Guardian Columnist and Dubious 9/11 Theories...

[conspiracy analyst]

or how to justify your job for the next above inflation payround...

So the US cannot organise the blowing up of three buildings on its own soil yet it can organise a pre-planned invasion of Afghanistan then Iraq and can operate military bases in at least 50 countries world wide.

When will these clowns who are labelled as journalists finally graduate from primary school and stop peddling nonsense?...

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------




So, you believe in conspiracy theories, do you? You probably also think you're the Emperor of Pluto
All comments (482)

* Charlie Brooker
*
o Charlie Brooker
o The Guardian,
o Monday July 14, 2008
o Article history

I've got a theory - an untested, unprovable theory - that the more interesting your life is at any given point, the less lurid and spectacular your dreams will be. Think of it as a balancing procedure carried out by the brain to stop you getting bored to death.

If your waking life is mundane, it'll inject some thrills into your night-time imaginings to maintain a healthy overall fun quotient. So if you work in a cardboard box factory, and your job is to stare at the side of each box as it passes along a conveyor belt, to ensure they're all uniform and boxy enough - and you do this all day, every day, until your mind grows so dissociated and numb you can scarcely tell where the cardboard ends and your body begins - when your daily routine is THAT dull, chances are you'll spend each night dreaming you're the Emperor of Pluto, wrestling a 6ft green jaguar during a meteor storm in the desert just outside Vegas.

All well and good in the world of dreams. But if you continue to believe you're the Emperor of Pluto after you've woken up, and you go into work and start knocking the boxes around with a homemade sceptre while screaming about your birthright, you're in trouble.

I mention this because recently I've found myself bumping into people - intelligent, level-headed people - who are sincerely prepared to entertain the notion that there might be something in some of the less lurid 9/11 conspiracy theories doing the rounds. They mumble about the "controlled demolition" of WTC 7 (oft referred to as "the third tower"), or posit the notion that the Bush administration knew 9/11 was coming and let it happen anyway. I mean, you never know, right? Right? And did I tell you I'm the Emperor of Pluto?

The glaring problem - and it's glaring in 6,000 watt neon, so vivid and intense you can see it from space with your eyes glued shut - is that with any 9/11 conspiracy theory you care to babble can be summed up in one word: paperwork.

Imagine the paperwork. Imagine the level of planning, recruitment, coordination, control, and unbelievable nerve required to pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude. Really picture it in detail. At the very least you're talking about hiring hundreds of civil servants cold-hearted enough to turn a blind eye to the murder of thousands of their fellow countrymen. If you were dealing with faultless, emotionless robots - maybe. But this almighty conspiracy was presumably hatched and executed by fallible humans. And if there's one thing we know about humans, it's that our inherent unreliability will always derail the simplest of schemes.

It's hard enough to successfully operate a video shop with a staff of three, for Christ's sake, let alone slaughter thousands and convince the world someone else was to blame.

That's just one broad objection to all the bs theories. But try suggesting it to someone in the midst of a 9/11 fairytale reverie, and they'll pull a face and say, "Yeah, but ... " and start banging on about some easily misinterpreted detail that "makes you think" (when it doesn't) or "contradicts the official story" (when you misinterpret it). Like nutbag creationists, they fixate on thinly spread, cherry-picked nuggets of "evidence" and ignore the thundering mass of data pointing the other way.

And when repeatedly pressed on that one, basic, overall point - that a conspiracy this huge would be impossible to pull off - they huff and whine and claim that unless you've sat through every nanosecond of Loose Change (the conspiracy flick du jour) and personally refuted every one of its carefully spun "findings" before their very eyes, using a spirit level and calculator, you have no right to an opinion on the subject.

Oh yeah? So if my four-year-old nephew tells me there's a magic leprechaun in the garden I have to spend a week meticulously peering underneath each individual blade of grass before I can tell him he's wrong, do I?

Look hard enough, and dementedly enough, and you can find "proof" that Kevin Bacon was responsible for 9/11 - or the 1987 Zeebrugge ferry disaster, come to that. It'd certainly make for a more interesting story, which is precisely why several thousand well-meaning people would go out of their way to believe it. Throughout my twenties I earnestly believed Oliver Stone's account of the JFK assassination. Partly because of the compelling (albeit wildly selective) way the "evidence" was blended with fiction in his 1991 movie - but mainly because I WANTED to believe it. Believing it made me feel important.

Embrace a conspiracy theory and suddenly you're part of a gang sharing privileged information; your sense of power and dignity rises a smidgen and this troublesome world makes more sense, for a time. You've seen through the matrix! At last you're alive! You ARE the Emperor of Pluto after all!

