Super Truther

After I die, I want to be reincarnated as a conspiracy theorist. That way, I could spend years burying myself in the minutiae of newspaper reports, eyewitness testimony, chemical tests, and obscure facts about weather balloons, ballistics and train timetables...without ever having to get involved in the real world.

How nice to be lost in a haze of suggestive recondrite contradictory factoids, and communicate only with people who share my obsessions, hermetic and hermitlike.

They say the twin towers collapsed vertically, just like in a controlled demolition of a towerblock. Except that in controlled demolitions, each part of the building is in simultaneous freefall, whereas when the towers collapsed the upper levels fell onto the lower, like vertical dominoes.

The steel frame of the tower might weaken enough to collapse if heated by enough jet fuel on fire. But there wasn't such a fire. Except some footage suggests there was. And in any case steel doesn't suddenly weaken when it reaches a certain temperature - it happens progressively.

The "third" tower was undamaged until it suddenly collapsed. Except it was actually badly damaged on the other side. Some witnesses said they saw a missile, and others a non-commercial plane hit the towers - though most didn't.

Why did the ambulance carrying Diana Spencer take forty five minutes to get to a hospital twelve minutes away? Unless it was actually thirty minutes and had a breakdown. Unless the breakdown was faked to give time to perform an abortion and (badly?) cover up evidence of pregnancy.

What happened to the mysterious white car, just how fast was Diana's car really travelling, was the driver drunk, was he that drunk, did the lights in the subway fail and was that deliberate?

According to Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", it would take a minimum of fourteen seconds to fire three shots from the bookstore where Oswald worked. The FBI put the figure more around seven seconds. So does this make a difference? And did the rifle have a defective sight or not? And was Oswald a good marksman or not? And is it possible to shoot through that much tree cover?

Was it Oswald shot Tippet, and if so how did he get to that crime scene in however many minutes it was, why did he double back and how did the police know where to find him? And if Jack Ruby was an agent why did he die in jail?

"9/11 Truthers", as they like to be known, are obviously right when they say the war on terror is just as big a fraud as the war on drugs, invading Iraq is about keeping oil in American industries and out of Chinese ones, and the threat from terrorists is at best exaggerated.

They're also right most of the time to disbelieve anything their government wants them to believe, and to hold the most cynical expectations of the CIA and military.

The details dug up by the best truthers are highly intriguing, and the arguments over the science fascinating. But it all boils down to one question: What kind of government agency would threaten the lives of its own colleagues and bosses, its political leaders, and its corporate associates for the sake of a giant propaganda stunt?

Is this scenario plausible?

The CIA, or some group within it, or some other government organisation, plans a wave of invasions of the middle east to secure oil supplies, and needs to manufacture some justification.

They decide that destroying the twin towers and blaming it on the middle east would do the job. They know that the towers are a major hub of the corporations which control the government and dictate the need to secure oil supplies in the first place. But what the hell, it'll look great on TV.

They also decide that destroying the white house would add to the justification. Who's in the white house they might not want to kill? No one much. Or let's be charitable and say they only decide to fake an attempt to do it.

And finally they decide on the best justification of all - an attack on the pentagon itself, hopefully killing many of their colleagues for maximum effect.

They sit back and ask themselves: would these events justify a war? And they answer yes.

Then they ask: is there some other way the war could be justified? It's late and they're tired, so they answer no.

Then: Aren't we going to kill a load of our co-workers, friends and superiors? They shrug and say "ce la vie".

And finally: What will the rest of the CIA (or whoever) do to us if/when they find out what we've done? They smile nervously and say "No one will ever find out. We're safe".

Not really.

For what it's worth, I think the British royal family could adapt to the ex-wife of the third in line to the throne having a muslim child - if indeed she was going to have one - without calling in the James Bond squad. Though others say I underestimate the racism of these people.

I think the CIA were quite capable of publicly killing their own nominal commander-in-chief for some reason that would seem trivial now. As were the mafia, and maybe the KGB or even a team whackjobs who met at the NRA and were amazingly lucky to get away with it.

I think Bob Marley did die of cancer, Tchaikovsky was not in a suicide pact, Rasputin wasn't gay, the Bilderberg group are a private club not a secret society, Robert Maxwell probably wasn't a MossAd agent, Jeff Rense is immensely gullible, David Icke is mentally ill...and floridation has no effect on either dental health or brain chemistry.

1 comment:

  1. Great idea, Captain! Showing your credencials! Bravo!
    Best wishes! :-)