When seeking the truth is about doing the opposite

I have a problem with calling 911 conspiracy buffs 'truthers'. Can't we call them something more accurate, like 911 conspiracy buffs?  I realize they are the ones who coined the name for themselves but really, need we go along? 'Truthers' are not even traditional conspiracy buffs. Normal buffs use their conspiracy theories to solves mysteries or to answer questions which have not been sufficiently answered by the 'official narrative'.  I suppose sometimes it takes a conspiracy and a convoluted line of reasoning to explain events that simple logic and investigation cannot. In the case of the trade center bombing the role of the conspiracy theory is quite different.
  First off, for those who have forgotten or never knew, the 911 attack was conducted by a number (19) arabs in the al qaida terrorist organization. The leader and some of the actual participants were Saudi Arabians. Members took flying lessons in America, smuggled carpet knives on board, commandeered the aircraft and crashed them into the world trade centers and the pentagon and (due to the efforts of some passengers), an empty field. Osama Bin Laden was implicated and accepted responsibility. That's the official version. It is also one that fits in well with the facts.  Included is the well established fact of islamic suicide bombers and Bin Laden's expressed interest in using aircraft for terror purposes.
    So what is the truthers' theory? A good  question, but one without a good answer. The problem is that there are so many out there. Like all kooky conspiracy theories, this one evolves in response to changing memes and in response to criticisms. Basically however, they assert that the attack was an inside job. George Bush/the CIA/Mossad/ Big oil set the whole thing up in order to justify an attack on Iraq/destroy evidence stored in building number 7/forward some evil zionist world control plot. They did this by means of brainwashed arabs who thought they were terrorists/suicidal CIA and or Mossad agents posing as arab terrorists/just blowing up the buildings and claiming it was aircraft (my favourite) or using remote controlled 747's, utilizing an override switch. The evidence supporting these manifold theories is abundant and varied, from leaked autopsies, to passenger manifests, the black boxes, explosive residue on site,  pictures of the pentagon, you name it. All you have to do is Google it. Any idiot can find it. More importantly any idiot (the idiot part is mandatory) can believe it. The same idiots who mistrust the footage of the moon landing nonetheless are willing to take the word of any crazy fool on the 'net who claims to have evidence of a big cover up.
      Addressing the manifold pieces of 'evidence' is like trying to slay a hydra. People will believe what they want to believe. I also contend that it is possible to find 'evidence' on the web to support any contention you could imagine. The internet is full of BS. We all know it. It is a little easier to address the who and why and how in terms of logic.
     Most truthers agree that it was the government of the US, under George Bush that was the culprit. Not the whole government of course, just George Bush and some of his evil allies, using agents and such. Whether it was the Jews playing puppet master or just George himself trying to impress his dad, they all think  the president was the one who did it. His motive for doing such a thing is less clear. I refuse to address the whole Mossad thing. The anti jew (yes jew, not zionist you bull shitters out there) derangement precludes the use of logic. There is no point in arguing with someone who hates so much they are willing to put a jewish face on every villain. So what were Bush's motives? There seem to be two main themes here.
    The most popular involves the president's desire of another war in Iraq. In order to please his dad/ capture all the oil rights for Haliburton/steal the Iraqis oil/ kill arabs to sate his blood lust, George Bush dreamed up and executed the elaborate 911 false flag terrorist attack. There are serious problems with this theory. For one thing, at no point was there an effort to blame Iraq for the attack. Certainly an organization which could pull of 911 and fool billions of people could have also managed to implicate the people they wanted to take revenge on. Iraq and Al quaida were enemies, not allies. More to the point, the war in Iraq was justified by the (as it turns out inaccurate) reports that the Iraqis were making weapons of mass destruction. Surely if you wanted justification for attacking Iraq, you would have used a bombing or nerve gas attack, rather than what happened on 911. After all, we didn't attack Iraq to prevent them from building  air liners. It is also important to note that months passed between 911 and the Iraq war. It seems reasonable that an administration trying to use fear and revenge as justification would not have allowed so much time to pass.
    The other suggested motive that i have heard was that Bush needed to destroy evidence that was going to be used to convict him of something or other. I don't recall the details, and I won't address the likelihood that  a US president had much to fear, regardless of the evidence. The real telling point here is that people are willing to believe that George Bush would be willing to kill thousands of americans, including women, children, friends of his, and hundreds of thousands of foreigners just to keep himself from getting a slap on the wrist in an american court.  There is no precedent for this type of crime. Of all the mass murderers throughout history, none had so petty a motive. If true, it would mean that George Bush was probably the most evil person in history.  Really? Somehow I just don't  see it.
     If George  wanted to destroy evidence in one of the world trade center buildings why didn't he destroy the building directly? Would it not have been easier to blow up the building with a huge truck full of explosives and incendiaries? Surely they could have taken out the whole block just to make it less obvious. No, I suppose it made much more sense to fly jets into the twin towers, then use demolition charges to make them fall, knowing that enough debris would fall on building 7 to light it up. Then they just had to use the massive demolition charges they had secreted in building 7 (after working hours ) to drop the building and watch it burn. Throw in some other planes, aimed at the pentagon and white house just to throw folks off the scent. Yes, that is much simpler and so much less risky than just firing up a truck bomb or 5 with Allahu Akbar written on the side.
    The complexity of the 911 conspiracy theory (which ever one you like) is the key weakness. All of the theories end up being so much more complicated and risky and evil than the accepted story. The other problem is consistency. The shadowy government figures manage to pull off an immensely complicated false flag attack but then fail to find a single piece of evidence of weapons of mass destruction in the Iraqi war zone. What happened there? Did Bush's chief covert operator go on vacation? I am sure a man evil enough to murder thousands of his own citizens would not hesitate to kill few million to avoid being made a fool of in Iraq.
    When these theories first began people were actually denying that there were any planes involved! Then they settled on the pentagon plane not being a plane at all (based on a dodgy picture). There was a lot of argument about whether the towers were intentionally demolished (based on incorrect and simplistic engineering 'facts'). Now it turns out that the planes were flown by remote control (by Americans of course) and that there were no arab terrorists at all (the passengers of flight 93 must have been so surprised that they had dreamed it all up).  This last bit of nonsense evolved as a response to doubts about whether you could find american pilots willing to kill themselves by crashing planes full of people into buildings. What does it say about people who are willing to believe you can find agents ready to murder thousands of people using human bombs but unwilling to believe that you could find suicidal maniacs who would do so? It tells you that they are not really using logic or common sense, they are just trying to create a scenario that fits the narrative they believe.
    Which brings us full circle. Truthers are misnamed. They are not interested in the truth. They are interested in promoting an anti Bush, or anti government or even an anti Israel narrative. They are not even trying to exonerate an unfairly accused arab group. Bin Laden and al Quaida did not deny their responsibility. Truthers are motivated in the same way as the Egyptians who accuse the Israelis of causing shark attacks and hepatitis outbreaks. Hatred.
    On a final sad note I see the the Boston marathon bombings were an inside job. Despite all the evidence, including a police chase involving grenades and fire fights and dozens of witnesses, some people prefer to point out apparent homeland security presence a the event as proof positive of a false flag operation. This time it is president Obama who is murdering us in order to increase government control. One believes what one wants to believe i guess.
 

