Early this week was the 16th anniversary of the attacks on America when terrorists hijacked four planes, two of which crashed into the World Trade Centre, New York and another into the Pentagon, and with it great devastation and loss of life. This was quickly followed by President Bush announcing his war on terror and not long after that was the invasion of Afghanistan to go after the perpetrators, followed by that of Iraq under the pretext they had weapons of mass destruction, and then yet more mayhem in the Middle East, such as the rise of Isis, Lybian and Syrian conflict and the refugee crisis.
A friend of mine suggested I might like to blog on the subject, especially in the light of the large number of stories that challenge the official version of what happened on that fateful day. I have to admit the evidence that things were not as the US government would have us believe is compelling, which then brings us to the thorny question of what it is they are trying to cover up and the vexed one of conspiracy theories. Here fear took over – I have already gained a reputation among some of being extreme in my writing and over keen to cite “discredited” sources outside of mainstream media (although some of those sources will say mainstream media is “fake news”). I can therefore well see the attraction of biding my time and keeping to subjects I know where there is consensus or where I feel reasonably secure when it comes to knowledge of the facts and confident I can stand my ground.
Yet having gained the reputation of being outspoken and having little to lose besides my credibility (and possibly my life if I expose those who have the power and inclination to take it), I see no reason to change track, especially given I subscribe the Jesus school of thought about the truth setting one free. The main caveat, besides the TNK (true, necessary and kind) principle I try to keep to, is I need to research my facts before venturing forth with my opinions, although the problem with that is unless we are flies on the wall, with all the time in the world and brains the size of a planet, there are limits if the aim is to present irrefutable back up to one’s claims. On the 9/11 matter, I am inclined toward the ideas put forward by notorious conspiracy theorist, David Icke, the 9/11 attacks were of the false flag ilk with government being involved in its orchestration and covering up of facts, in order to find the pretext to go to war with Iraq and given the hidden hand, globalist, neo-con element that control events and how we perceive them, eventually bring about the one world government that is designed to further their interests.
After deciding to pass on the opportunity until a more convenient time, I changed my mind upon stumbling on an article in The Daily Mail, whose rather long title began “The conspiracies that won’t go away”. I have to admit the Daily Mail is not a newspaper I particularly favour, although as I have pointed out, these days I have become disillusioned with most mainstream media for distorting and withholding facts, and I quite get my liberal, luvvie friends disdain that the Mail all too often demonizes certain groups, such as immigrants, yet unless I have missed something there is little else in mainstream media to challenge the official narrative, which is a shame and begs the question why. What I came across in the Mail, however, was an example of a rather good bit of timely journalism, and the journalist in question, Sue Reid, deserves credit. She did what I wished all journalists did (for many won’t or can’t), and that is to research the relevant facts, evaluate the main arguments and present the case, and as happened in this instance leaving it with readers to make up their own mind how to respond.
“Brother of 9/11 victim claim the US orchestrated the atrocity as new study shows it was impossible that the third tower collapsed from fire. Geoff Campbell, 31, was one of 67 Britons killed in the New York 9/11 attacks. His brother refuses to accept the official line and insists there was a cover-up. Matt Campbell will protest outside BBC Broadcasting House on the anniversary”. Noting that part of the point of contention is the BBC is part responsible for the false narrative gaining sway among a gullible public, the article concludes: “This response — and the question of why the BBC announced the fall of WTC7 before it actually happened — has enraged those fighting for the ‘truth’, such as Matt Campbell. They say a series of 9/11 documentaries put out by the BBC have not been impartial or scientifically accurate. It is why he, and other Britons who disagree with the official version of 9/11, have chosen to make their protest outside BBC headquarters on Monday. This unlikely rebel, a trained theoretical physicist, former IT expert in the City, and now a reflexologist, has refused to pay his BBC licence fee for the past four years. He claims: ‘The BBC has presented information to the public that breaks its own editorial guidelines. In at least one documentary, it removed the sounds of huge explosions going off in WTC7 moments before its collapse. ‘I think my brother Geoff and many others were murdered in an event that conflicts with what we have been officially told. ‘I believe there has been BBC complicity in a deliberate cover-up about how thousands died on that day nearly 16 years ago,’ he said yesterday as he braced himself for the sad anniversary”.
I commend Ms Reid for this piece of journalism and for once give credit to the Daily Mail for allowing it. As people who read my blogs are aware, I have recently taken the BBC to task over other mis-reporting (see here) and this just gets added to an already long list. It is something frightening when government and media collude, aided and abetted by other members of the ‘elite’ class, to promote falsehood for their own, usually not well understood but often sinister, purposes. We live in crazy days with so much going on in the world we do not know or understand. While I get it when some more in the know think (but dare not say) that ignorance is bliss, unless the truth does come out we will be slaves to tyranny.
Update 10/03/18: I make this update not because I have something profound to add regarding what is the correct version concerning 9/11. My view remains: I am skeptical as to the official version of events and I don’t know enough to come to a balanced view. I do not wish to entertain conspiracy theories and while those that do are looked down upon too often conspiracy theories are shown to be fact. I think for example of the JFK assassination. While we may still not know the truth; I am convinced what we were told all those years ago is not the truth. More recently, I fear the same might be said concerning the Las Vegas and Florida shootings. And it is the truth we need to know and people who will declare it.
One thought on “9/11 revisited”
May I bring the following video to your blog readers’ attention:
“SEPTEMBER 11 – THE NEW PEARL HARBOR”
“September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor” is a 5 hour documentary that summarizes 12 years of public debate on 9/11. All the most important issues in the debate are presented in full detail, showing both the positions of those who reject the official version, the 9/11 Truth Movement, and the positions of those who support it, called ‘the debunkers’. You can be the judge.”