So I went to www.st911.org, the site Kevin Barrett mentioned on the Hannity and Colmes clip, and this is what I think:
I agree with Dr. Barrett.
Check out the site and the various others it will lead you to and judge for yourself. Be sure to check this one out,
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
(wonder what Saul would have to say about this)
and also this one, despite the apparent insanity of the last three words of the URL, published in October 2003 by what appears to be the "Nation's Oldest Newspaper" (predating the Declaration of Independence by 20 years). It doesn't directly link to 9/11 but it is quite the read.
http://nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_Link
So I'm either crazy or these people are right and Bush is a tyrannical criminal. Which one is it? Is there a middle ground? Am I missing something? I really think these are important things to figure out, but, then again, I could be crazy.
Note: For some reason, when posting from my laptop, I don't have any options for composition other than the "ABC" with the check under it (spellcheck) and the "post image" icon, so you'll have to copy and paste to go to the sites.
1 comment:
dude, you're not crazy.
but i think gibbo made a really good point in the last thread about how few science people are involved in these claims.
personally, i don't believe that there is any shortage of highly rational, intelligent, and interested scientists in the world who are not afraid to read all information from all sides and make the most rational conclusions from that information. if there is merit to any claims of conspiracy, i have faith that those claims would eventually gain momentum by being supported by people of science and reason. regarding 9/11, there is certainly no shortage of information to research, nor is there any shortage of people affected by those events and their aftermath who are doing research.
i have heard two distinct conspiracies: one is that the government knew the attacks were coming, and stood by in order to fulfill its desires. the second is that it was an inside job. these are two entirely different ideas that would require two entirely different sets of supporting evidence.
there are mountains of information pertaining to the events of 9/11, and i've heard and read about many intriguing loose ends. but until the inconsistencies and loose ends point to a more unified explanation, i'm inclined to think that ideas of conspiracy put forward are the kind of theorizing that occurs when such a devastating event takes place.
Michael Barkun, a political scientist at Syracuse University, said this in an article from the Washington Post entitled "Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet"
"Conspiracy theories are one way to make sense of what happened and regain a sense of control," Barkun said. "Of course, they're usually wrong, but they're psychologically reassuring. Because what they say is that everything is connected, nothing happens by accident, and that there is some kind of order in the world, even if it's produced by evil forces. I think psychologically, it's in a way consoling to a lot of people."
Post a Comment