Or, the dog that didn't bark...
Shortly after the destruction of the World Trade Centre, I read an
interesting article by Gore Vidal (no less) about the surprising tardiness by the US Air Force (actually NORAD)
interceptions that would normally have occurred as soon
as the airliners went off course, but I didn't really give the matter
much thought until recently. In any case, the scale (and
viciousness) of the implications that followed if they really had
been stood down remains hard to deal with.
An
explanation did emerge that may be true, although they did have three years to think of it!
Since the 5th anniversary of the event, however,
I have read enough to convince me that the offical line
was always a complete fabrication, and the only thing that really
bothers me now is why I let myself be taken in for so long.
Bush and Cheney lying is hardly news, after all (Blair's been
doing it for years), but I suppose it's the scale of the deceit that's
hard to assimilate, which is why so many people prefer not to
think about it.
I really try very hard not to become a conspiracy theorist
(I generally prefer the cock-up explanation of history), but
in this case, the official explanation IS the conspiracy, and
there are one or two questions that won't go away, like why
the interceptors didn't intercept, and why did the Twin
Towers collapse in a way that is normally only
achievable with controlled (explosive) demolition? What
about the third building (
WTC7) that collapsed in seconds,
despite not having been hit by anything? (Once you start
considering the implications, it becomes plausible that the
third aircraft, Flight 93, was intended to hit it, and something
had to be done quickly when it didn't.) Somewhere, there is
an interesting video clip of a female BBC reporter with her back
to Building 7 and describing its collapse (as she is told through
her earpiece) while the building remains stubbornly upright
behind her! It then collapses...
You can Google your way to any number of sites about this,
if you are interested, but I provide
this link as a useful starting
point. The link with the
Oklahoma bombing is also scary
and/or interesting, depending on your point of view!
This all reminds me of the famous Sherlock Holmes 'curious
incident of the dog in the night-time' (whose
inaction was the
curious incident) as lots of things that should have happened
didn't, and evidence that should be widespread isn't.
To be fair, it is possible to find inconsistencies in either
argument, and of course the topic has attracted a host of
'conspiraloons' who do not make comfortable bedfellows.
However, the point that strikes me is that the official
line has to hold up completely, whereas if any of the doubters'
claims turns out to be true, then you know someone in
authority is lying. And once you start...
As WTC7.net says: "The unexplained collapse of Building 7
is the tip of the iceberg of unexplored issues of the
September 11th attack."
H L Mencken was certainly right (and prescient) when he
wrote: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the
populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of
them imaginary.”
This guy seems to have a better grip on it than most - it seems telling that he lost his job as a result.
