Gold9472
01-17-2005, 08:15 PM
It's A "Coverup" Not A "Conspiracy Theory
One of the favorite arguments for people who bash the "9/11 Truthers" is that we're "conspiracy theorists".
Simply by throwing out that adjective denounces EVERYTHING the "9/11 Truthers" are trying to do.
The reason is people who are labeled "conspiracy theorists" somehow lose all credibility.
People think the word "conspiracy" means "made up fairy tale".
HOWEVER, the word was created for a reason.
It's true definition in the dictionary is as follows:
con·spir·a·cy*
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
Now, if you can honestly say that there is NO EVIDENCE of a "Coverup" in regards to the 9/11 Investigation, then I want to hear about it.
Here are the things that stand out to me even without the knowledge of my research.
1. The Bush Administration did everything to block the creation of the "9/11 Commission".
2. The Bush Administration appointed people to the "9/11 Commission" themselves. That's like choosing your own jury in your own murder trial.
3. George W. Bush, and Richard Cheney REFUSED to testify under oath, and REFUSED to testify publicly, even though the "9/11 Commission" had the POWER to subpoena them.
4. Condoleeza Rice originally REFUSED to testify at all, and originally had Richard Armitage (a known drug smuggler) take her place.
Based on these four facts alone, it's safe to assume that someone didn't want us to REALLY do a THOROUGH investigation into 9/11.
Doesn't that constitute a "Coverup"?
On that note, I leave you with one of my favorite excerpts from a book I HIGHLY recommend called, "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin.
"Conspiracy Theories"
Before turning to the evidence, however, we should pause to consider the fact, to which allusion has been made, that it seems widely assumed that any such case can be rejected a priori by pointing out that it is a "conspiracy theory". Indeed, it almost seems to be a requirement of admission into public discourse to announce that one rejects conspiracy theories. What is the logic behind this thinking? It cannot be that we literally reject the very idea that conspiracies occur. We all accept conspiracy theories of all sorts. We accept a conspiracy theory whenever we believe that two or more people have conspired in secret to achieve some goal, such as to rob a bank, defraud customers, or fix prices. We would be more honest, therefore, if we followed the precedent of Michael Moore, who has said: "Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories, except the one that are true."
To refine this point slightly, we can say that we accept all those conspiracy theories that we believe to be true, while we reject all those that we believe to be false. We cannot, therefore, divide people into those who accept conspiracy theories and those who reject them. The division between people on this issue involves simply the question of which conspiracy theories they accept and which ones they reject.
To apply this analysis to the attacks of 9/11: It is false to suggest that those who allege that the attacks occurred because of official complicity are "conspiracy theorists" while those who accept the official account are not. People differ on this issue merely in terms of which conspiracy theory they hold to be true, or at least most probable. According to the official account, the attacks of 9/11 occurred because of a conspiracy among Muslims, with Osama Bin Laden being the chief conspirator. Revisionists reject that theory, at least as a sufficient account of what happened, maintaining that the attacks cannot be satisfactorily explained without postulating conspriracy by officials of the US government, at least in allowing the attacks to succeed. The choice, accordingly, is simply between (some version of) the received conspiracy theory and (some version of) the revisionist conspiracy theory.
Which of these competing theories we accept depends, or at least should depend, on which one we believe to be better supported by the relevant facts. Those who hold the revisionist theory have become convinced that there is considerable evidence that not only suggests the falsity of the received conspiracy theory, which we are calling "the official account," but also points to the truth of the revisionist theory. I turn now to that evidence."
One of the favorite arguments for people who bash the "9/11 Truthers" is that we're "conspiracy theorists".
Simply by throwing out that adjective denounces EVERYTHING the "9/11 Truthers" are trying to do.
The reason is people who are labeled "conspiracy theorists" somehow lose all credibility.
People think the word "conspiracy" means "made up fairy tale".
HOWEVER, the word was created for a reason.
It's true definition in the dictionary is as follows:
con·spir·a·cy*
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
Now, if you can honestly say that there is NO EVIDENCE of a "Coverup" in regards to the 9/11 Investigation, then I want to hear about it.
Here are the things that stand out to me even without the knowledge of my research.
1. The Bush Administration did everything to block the creation of the "9/11 Commission".
2. The Bush Administration appointed people to the "9/11 Commission" themselves. That's like choosing your own jury in your own murder trial.
3. George W. Bush, and Richard Cheney REFUSED to testify under oath, and REFUSED to testify publicly, even though the "9/11 Commission" had the POWER to subpoena them.
4. Condoleeza Rice originally REFUSED to testify at all, and originally had Richard Armitage (a known drug smuggler) take her place.
Based on these four facts alone, it's safe to assume that someone didn't want us to REALLY do a THOROUGH investigation into 9/11.
Doesn't that constitute a "Coverup"?
On that note, I leave you with one of my favorite excerpts from a book I HIGHLY recommend called, "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin.
"Conspiracy Theories"
Before turning to the evidence, however, we should pause to consider the fact, to which allusion has been made, that it seems widely assumed that any such case can be rejected a priori by pointing out that it is a "conspiracy theory". Indeed, it almost seems to be a requirement of admission into public discourse to announce that one rejects conspiracy theories. What is the logic behind this thinking? It cannot be that we literally reject the very idea that conspiracies occur. We all accept conspiracy theories of all sorts. We accept a conspiracy theory whenever we believe that two or more people have conspired in secret to achieve some goal, such as to rob a bank, defraud customers, or fix prices. We would be more honest, therefore, if we followed the precedent of Michael Moore, who has said: "Now, I'm not into conspiracy theories, except the one that are true."
To refine this point slightly, we can say that we accept all those conspiracy theories that we believe to be true, while we reject all those that we believe to be false. We cannot, therefore, divide people into those who accept conspiracy theories and those who reject them. The division between people on this issue involves simply the question of which conspiracy theories they accept and which ones they reject.
To apply this analysis to the attacks of 9/11: It is false to suggest that those who allege that the attacks occurred because of official complicity are "conspiracy theorists" while those who accept the official account are not. People differ on this issue merely in terms of which conspiracy theory they hold to be true, or at least most probable. According to the official account, the attacks of 9/11 occurred because of a conspiracy among Muslims, with Osama Bin Laden being the chief conspirator. Revisionists reject that theory, at least as a sufficient account of what happened, maintaining that the attacks cannot be satisfactorily explained without postulating conspriracy by officials of the US government, at least in allowing the attacks to succeed. The choice, accordingly, is simply between (some version of) the received conspiracy theory and (some version of) the revisionist conspiracy theory.
Which of these competing theories we accept depends, or at least should depend, on which one we believe to be better supported by the relevant facts. Those who hold the revisionist theory have become convinced that there is considerable evidence that not only suggests the falsity of the received conspiracy theory, which we are calling "the official account," but also points to the truth of the revisionist theory. I turn now to that evidence."