Re: 9/11
Reply to: comm-672679223@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-05-08, 5:58AM PDT
As far as I can tell, there have been TWO conspiracy theories advanced to explain the events of that day: the government's and the cynic's.
Only if you look at it simplistically can you really consider it to be ONLY two theories - i.e. (1) the government told us the truth or (2) the government did not tell us the truth. However, if the government did not tell us the truth, then there really are a whole host of issues that arise. Did the government intentionally not tell us the truth? Was there negligence in the investigation? Were there criminal acts? If so, then done by whom and for what purpose? I think you can quickly see that if the government did not tell us the truth, then the number of possible alternative explanations can increase dramatically.
The thing is though, nowadays, we don't seem all that predisposed to needing proof. Look how easily our government was able to conflate 9/11 with an imperative to wage war on Iraq. Had we never travelled down that road I don't think the cynic's theory would have gotten as much traction as it has.
But the point you need to realize is that one can NEVER get proof if there is insufficient investigation! It is like asking a prosecutor to prove that someone is guilty of murder without gathering any fingerprints, DNA samples, ballastic tests, etc. In other words, if a major crime has happened, then it's generally accepted practice to collect as much evidence as possible and to conduct as thorough an investigation as possible. So when we have had the BIGGEST crime of the century, then shouldn't there be a VERY thorough investigation? The fact that the Bush Administration has been so reluctant to allow such an investigation should really raise eyebrows. If they have nothing to fear, then why not encourage more investigation? Just look at it in terms of costs - we spent only $15 million to investigate 9/11.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/faq.htm#q5
By comparison, we spent $40 million investigating the shuttle disaster and more than $30 million investigating Whitewater and many millions more to investigate Monica Lewinsky.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07E3DB1239F932A05750C0A9659C8B63
So what do you consider more worthy of an investigation: the loss of 3000 lives through a major terrorism incident that leads to an expensive war OR a stain on a dress?
- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostingID: 672679223