Except - ahem - you're only deluding yourself, your majesty. Because to believe the "system" is trying to control you is to believe it considers you worth controlling in the first place. The reality - that "the man" is scarcely competent enough to control his own bowels, and doesn't give a toss about you anyway - is depressing and emasculating; just another day in the cardboard box factory. And that's no place for an imaginary emperor, now, is it?

[Desmond]

Charlie Brooker (I do like him) actually has a point and it is thus, the vast majority of theories are far too big and they involve looking for evidence that is far too large.

They ask for two main things, massive coordination and control of a vast amount of people and departments who will not speak no matter how much it is worth (and it's worth a lot). And for experts to make big big mistakes.

Don't be so arrogant to believe that you can catch these people out on the major stuff.

Take the 7/7 explosives for example. Some claim that it's an obvious lie. But who would tell this lie? Who would build the explosive? An explosive expert and he knows far more than you. Don't think that you can catch them out that easily.

This is not an easy task and if you plow into it like a steam-roller then you're going to miss what you are looking for.

Remember one thing, these people are very clever they probably know a lot more than you on their chosen subject, that is after all why they were employed.

The devil is in the detail. Think about the big picture and how it all fits together and if one piece doesn't fit then your jigsaw is all wrong.

Don't be so arrogant and self-delusional to think these people will make the big glaring mistakes you are looking for, the big glaring mistakes in your theories however will make you look like a fool. They have the upper hand, they know what they are doing, don't presume you know better.

Brooker is right, it is an error, it always has been, fix it, work out a different way. Don't let your arrogance get in the way of admitting you are wrong and look for something else.

[conspiracy analyst]

[blackcat]

Why does it have to be a "huge" number of people involved? If 19 Arabs could do it without any access to the government controls then why not 19 rogue members of the US administration? If three muslim bombers could carry out the 7/7 bombings then why not a few Mossad agents? If there needed to be a "huge" number of "Islamic terrorists" involved then why have there been no whistleblowers from their ranks. The double standards of "Truth Critics" has to be witnessed to be believed they even attempt this rubbish.

[TonyGosling]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I wonder if Charlie (I don't know him, Grauni journo apparently, sounds a bit of a tired joke and cliched rhetoric @rsehole) would be interested in buying shares in the newly patented economic controlled demolition technique discovered on September 11 2001...structural damage plus fire=universal symmetrical freefall collapse, pulverisation plus the added bonus of basement steel smelters at miracle low temperatures! In fact I'm sure he'll be interested, come on Charlie, put your money where your mouth is!

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Desmond]

"Reminds me of those who alleged WMD's existed in Iraq"

Actually the mostly unknown truth of that matter is far more bizarre than the common theory that the US government lied.

"In order to prosecute wars one requires a provocation if the war is unjust."

Not really. America has had lots of fun in the past putting it's shoe in when no one has actually attacked it. Grenada, Panama and Somalia are just a few examples.

"Is the second part of the above addressed to the official versions? Surely it must be?"

Nope it addresses "the big conspiracy" idea and people who claim to have found massive holes in the official theory.

"But in proportion to their lies is the amount of people who believe the official conspiracies."

Ever asked yourself why this is so? Why do so many layman and experts believe the official line? It's because the current theories aren't good enough, they are too outlandish, too paranoid and rely on shaky evidence and so called "ground breaking" finds. Why do we believe the earth is round? Because it has been proved beyond all doubt to everyone. That is what separates theory from fact. Until you create a theory that stands up from every angle you will forever be defeated.

"Why does it have to be a "huge" number of people involved?"

It doesn't have to be. And this is my exact point. So many theories involve multiple very large organizations while at the same time theorists insist on looking for elementary mistakes. Why do so many people talk about "the big theory" while neglecting much smaller groups?

"Conspiracy Analyst is Arrogant?
Self delusional?"

I didn't mean him personally, I meant the movement in it's current state.

"Theories are too big?
Evidence is too large?
What do you mean?
Do youknow what you mean?"

I mean that the "big theory" involving a big conglomeration of many large groups like the US government, CIA, ATC, controlled demolition companies and experts, the fire brigade, the media, Silverstein etc etc. Is just too large to work. A smaller tighter knit group dedicated to a cause is far more likely.

And by looking for large evidence I mean that so many people look for massive glaring flaws in the official story. It doesn't work. These people are experts in their field, don't try and find errors in what they do best. Would you correct Newton or Einstein's maths? Shakespeare's spelling and grammar? Brunei's knowledge of bridges? No? Then don't try and correct explosive experts on explosives, you'll fail and reduce the credibility of the movement. The big mistakes aren't made, they are the first thing they thought off when putting this together. They mistakes are in what they didn't think of, the little things, the detail, that's where to look.

"the perps of 9/11 and 7/7 have made the biggest of big mistakes "

They clearly haven't, they took Himmler's advice and told the big lie and had the populace believe it. They know have you lot chasing your * and laugh while you do it.

