Friday, August 29, 2008It may seem too obvious to mention, but I'm going to mention it anyway. Sometimes when we fail to mention the obvious, we get off on the wrong foot and then everything else we do turns out wrong -- and we don't even know why.
And maybe people are saying this all over the place; I don't know. I don't get out much. If I'm adding one more voice to the choir, so be it. If I'm singing a new song all by myself, that's ok too. It wouldn't be the first time.
If you're doing an investigation -- any kind of investigation -- if you're looking into a murder, or a plane crash, or a structural failure, or a suspicious fire, or -- God forbid -- a complex series of events involving all of these things -- you want to start with the physical evidence.
"Bring me the body," you would say, "and the murder weapon, if you can find it." You'd want to see the remains, the wreckage, and/or the scene of the crime, as soon as possible after the event. Physical evidence is the basis of all physical sciences, and you'd be looking to recreate the event based on the remaining physical evidence.
If that evidence were not available, you'd do two things. First, you'd find out why the evidence was unavailable. And if it turned out that the evidence had been destroyed, you'd find out who did that. This person or group of people would move to the top of your list of suspects.
Second, you'd turn to eyewitness (or camera-witness) accounts of the event. You'd interview everybody you could find who was there at the time; you'd examine all the still or moving images of the scene that you could get your hands on. Here your job would be much tougher than if you were working with physical evidence, because witnesses can lie or make mistakes, and video evidence can be tampered with; so everything you collected would have to be validated before it could be used.
But -- if you were running an honest investigation -- you'd have no choice but to gather up all this possibly conflicting testimony and try to piece together the event that the testimony purports to describe.
By their own account, this is exactly what the NIST investigators looking into the destruction of World Trade Center 7 failed to do. They didn't have access to any of the physical evidence, but they didn't see this as a problem; rather than trying to find out who destroyed the evidence and focusing on them as suspects, the NIST investigation turned to the next problem: the eyewitness accounts.
Predictably, NIST didn't pay any attention to the eyewitnesses either, despite the fact that so many of them were trained to respond to emergency situations. The firemen and paramedics who were heroes on 9/11 and in the weeks thereafter were nowhere to be seen in the NIST account of the event, which was based on nothing more than a computer simulation.
In short words, NIST ran as far away from reality as they could get. And they came back with a ludicrous conclusion, telling us that they'd identified a whole new phenomenon that can destroy a skyscraper -- without a shred of physical or other evidence to back up their conclusion.
It would be laughable, if it were not so much worse than that. But the media lap it up and ladle it out, all while pouring scorn on those of us who dare to point out how laughable it all is, or would be, if it weren't so tragic.
It's no wonder that I've come unhinged.
The remarkable thing is that so many other people have remained hinged!
Have we really fallen so far through the looking glass that we can now take transparent lies from our government and media in stride?
Well, I'm sorry, but I can't do it.
I couldn't do it three years ago, either, when I wrote about 9/11 and hinges in a different way:
America wasn't at war [in the summer of 2001]. "911" was the number you dialed in the event of an emergency: it had no terrorist connotation. Not yet, anyway.Some questions just don't go away.
Look at us now, just four years later. We've got unimaginable trouble at home and unspeakable horror abroad. And the mainstream media [which was already weak four years ago] is now so frail that it cannot stand to show us any of it. Network television is utterly disconnected from reality, and the American government continues to move in a very unhealthy direction, at record speed. How could this have happened?
If it was all planned in advance, then the hinge was 9/11.
And guess what? 9/11 was the hinge, even if it wasn't all planned in advance.
But ... do you ever wonder how that single hinge could allow everything to swing so far so quickly -- unless it was all planned in advance?
Does it ever seem to you that our present situation -- and the future it entails -- makes much more sense if it was all planned in advance, than if it wasn't?