Plus ca change.....

Wow, I read my last two posts before looking at the dates they were posted. Things move a lot more slowly than we realize. My wit for one thing. I have not written much on here for a year, and I don't know why. Of course, it doesn't matter much since things don't really change much around here in so short a time. At least some things don't.
     A long time ago, when pen pal ads were free and Gmail had a dating/ friendship service i used to troll for email pals. I could respond to a number of posts asking for friends and I even threw out a few pleas myself. I got a fair number of responses and corresponded with folks from Quebec, Australia, Zimbabwe and the US.    Friends came and went, some lasting years, some only a letter or two. It was fun and educational. What was both striking and kinda sad was what I realized after getting a letter from a long lost pen pal a while back. WHen I wrote her back my letter was very much the same as the last one I had sent her, more than 2 years earlier. I was still working on the houses i was renovating. I was still trying to be a farmer. I was still off into the same bush a few months a year for real work. Those things are what i do for work i suppose and as such they are bound to remain fairly constant. The problem is that I always thought of my life as being full of adventure and freedom. I think perhaps that self employment is a little further from the promised land than i thought.
    More distressing still is the astounding speed at which time flies by as one gets a little older. It is impossible for me to grasp that my eldest is 18 when it was only last summer ( a month or two ago really) that he was 16. The girls are 16 already! Thank God that they are all still children at heart. I cannot imagine what it will be like when I am in my 60's, 70's or 80's! My theory is that ten years for an octogenarian is like 10 days for a 50 year old. Therefor I am unwilling to sacrifice all those things i so dearly love (bacon, cinnamon buns, meat, candy, pop, loose women) in order to live an extra 10 or 20 minutes.
     

This is Us:

It is the middle class itself that has insisted on its own enfeeblement with continual demands for the regulation of daily life and for insisting on the elevation of concerns such as animal rights and the environment as if nobody would have to pay or as if there were a source of unlimited wealth to draw on.

