Is Questioning Conspiracy / Part 2
In Part 1 (here), I suggested the “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” online video as one of the most reasoned, studiously neutral, and compelling arguments for re-examining the supposed facts of 9/11.
In Part 2 I wanted to point to another, more personal documentary video, but, before doing so, I wanted to point out the way in which I believe the internet and modern communications technology has allowed ordinary individuals to compete with corporate (ie controlled by the super rich) media production and corporate distribution.
On our laptops we now have much of the same capability as these corporations had as recently as 10 years ago. We can, as individuals, do extensive research, assemble cogent arguments, and splice together audio and visual imagery faster and as efficiently as any wealth-compromised corporation. We still don't have the direct access to the heavy duty, slam dunk distribution they own and have at their disposal, but we can post our findings and, if they strike a chord (and we're lucky), they will distribute themselves. The Architects & Engineers video mentioned above has already achieved more than a million views via a multiplicity of channels and sharers. This represents and “end run” insofar as the corporate networks and communication channels have been neatly sidestepped.
The question is, how long will this internet capability remain?
As we speak, unspeakable wealth is being brought to bear in the interests of returning control of the internet to the corporate interests who unwittingly launched it. As we speak our internet rights are fast following our real-life rights down the tubes of “prevention of terrorism”. If they are successful in this, it will inaugurate a dark age the like of which our forebears experienced in medieval times. Many of us feel that this dark age is already upon us; that the unidentified forces which are messing with the facts, history, and our lives are already so much in the ascendancy that only a radical reawakening of the body public will ever stand a chance of fending it off.
But, as promised, a more personal approach to the questions raised by the 9/11 catastrophe. This can be found at “Anatomy of a Great Deception”. This is one man's 1 and a half hour journey through the debris of information and disinformation surrounding that infamous day. He starts from a studiously neutral standpoint with one simple, non-conspiratorial question. Unable to find the answer, the full panoply of other questions begins to blossom before his eyes. Very quickly he finds he is in waist deep and mired in horrifically contradictory stories and theories. His home life descends to an unmanageable low as he struggles to grapple with the implications.
But he perseveres. He plods through the mire in a way which each of us would if we had the time and determination. Throughout he suggests we shouldn't take his word for any of this but provides links and references every step of the way.
At the end, he concludes that he cannot accept the findings of the Commission. He does not offer any explanation as to what might actually have happened or at whose hands. He simply states that he cannot accept the findings and that this opens a whole range of doors and possibilities too vast for him to deal with himself. He finds a degree of peace through having produced the film, but knows he can go no further at that stage.
Does this make him a “conspiracy theorist”?