The evidence involved in assessing 9/11 comes in many two main forms: first there is evidence in the traditional sense, which can be subdivided into evidence from:
1) Before the day (intelligence/security issues)
2) On the day (military/official response, and the physical evidence relating to the ‘events’)
3) After the day (the signs of a cover-up and fraudulent investigations)
This first form (‘traditional evidence’) has, until recently, been the only fundamental form of evidence used by most members of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Most attention is usually given to physical evidence from on the day of 9/11 itself. It is important to have a good understanding of the evidence for and against each claim that is being made. All this evidence is compelling; the official story has been exposed as false in many, many places and the ways in which it has been proven false suggest that member of the United States government must have been complicit.
There are a variety of beliefs about that dissent from the official story. See Beliefs about 9/11
Before looking at the evidence of 9/11, it is useful to be familiar with the details of the official story and the amount of coincidence, incompetence and sheer luck which is required for events to have happened as the official story dictates. See The Official Account and Coincidences and Luck.
The rest of this chapter looks at this first form of evidence and is divided into the following pages:
However, an even more compelling form of evidence is that relating to the interactions between members of the truth movement and defenders of the official story. Because they are defending a lie, those who try to defend the official story have to use techniques to manipulate their audience into believing that they have successfully 'debunked' the alternative theory. They use a variety of techniques; in many cases they can avoid even discussing the details of the claim being made by simply declaring it a 'conspiracy theory'. Or they can dismiss the alternative theory as 'ridiculous' by appealing to one of the many 'think-stops': such as the idea that "our government couldn't pull this off" perhaps because "too many people would have to be 'in on it'", or the idea that we have proof of the guilt of al Qaeda, or that the attacks have already been investigated, or that 'someone credible' would be endorsing the alternative theory if it were true. In the vast majority of mainstream media articles that have mentioned any alternative theory of 9/11, no claims are even looked at, simply because of the power of appealing to these think-stops.
Members of the public who do not question 9/11 always appeal to these think-stops when confronted with the argument. No argument about evidence is possible because there are unaware of the arguments - when presented with them, they have no response other than the think-stops. Often, no matter what evidence is presented to them, they will not feel compelled to investigate the claims, such is the power of the think-stops in the psyche of the uninformed person.
To be fair, the mainstream media have produced a small number of publications that do go further than the think-stops. Indeed, to someone who is uninformed, it would appear that these publications do successfully 'debunk' the alternative theory. The main way that these mainstream media publications can convince people that they have successfully done what they claim to have done, is by taking advantage of misinformation in the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Misinformation is information that is false, and in this context it refers to misinformation claiming full government complicity, not denying it. An example of this would be the claim that "a missile, not a plane, struck the Pentagon" (the evidence does not support this claim). The existence and prevalence of misinformation within the 9/11 Truth Movement has had a crippling effect, because it works hand-in-glove with mainstream media articles and documentaries that purport to ‘debunk’ the alternative theory.
This is how it works: the mainstream media can say that "Conspiracy theorists claim that a missile, not a plane, hit the Pentagon". Then they can, by examining the evidence, convincingly (and correctly) show that this claim is false. This false claim is mixed with a true claim which, of course, cannot be debunked. They will misrepresent the true claim, or ignore the best evidence behind it, in order to convince the uninformed reader that this claim, too, has been successfully debunked. The misinformation therefore functions as a straw man argument (that is, an argument that is easily defeated or debunked) and the legitimate claims are discredited by association. Mixed with appeals to some think-stops, and characterizations of 'conspiracy theorists', these articles can, to the uninformed, appear to have done what it purports to have done.
But to the informed members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, the blatant, fraudulent techniques that these publications have to resort to is the strongest form of evidence that it is the alternative theory, not the official story, that is the truth.
Next Page: Beliefs about 9/11
No comments:
Post a Comment