Sunday, 7 November 2010


There was a time when it would have been imprudent to write this but over the years I've learned that as more people become aware of the events of 911, it has become a sort of byword for open minded critical thinking. I've also learned a few things about polarizing issues. The first is that we can't argue people into adopting a point of view. So please don't think I'm trying. I simply don't need to.

A few years ago I came across the Loose Change video and its audacity floored me. I thought I'd try and research it a bit and find something so inconsistent with its assertions that I could then stop thinking about it. I haven't found that evidence to date.

I'm not the greatest fan of Occam's razor but in this instance it supports claims to the contrary better than the orthodoxy. There's now a second edition of Loose Change and it's a lot tighter than the first. If you haven't seen it yet then you owe it to yourself to do so. It still goes into areas that baffle me completely (The Pentagon. WTF?) But pick the one you can get your head round easiest and stick to it as a litmus test for staking out a postion.

I've found that the visceral response from people who prefer to use the conspiratorial epithet means I should clarify a couple of points in case anybody makes the common mistake of assuming that I'm asserting I know the truth of what happened on 911. The answer is I don't. I do know it wasn't President George W. Bush. But I also know that the people who think a man in a cave plotted the downfall of the United States merit the response 'looks like it worked'. Again a bit too fantastic for my tastes.

If there's one 911 issue that is most awkward to explain. It's the Building 7 puzzle. There's a substantial segment of the population who don't believe something till a familiar news broadcaster says it, or a trusted newspaper prints it. 

That should change soon.

Looks like somebody raised some dough. The following ad is about to air 350 times in the New York area. It should be interesting to see if it creates any outrage. I've found that the implications of coming close to accepting some quasi version of Thomas Becket's apocryphal 'will no one rid me of this troublesome priest' scenario, are so unsettling that irrational defensiveness is a normal response. 

Love to hear from you if you've got a silver bullet theory on Building 7 in the comments below.

NB:This post is dedicated to Will Self. I love Will very much (particularly for Great Apes which is the gift that keeps on giving) but about that disappointing article on conspiracies in The New Statesman? You left yourself a bit naked there as time will tell. To conspire comes from the Old French to breath together

Conspiracies are felonies. Theories aren't. Facts are stubborn things.