"and then relied on the likes of Rushbridger and Brooker and nopw you too to create an illusion that they have dug themselves out of a hole."

Me? I would not be very reliable for them.

"If you can't add some reasoned argument to a discussion you'll be confined to critics corner."

Because I criticized the direction of the movement and some of it's theories? From what I've seen you let people talk about ray guns and weather manipulation? Yet I will suffer apartheid for suggesting that this isn't as easy as you think?

[conspiracy analyst]

[Desmond]

"The main thrust of your argument like Charlies is that the US govt could not pull off the blowing up of 3 buildings on its own soil... "

Not with the "big theory" method. There are of course other ways. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

"In every opinion poll carried out on the issue a minority believes in the official line."

Technically the majority express doubts. There is a marked difference. And the reason why this movement has been unable to take these doubts and make them into total disbelief is because it is yet to iron out it's own issues.

[simplesimon]

On Charlie Brooker:

I think he's one of the funniest writers in England today. Brilliant critique of our debased and ruined culture. Of course, as he makes a living from it, and as it allows him exposure, he has to defend it in the end. No matter how visceral his attack on TV mind bending sh*ite, he often tells you (in Screen Burn column in The Saturday Grud) that it could have been ok if only done different or better.

The smartest people are best at fooling themselves.

I suppose folks here know about www.tvgohome.com ?

It's very often down - but if you don't (nearly) wet yourself reading it, all I can say is that... we don't share the same sense of humour.

It hasn't been updated for years. Interesting to note that at the time it seemed so great partly because of the outrageous hyperbole. These days, it doesn't seem so outrageous.

Truly, things are getting worse. This is no accident, IMHO.

Laughter can indeed be "a force for conservatism", as a pundit said on R4 this week. How I hate "The Now Show" (R4, Fridays 18:30) - those w*ankers" pretending to be dangerous and edgy, safely mocking the safely mockable while shoring up official memes. To*ssers.

This is one of my favourite bits from http://www.tvgohome.com/140599.html ... in case I still can't do attachments, which for some reason seem to have been disabled on my account?

-----------------------------------------------
11.15 - Film Premiere
Bad Lieutenant II: Worse Lieutenant

Uncompromising drama starring
Harvey Keitel. Contains bad language,
full-frontal nudity, drug abuse,
nonchalant gunplay, excessive violence,
flogging, masturbation, bestiality,
auto fellatio, coprophilia, dysmorphophilia,
penile litigation, scrotal infusion, incest,
roman showers, docking, dogging, bull-fighting,
and a twenty-eight minute scene in which
the corrupt detective slowly pushes a frozen
goat's hoof up his a*rse...
-----------------------------------------------


blackcat wrote:

[paul wright]

Charlie Brooker's articles I read fairly regularly. He has the capacity to be amusing. He's one of these "liberal/left" smug know-it-all journos who inhabit the likes of the Guardian and the Independent
They're perfectly well-versed in all the truth arguments, know full well that something's going on, but cant butt out of their arriviste "success" to admit to it
So they are reduced to the cynical sneering snarl their editorial demands
Best ignored, as they anticipate reaction
They'll get their comeuppance fairly soon, so leave them alone to stew.
Disappoint him

[conspiracy analyst]

[Desmond]

"You seem to want to argue both ends of an argument."

As anyone who isn't blinded by their own arrogance should. Once you start believing you are 100% correct and can never be corrected and will not accept any evidence suggesting the other way then you are on a slippery slope. You must always remain unbiased until the final moment when all is proven. And that moment has not yet arrived. And so to not view both sides of every coin and to examine every piece of evidence no matter where it takes you even against your own previous judgment when you claim to be seeking the truth is almost blasphemy against the case you claim to represent.

Once you refuse to listen you become a doctrine, a cult that refuses to listen to reason, and you cannot expect people to listen to a cult.

Independence is a wonderful word and a positive word. Try to exercise all that word represents.

And I choose to argue both sides because I have doubts about both, the "big conspiracy" theory doesn't sit right with me never has for reasons I have made clear. Yet the official story has enough holes to make it wobble too. And that is why we are here after all.

Hey, at least I'm not raving about ray guns, no planes and holograms. The belief in a smaller group in control that day doesn't seem so mad in comparison.

[conspiracy analyst]

[Desmond]

Why does the Arab world count more?

[sycorax82]

Has anyone ever worked out exactly how many people would have needed to have been directly involved (i.e. they knew what they were working on) in order to pull it off? Personally I wouldn't count any military personel because they simply received orders from higher up. That is their job. If they now feel guilt over their part in the operation they would not openly voice it.