Wisdom From Lord Moncton.

" It was the age of reason that built the West and made it prosperous and free. The age of reason gave you your great Constitution of liberty. It is the power of reason, the second of the three great powers of the soul in Christian theology, that marks our species out from the rest of the visible creation, and makes us closest to the image and likeness of our Creator. I cannot stand by and let the forces of darkness drive us unprotesting into a new Dark Age.”

Is it Just me? Of course it is.

OK, since nobody else is going to say it I will. Where is it written that UN, US or any other intervention is called for in Syria? I think anyone with a brain realises that Libya had nothing to do with saving a few thousand rebel 'freedom fighters' and everything to do with removing Ghadafi and getting a new, helpless regime installed from which Europe could extract more oil and concessions. No? So we in the west always support people who are killed by their government? I think that would be news in Sudan.
   But all quibbles and evil western motives aside, the question in my mind is what right we have to interfere. This isn't Korea, or Kosovo, or even Viet Nam. There is no shadowy superpower trying to overthrow the Syrian government. On the contrary, the Syrian government is trying to suppress a revolt. The protesters are not protesters, they are revolutionaries, as anyone in Egypt, or Libya could tell you. One might not support the Syrian style of govt. but it is as legitimate a govt. in the worlds eyes as the Canadian govt. is. SO why is it OK for the world to get involved with Syria's revolt when we would not want that sort of interference in our country?
  The year is 2019. The federal NDP government, responding to the concerns of American and European activist and governments has shut down Oil sand production and introduced a hefty carbon tax on oil and gas development. The provincial government of Alberta has been driven into massive deficit and unemployment has spiked to 22 percent in the western provinces (with the exception of the lower mainland of BC, which no longer uses the term: unemployment, preferring the term 'government funded arts and recreation sabattical' for which it compiles no statistics (since it has been shown that statistics often offend the people involved).
    Large demonstrations break out in major cities in the west, expanding to the rural areas and the oilfields, eventually shutting off oil and gas supplies to the east. Police and army are unable to quell the protests and secondary protests against the hardships caused by fuel disruption begin in eastern Canada. The federal NDP, concerned about falafel shipments rotting for lack of transport orders a crackdown. Violence ensues and escalates. The western provinces are awash with anger and the populace declare the government of Canada as illegitimate due to the violence used against their mostly peaceful protests.
    Here is where it gets interesting. The US and Mexico, both under several severe fuel constraints, and wanting the oilsands back on line (so they can condemn them while buying the oil) decide that they must act against the imminent slaughter of western canucks at the hands of the evil federal government of Canada. Accordingly, they begin supplying the most radical elements of the western protesters with advanced weapons and commence bombing the shit out of every communication facility, airstrip, CBC station and the Prime Ministers house (they had info that he had a shortwave radio in there). After torching the country and turning it over to the rednecks (who basically just go home, secure and happy in the belief that the federal government will never be heard from again) the US offers aid and advice on how to deliver our good more cheaply and efficiently, while educating the new, weak government on the benefits of selling our resources directly to American and Mexican concerns (who just happen to be super PAC contributors).
   Couldn't happen here? Sure, you are probably right. But it can and did happen in a few other countries last year, and folks are itching for another go. So how would you like it if it DID play out that way here in Canada. To put anti Western sentiment in perspective, how would you fell towards the Americans and Mexicans after the above scenario?
  Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing isn't it?

Mindless

Is it just me or is it almost impossible to think without verbalising your thoughts inside your head? I find I talk to myself (silently) when i am trying to form arguments or thoughts. Of course i don't need to do so when i am talking to someone or when i am writing (typing) things out. I don't remember a time when i was not thins way, even studying for school, so what gives? When i dream i think very clearly. It must be all the mental noise cluttering up my conscious mind.

To all the Arab Spring enthusiasts:

Screw You.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/muslim-brotherhood-takes-lead-in-egypt-vote-count-1.398753
  It was bad enough I had to listen to ridiculous talking heads prattle on about how the muslim brotherhood is a secular organisation, or that the protesters were fighting for the pursuit of happiness, but to have so many supposedly intelligent people confuse democracy with freedom really turned my stomach. So now all you supporters (and the untold millions in the 'I don't know, but I am hopeful ' group can see what democracy can lead to in an arabic country. Egypt WAS our ally (of a sort) and WAS one of only two countries in the Arab world to recognise Israel. It IS now another islamist hole, bent on it's own destruction and that of the only free nation in the Middle East.
    Take a bow.