gets me is the hypocrisy of Wells, who writes murky, bordering on incomprehensible, bullshit at least two-thirds of the time, casting aspersions on 9/11 researchers who are honest enough to look at ALL of the evidence.
Give me a break.
The fact that Wells plays the "hologram" card, shows that he is either deliberately spreading misinformation or that he is really out of touch with 9/11 research. No 9/11 researcher currently promotes holograms in any serious way. Another thing that is curious is how seemingly disinterested Wells is in what ACTUALLY HAPPENED ON 9/11, as opposed to his one-dimensional focus on foreknowledge.
What exactly is Wells trying to do, anyway? He always paints an interesting if bizarre picture with his writing, but it is a picture that never goes anywhere, it is a picture that is always frustrating in its vagueness, and it is a picture that ultimately (for me anyway) saps the urge for any action because the forces he describes are so all-powerful. You might even say Wells' work is very clever misinformation/disinformation. I have strongly resisted calling Wells a disinfo agent (and in general I dislike name-calling of this sort), but increasingly I find no other way to explain what he does.
*Apparently he is referring to Reynolds, since he links to his article-- but Reynolds was not a Bush aide (though he was a secondary-level appointee), and is more of a Libertarian than a Republican.
**Wells is clearly a plane-hugger in the truest sense of the term.
Jeff is a talented writer, and his "Coincidence Theorists Guide to 9/11" was one of the things that helped convince me 9/11 was an inside job, but his latest post "Conspiracature" cements his current irrelevance to 9/11 research:
Or how, suddenly, the loudest voices for "9/11 Truth" are those of former Bush aides and lifelong Republicans, beating the drum for - dig it - no passenger aircraft having struck the World Trade Center.
(snip)
Who profits by the You're with us or you're against us essentialism of the advocates for the most contentious and spurious speculations on 9/11, and how far does it carry us from the scene of the crime and its high criminals? The pods, the holograms, the missiles, the demolitions: how did we arrive at this familiar position of irrelevance, and who do you think means to keep us here? Popular Mechanics, CNN and the great Anglo-American dailies don't shy from drawing strawman caricatures of conspiracy and then delight in setting them ablaze with all of us supposedly inside like some springtime wickerman sacrifice, yet the meat of the case for criminal intent rots on the offering plate. Why do you think that is, and who do you think might like it like that? The conspirators, who create both a false opposition and a false conspiracy, remain invisible and free to deal more death.
Why is it that people who essentially support the official 9/11 story (LIHOP with Islamic hijackers and hijacked aircraft; avoid all physical evidence) are always the ones who scream most loudly about dividing the movement?
Moreover, who ever said Morgan Renolds* was the loudest voice for 9/11 truth, except people like Wells?
And now even the strong evidence for demolition is disinfo, according to Wells?
Why IS IT that Wells REFUSES to comtemplate the strange 9/11 physical evidence?**
But what really gets me is the hypocrisy of Wells, who writes murky, bordering on incomprehensible, bullshit at least two-thirds of the time, casting aspersions on 9/11 researchers who are honest enough to look at ALL of the evidence.
Give me a break.
The fact that Wells plays the "hologram" card, shows that he is either deliberately spreading misinformation or that he is really out of touch with 9/11 research. No 9/11 researcher currently promotes holograms in any serious way. Another thing that is curious is how seemingly disinterested Wells is in what ACTUALLY HAPPENED ON 9/11, as opposed to his one-dimensional focus on foreknowledge.
What exactly is Wells trying to do, anyway? He always paints an interesting if bizarre picture with his writing, but it is a picture that never goes anywhere, it is a picture that is always frustrating in its vagueness, and it is a picture that ultimately (for me anyway) saps the urge for any action because the forces he describes are so all-powerful. You might even say Wells' work is very clever misinformation/disinformation. I have strongly resisted calling Wells a disinfo agent (and in general I dislike name-calling of this sort), but increasingly I find no other way to explain what he does.
*Apparently he is referring to Reynolds, since he links to his article-- but Reynolds was not a Bush aide (though he was a secondary-level appointee), and is more of a Libertarian than a Republican.
**Wells is clearly a plane-hugger in the truest sense of the term.
posted by spooked at 10:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home