If you were contacted by 'forces unseen' (the CIA...) and told not to breathe a word about 9/11 or your involvement in it, would you? It's doubtful.

[Desmond]

People have in the past, many CIA secret and black ops have became public knowledge through whistle blowers. Eventually it all comes out in the wash, it's not about the fame or money that would be involved, it may mean death in fact but some people have an inherent sense of justice and are compelled to do what is right.

"Personally I wouldn't count any military personel because they simply received orders from higher up."

An odd statement, it seems to be suggesting that these people perform orders unquestionably and are drones that will always obey orders and never speak out, we know this isn't the case.

"Has anyone ever worked out exactly how many people would have needed to have been directly involved (i.e. they knew what they were working on) in order to pull it off?"

Well that all depends on what you believe happened that day, If you believe the official theory it's 19 not including financial backers, commanders and the like. If you start talking about a theory that involves ATC, the CIA and the media then you open up to hundreds possibly thousands and many people with no real allegiance to whatever cause.

With that amount of people you're going to find a little hero who is going to risk his own life for what he sees as the right thing to do, it's not a risk worth taking. It's all easier if you stick to a small well formed group of people dedicated to a cause with just the expertise you need to make this work without a hitch. The results of getting caught would be catastrophic and that system would minimize the chances of that happening.

[acrobat74]

The fact of the matter is this: we know that the official account contravenes physical laws, and hence it is impossible.
Moreover it is unprovable and scientifically wrong.

Take this in conjunction with the PNAC neocon agenda and the multitude of anomalies (from 4/4 air defense failures to forensic evidence disappearing to testimonies of explosions to abnormal put options to ISI financing not being investigated) and you realize that something really fishy is going on.


Like to study history to put things in perspective?

Look at how fear or false attacks (e.g. Tonkin, USS Maine) are used to achieve imperial mobilization and it gets even fishier.

And then look at who finances all these wars (preferably both sides...) and understand the nature and mechanics of money and banking, and the truth starts to sink in.


We can make educated hypotheses all day about how such an operation was pulled off and by whom, but only after a new real investigation will we truly know.

At the same time, 1+1 still equals 2. Physical laws still apply. An apple is still an apple, not an orange.

We know for sure we've been lied to. Again.

[Stefan]

It's hard to say how many people were involved because we don't know what happened.

Say we use Gordon Ross' theory though - that there were four explosive devices every three floors, and four incendiary devices every 15-20 floors.

Let's say hypothetically they were set off remotley and not wired.

If we hypothetically take the window to be 6 weeks (since the lease was signed) - for one tower we have

110 floors / 3 = approx 37 floors to plant explosive devices on

110 floors / 15 = approx 7 floors to also plant incendiary devices on

37 floors / 6 = approximatley 6 floors a week - so just over a floor a day imagining a five day working week. Doesn't sound like a big job for even a lone operative per tower, every now and then having a busy day having to plant the incendiaries as well.

Of course there's no way of knowing if Ross' theory is correct (although it does match the empirical evidence to a tee), but taking it as a hypothetical when you actually sit down to work out how much work is needed - not a lot.

So long as exactly where the devices need to be has been worked out to a fine art of computer before hand, all that is left is for them to be attached to the relevant areas.

[kbo234]

...and he doesn't like getting emails:

charlie.brooker@guardian.co.uk

[zennon]

[Graham]

[conspiracy analyst]

[IanFantom]

[TetraGrammatonCleric]

i'm disappointed in brooker, he is responsible for screenwipe, quite an amusing piss-take of some of the mainstream pap,
and yet we get this drivel from him that props up the official fairytale. quite sad. Maybe he should talk to Chris Morris
who he's worked with before, who I believe has a more enquiring mind.

[Jayhawk]

There's quite a barney going on over at the Guardian over the Brooker article, now up to well over 1500 posts, something of a record. And actually a bit of a debate rather than OT aficionados insulting "troofers" which typified the first day of it.

[blackcat]

http://mparent7777-1.livejournal.com/925442.html

"Everybody's gotta learn sometime" video. One hour eleven minutes.


Link


http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-george-monbiot-these-a re-facts-of.html

70 reasons why Charlie Brooker is wrong.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

BAH! Grauni have pulled the Brooker 9/11 CT's thread, wonder if they got the message... "we all want to know the 9/11 truth MSMedia!"? are there REALLY so many people who endorse the 'science' of the WTC universal CD stylie fire collapses? were all those sneery people writing about 'laptops in lunatic asylums...tin foil hoodies...etc'' representative of a body of opinion given the weight of evidence against the OCT? were they perhaps all Cbrooker MI6 agent?

[Jayhawk]

They always pull threads after 3 days now.
I think the number of OT supporters in the first few hours was certainly many more than in the last day or so. Seemed to me like he had a load of trolls lined up!