Too Easy to Knock
Wednesday, May 17th, 2006 at 2146The media doesn’t like conspiracy theorists. The movies slam them, TV mocks them and the popular press don’t give them the column inches they need. OK, a lot of them may be crazy, but go painting a whole group of people with the same brush and all of a sudden all followers of Islam are terrorists, all white people are racist and all dingos steal and eat babies.
Oh wait, sorry, the popular press actually DO consider the words “Muslim” and “Terrorist” as interchangeable. Silly me.
Well, getting to my point before we end up with another small essay, the BBC are running a hillarious peice about the new Pentagon footage that, oh surprise, shows us nothing new about the 9/11 attacks. I don’t pitch my tent in any camp when it comes to this, all I’ll say for myself is that I think something is amiss and the evidence doesn’t stack up.
I suppose it’s my own fault for getting lulled once again into thinking the BBC are a news agency instead of a propaganda machine. (Go go Medialens ) Their outright lambasting (Is that right? I’m using it anyway) of popular theories and so called “Conspiracy Theorists” is deplorable. It’s worth noting that a lot of the evidence put forward or questioned by the so called “Crazy People” has not been disproved to any greater degree than anything put forward by governments and news agencies. The only difference being is that the general public has been taught that one side would never do anything wrong, and the other side is a disorganised bunch of nut jobs. (Just in case it wasn’t clear and, admittedly, sometimes it isn’t, the disorganised bunch of nut jobs is here referring to the “Conspiracy Theorists”, not the governments and news agencies.)
The link in question is here: Shameful “Journalism” from the BBC (again).
Why can’t they, you know, collate and report facts for a change, instead of latching on to a tidbit and furthering misconception. The ignoramus who put that peice up there for world review shouldn’t dare call himself a journalist, let alone a “World Affairs Correspondant”. Paul Reynolds open your eyes.
(Of course now, thanks to pervasive media brain-washing, everyone will simply go “Ho Hum” and pitch me in with the rest of the conspiracy theorists. Classic, no? How can anyone get the truth out there if anyone who tries is instantly put down without effort.)
As the ‘journalistr’ responsible, may I say that when you explain what happened to Mrs Olson, I might start believing in little green men. Is she hiding somewhere? And the other AA 77 passengers? All the facts about 9/11 are available either in 9/11 Commission report or the numerous technical journals which are probably of more use to theorists.
A lot of people would be quietened if a fully open, civillian review of all the available evidence was permitted. Most official sources have been linked in some way to beneficiaries and as such should be treated with caution. Of course this is one of the great weapons against “Conspiracy Theorists”, the constant and unwavering notion supplied almost anonymously by the media that ‘regulated’, ‘government’, ‘official’ and ‘corporate’ reports are infallible.
Is the 9/11 commission report intended to be a collation of facts or an emotive peice? If it is the former, then why do sections contain emotive language and present the conclusions of the facts alongside or before the facts themselves? (Refer to section 5.4, that one is rather poignant).
The report admits it has no clear evidence of a money trail to Bin Laden, but waves conjecture around the place. “Money might have come from drug running”, “Money might have come from charities” before capping it off with the trophy piece “Ultimately the question is of little practical significance”.
You have to admire it. I always thought people were innocent until proven guilty and guilt is something you really, really want to have very clearly outlined before you set about destroying a nation or two.
I don’t pretend to have my own theories, or subscribe to any particular version of events, be it aliens, gassing, or men in blue gloves. All I feel is that something is amiss and until all the inconsistencies are explained, think that public ridicule of others with a similar mindset should be avoided at all cost.
One only need look back on how, say, Galileo was treated by the authorities to see that what may appear preposterous to officially endorsed thinking may not be so crazy afterall.
(As a footnote, once again you make it clear your view is not impartial. Your statement of “Believing in little green men” is just another way of painting the “Conspiracy Theorists” with the same commonly seen brush of ridicule and derision.)
Fantastic thought , Why not consider changing things by becoming invoved in politics! and by the way it is i before e except after c !, Fire fox by the way is brill! aj
“I suppose it’s my own fault for getting lulled once again into thinking the BBC are a news agency instead of a propaganda machine”
haha bang on