> WHO planted the charges?


I don't know and frankly don't care. That isn't the point.

The point is the official version, which has been used to justify all sort
of horrible actions, is not true. Or at least is not entirely true.

This isn't a search for the "one truth." It's an attempt to show that the
real problems are "the things everyone knows, that just aren't so."

My father had a problem with not knowing the answer to something. If he was
asked a question, and he didn't know the answer, he would often just BS his
way through it. But more than that, questions with answers that were
patently unknowable really bothered him. He would make up explanations and
violently believe them so that he could feel comfortable that he knew the
answer. In his mind, cancer was, with out question, caused by radio
transmissions and was curable by sitting under a blanket made with steel
wool inside it. This was an otherwise reasonable man with an education and
career in electro-mechanical engineering.

I think many people suffer this fear of not knowing. 

It is my opinion that the bulk of the people of the USA have accepted the
official findings of 9/11 without question despite glaring inconsistencies
simply because it feels better to do so. I do not claim to know the "true"
or "correct" answer. But it seems obvious to me that no one else has
reported the entire truth either.

Pop quiz: The 9/11 hijackers (as per the official report) were: A) Iraqi B)
French C) Afghani D) Saudi Arabian ?

Most of the people on this list will probably answer correctly. But...

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=508 As of Oct
2004: "37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who
attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544 As of Feb
2005 "44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked
the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in
November)."

And how does that cognitive distortion happen? Well, I don't really know.
But I THINK that it goes something like this: "A) We invaded Iraq. B) I
supported that because of 9/11. C) The hijackers must have been Iraqi." The
reasoning is not based on logic or facts, but rather on what makes us feel
comfortable. Again, this is just my hypothesis.

But in any case, if the public mind is so ready to edit the solid truth on
this point, for what ever reason, could it be that our acceptance of the
rest is hastened beyond reason?

My concern is that the same thing happens with all the facts surrounding the
9/11 attack. Something bad happens, we really want a target for our anger,
the official report says it was done by these terrorists, everybody jumps on
the band wagon and goes off to war. I don't feel that the official report
fully explains the details of that incident and I'm fascinated by engineers
and scientists and the reactions to the physical facts and physics of one
part that really doesn't hold up at all.

If the hijackers did not destroy building 7, and someone (anyone, who cares
who) did have the ability to destroy building 7 in the same event, then how
can we be sure that the hijackers, and not this other bogyman, actually
destroyed the towers at all? I'm not saying they didn't, I'm just saying
that we should not be so comfortable with the idea that they did.

I'm not saying that some form of retaliation is not necessary, but we need
to be darn sure of who we retaliate against, and I don't think we are.

---
James.
 
P.S. the answer (official version) is B and D. Absolutely NOT A. And no
evidence of funding from Iraq was ever found.


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist