Saturday, November 29, 2008

LISTEN WITH MOTHER 3

BBC putz Mark Kermode's recent smug patronising non-review of Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11 is beyond grating - to think little old ladies are going to jail for non-payment of the annually extorted licence fee to keep this lard-arsed wanker stocked up in hairgel and his belly full of beefburgers. Ever since 9/11 there's evolved a whole new unpleasantly aggressive breed of what you could loosely describe as conspiracy-deniers who get worked up about anything (even mildly) critical of the anthologically nonsensical official explanation of what transpired and the subsequent justifications for wars and serious incursions into personal freedom.

Just conflate things with various other assiduously handpicked examples such as faked moon landings, Area 51 alien abductions, Princess Diana assassinations and the like. Combine this varsity playground rhetoric with the dubious theory that to question orthodoxy is somehow more 'reassuring' (despite being quite clearly the contrary). It's a strategy used to belittle disapproved-of ideas, and one that also conveniently deflects from directly having to address the issue at hand.

It's as if the very notion of a 'conspiracy' could not by definition exist.

And of course there are fucking conspiracies and conspiratorial cultures at play within all strata of society, constantly. Conspiracies to make things happen, conspiracies to make things not happen, conspiracies to cover up mistakes, conspiracies to cover up embarrassing or sensitive information. Participants can be involved knowingly and unknowingly, and they can occur spontaneously based on shared objectives. Some conspiracies are completely or partially successful, some are completely or partially
bungled. We're all involved, all the time. It's a mess. And getting clear retrospective answers, as even in the simplest court cases, is extremely challenging.

Personally, I admit to still finding the 9/11 case fascinating primarily because so little is still known about what was an extraordinary set of events. The Italian documentary cited above is an exceptionally good one (barring some unnecessarily melodramatic stylistic flourishes); not that it provides many new answers, but because it asks the questions so cheerily well, with some heavyweight contributions by the awesome Gore Vidal and others.

11 comments:

Walter Peck said...

There was a great interview with Gore Vidal on Ch4 news a while back. It's up on YouTube: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GuW_slx6i2s

His parting comment is brilliant (in part 2 of the vid).

This Permanent Now said...

Here's Webster Tarpley's round-up of the event.

William Bennett said...

that Ch4 interview is brilliant, thanks, Walter

Nick said...

Vidal was also great during the bbc's coverage of the presidential election night

WXXX said...

9/11 studies is a rich field indeed, reaching into areas of not only current history, but of espionage, economics, videography, occultism, and perhaps most importantly: physics. This concerns the question of what brought the towers down so quick & completely, evidently with a weapons technology the nature of which we can only guess (see Judy Wood's site)... and which potentially challenges our understanding of physics... Was it some kind of directed energy weapon? or a fusion "micro-nuke"? And deployed by whom? I reserve judgment on the "inside job" question, since terror blackmail on the part of a clandestine organization (albeit with a network of moles implanted in the U.S. gov't, and of which al Qaeda is but a front or a patsy) cannot be ruled out. Tarpley seems to allude to this, though he sits firmly in the truther camp.

The problem with the truthers is that in rejecting the ridiculous official story, they immediately jump to the extreme opposite conclusion... i.e. "they" lie about what really happened, therefore "THEY" did it! To quote the original Manchurian Candidate: "They?... They...? Who is this mysterious THEY!?"

Well, I think "they" (the gov/media complex) lie because if the general public knew who "THEY" are, it would be such a shock, as to utterly disrupt "our" way of doing things, that the foundations of globalist civilization would rupture... But what do you know, seven years later, and this seems to be transpiring anyway; so they only delayed the inevitable.

sm88 said...

The problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories is that while it is reasonable to believe that the U.S. government has not been completely truthful about what happened that day, a bevy of dolts inevitably flock to every theory and a massive clusterfuck of stupidity ensues, as seen in the post above mine. Fusion micro-nuke? Was that ever considered a plausible theory by anyone? Half the reason conspiracy theories are dismissed is because they challenge the accepted notions of the way our world works, the other half is that too many people throw shit at a wall and hope something sticks rather than actually presenting intelligent theories that make some degree of sense or are at all plausible.

WXXX said...

sm88, you obviously haven't delved into the vast arena of 9/11 conspiracy studies. It is a mess, one that is best taken in with a healthy sense of black humor. Indeed, theories range all over the place, from the no planers to Paul Laffoley's claim that explosives were imbedded in the construction of the towers at birth. And yes, the micro nuke hypothesis is seriously considered by this "Finnish military expert" - whoever that might be - among others. Then you have the DEW hypothesis, which in itself a category of weapons that can take many forms. There is far more strange technology coming out of various Military/Industrial Complexes than has been disclosed in your college text-books, son.
Most truthers play it safe (in part for PR reasons) with Steven Jones' thermite hypothesis, since it doesn't challenge "the accepted way the world works," for those who prefer the comfort of what they "know" to curiosity for that which they do not know.

sm88 said...

Thanks for the links. The "Finnish military expert" seems to have based his entire hypothesis off of one photograph (or rather 2 spliced together). I'm of the belief that the planes did indeed bring down the towers and while there is evidence that the official explanation is not the absolute truth I've yet to see an airtight alternative.

Catnapping said...

Thanks for those links, WXXX.

I'm still waffling on the reaches of this conspiracy...I'm certain that those two towers didn't fall (and so perfectly) just from the fuel of two crashed jets, but I don't believe we had something going with Israel over this.

I think Cheney knew they were coming. I think he used the attack. I think he set things up so that micro-explosions would help bring that building down.

Watching this last 8 years go by has been like rereading the books my mother made me read as a child...regarding the events and world mood preceding the actual holocaust - how Hitler and his henchman manipulated europe through the use of choreography, control of the press, and the human need to belong to something they perceive as sacred, momentous...

Odile Lee said...

Martin Amis wrote a most excellent book on this, uncovering the seemingly infallible method of the far left ( hey man, I don't make the rules. I don't even work here!) - to make endless excuses for what is actually ( in this type of religious fanaticism) is psychopathy.
Brilliant and a must read.

Miss Kerry said...

Martin Amis wrote a most excellent book on this, uncovering the seemingly infallible method of the far left ( hey man, I don't make the rules. I don't even work here!) - to make endless excuses for what is actually ( in this type of religious fanaticism) is psychopathy.
Brilliant and a must read.