I thought not, because speculation isn’t evidence and the ability to disprove one thing does not automatically prove an alternative. This is the fundamental mistake being made by the “truth” movement and this is why the official story of 911 remains in force today.
Now let me be clear, in all likelihood 911 actually was an inside job. There, I’ve said it. But that’s just my opinion based on what I’ve read or heard or watched. I can’t prove it. And if I can’t prove it then why should I expect anyone to believe my claim? If I claim my opinion is fact but don’t have the proof to demonstrate it, then isn’t it valid if I’m subsequently labelled a “conspiracy theorist?” That’s all I have, a theory about a conspiracy. You can either buy my theory or walk away from it.
If you accept my theory on faith and then pass it to another person who does the same, after a while you have a movement based on faith. It’s not based on facts, is it? Just a belief in the opinion of the person who originally devised the theory. So we now have a conspiracy theory movement. But still we are no closer to the truth of things.
Now imagine people come along and legitimately challenge this movement and instead of admitting we have no facts and our theory is really just speculation, we decide to become entrenched in our belief and build a stack of opinion on top of our theory, or worse misapply facts taken out of context or even create phoney or fanciful disinformation to support our argument. Imagine we engage a number of experts in fields related to our theory and hold their qualifications out as a substitute for our lack of facts.
This is simply not an acceptable way in which to proceed. We start with a shaky premiss, draw an unsustainable conclusion and then compound this error by throwing whatever other fuel we can onto the argument even if it is unrelated or taken out of context. This is a fraud and this is primarily what the “truth” movement is engaged in today.
How can I be so sure of this? It’s simple really. Most of the key information that would allow us to discover what really occurred on 911, beyond that which we witnessed directly, has either not been released to the public or is simply unavailable. Do we know, for a fact, that demolition charges were set in the twin towers? Where are the witnesses to prove this? If we don’t have those witnesses or some other conclusive proof then the demolition theory remains just that, a theory. A theory of a conspiracy. A conspiracy theory.
If we persist in formulating conspiracy theories and presenting them to the public then the establishment will continue to gleefully seize on this strategic blunder and use it to effectively neutralise the facts of 911 that they find inconvenient and would prefer not to discuss. Give the establishment talk of laser beams from space and mini-nuclear devices and they’ll take that all the way for a touchdown.
The issue of 911 has become incredibly complicated. I’m not sure how many theories or variations on themes are in circulation now. It must be sweet music to the government’s ears. Because even if one of these theories is correct not all of them can be true. Now that’s a fact. So how do so many theories spring up? And why? What could the motive be for creating a theory which is not supported by facts and then pushing it out to the public as the truth?
Money, would be one motive. It can’t be disputed that several well known “truthers” continue to do rather well financially from 911. Books, speeches, videos, T-shirts, you name it. A few newcomers to the conspiracy scene have made a name for themselves and are now ingrained in the history of 911.
There are others who appear to have a more genuine motive and seemingly would like to discover the truth, even if it doesn’t fit with pre-conceived notions of good guys and evil baddies. You uncover truth when it is hidden by applying reason and logic and by focusing on facts rather than making wild speculation. And by doing your homework, putting in the legwork, verifying the sources, cross referencing the data. Boring and time consuming and less prone to produce immediate headlines but this is the minimum requirement.
Once you have disqualified the profiteers and weeded out those who are well intentioned but work in the realms of theory rather than fact, what do you have left? Not much really, but a few constructive venues for debate remain open. Find them for yourself if you are genuinely interested in getting involved in an extremely complex and diverse investigation.
Here’s a fact for you. If you look at all the criticisms of the truth movement I make above, the same criticisms can be applied to the establishment. Aren’t they pushing their very own conspiracy theory? Have you seen any compelling evidence to suggest their theory is less speculative than any other? Have you been convinced by their theory based on the power of officialdom’s say-so rather than the hard facts?
Osama bin Laden did it! Oh really, based on what facts? A dubiously translated video? The fires caused the collapse of the towers! Is that right? Based on what, an extremely questionable report by NIST? Are you absolutely sure the establishment has presented a solid case for their version of the truth? If so, it should be a simple enough task for you to find that case, somewhere, presented clearly and in its entirety. Go and have a look and good luck.
You might think one of the greatest crimes in history would have been thoroughly investigated and the findings could explain beyond reasonable doubt what happened on 911. But almost the reverse has occurred.
The official investigation is now mired in controversy, subject to criticism not just by the truth movement but by members of its own panel.
NIST’s various reports don’t stand up to even the most basic scrutiny and have been subject to reluctant revision following exposure of flaws in their scientific analysis – flaws so basic that even a high school teacher can highlight the problems (see the video below).
Government has been notable more for its obstruction of the investigative procedure and has spent far more of its time and resources rolling out legislation that curtails the very liberties it supposedly seeks to preserve in the face of terrorism.
Financial anomalies such as strong indicators of insider knowledge of the attacks have been brushed under the media rug.
The official conspiracy theory has as many holes as any speculative masterpiece set out by the truth movement. If you don’t believe me, go and verify this fact for yourself.
So how we will finally discover the real details of 911? Not by crafting grand theories that can never be supported by the facts, but by challenging the alleged facts set out by the establishment and examining the conspiracy theory it is attempting to sell. If this theory can be proven to be faulty we revert to a position of not knowing what happened on 911. And at that point it becomes justifiable to demand a better, more thorough and more open inquiry. But attempting to demand this based on ill-supported theory understandably gets us nowhere.
For as long as we meet one flawed theory with an avalanche of competing speculation we’ll continue to run around in circles, the perpetrators will continue to walk free, the commercially motivated “truthers” will continue to rake in the dollars and the truth will remain beyond our grasp.
The facts of this matter tell a story and they will lead us to a conspiracy that is not based in theory but demonstrable by proof. Certainly there are people who would prefer we don’t go down this route and they’ll throw every possible roadblock in our path. So we need to decide, why are we seeking the truth? For revenge? To be famous? To ensure that justice is done and the events of 911 can never occur again?
And if we can get that motive straight and then chase the facts for all we are worth, the truth may come of it.