1999 & 2000 were two crackin' years for movies
D'you know how infectious Wikipedia can be. How you read about one thing, which links to another, to another, etc.
Something has been playing around in my fevered brain these past few days - I'm off work currently, some combination of severe migraine and head-cold - and it's about an event that many think is cut and dried.
And i think if you think too much about this, and certainly if you voice your opinions to the wrong people, you could end up in a very scary place indeed.
9/11.
Well, Mark Stepnoski actually; the unabashed stoner of the Dallas Cowboys All-World Offensive Line of the early nineties. When he retired, having made zillions in the fledgling free-agency era of the NFL he got involved in various charities and causes. And one of these is the group of people who believe 9/11 was an inside job.
Of course another is the quest to legalise marijuana in the US, so take all of this with a healthy pinch.
Anyway, 9/11.
Reading the primary sources linked to Wikipedia I admit it does expose more questions than answers to what exactly happened that day. As well as the questions, or rather lack of them, that were asked after the event in an attempt to get to the reasoning behind it all.
Now, I want to make it very clear that I am sympathetic to all those people who died that day, and I am sane (mostly) and have all my faculties intact. I don't hate America but I do hate hypocrisy and... well... lying.
Which, if what many people say is true is what the Bush Administration, the CIA, whomever, did that day. Collateral damage has never sounded more blood drenched.
The South Tower (Tower 2?) collapsed in 6.5 seconds. From top to bottom.
The official reason for its demise is the impact from the aircraft and the jet fuel caused the superstructure to weaken to the extent that collapse was inevitable.
Fair enough. It's a passable theory. Pity it doesn't have a precedent though.
NO steel-framed skyscraper has EVER collapsed due to fire. And we have 3 in 1 day?
Ok.
Building 7 collapses in almost exactly the same time frame and is not even hit by a plane. Fire causes skyscrapers to collapse? Really?
Ok, Tower 2 was hit by the larger of the two planes, and it was more heavily laden with fuel. Ergo a hotter fire, probably why it "collapsed" first. Fair enough. But how hot would the fire have to be to irreparably damage skyscraper-grade, concrete reinforced industrial strength steel? To cause it to collapse like that? 7, 8, 10,000 degrees? At least.
Jet fuel isn't that powerful.
I thought this for a long time, and I let it go because it could, theoretically be possible. 'Reasonable doubt' is the law term.
Then I read something about the New York Stock Market on 9/10. Apparently a number of traders were planning to buy A LOT of stock in United Airlines and American Airlines, knowing full well the stock would be rock-bottom.
Is this a smoking gun?
Maybe, but you'll never prove it.
Ok, so if it is an inside job, what's the goal?
The Iraq war? More oil for the West? Topple a despot or two; get a foothold in the Afghan poppy trade?
I can't believe dear ol' George was in on it, he wouldn't look that stupid down in that Florida school if he did, but someone for sure in his inner circle had the 411 on the plan.
I hope I'm wrong.
I hope this is just my deluded fantasy. But when the US government spent $15 million on the investigation into the attacks and they spent $40 million on the whole Monica 'Blowjob' Lewinsky scandal you have to wonder if someone didn't have their priorities skewed.
In any event they got what they wanted. And all it took was 3,000 dead that day, along with the destabilising of Western Civilisation, an increase in global fear and xenophobia, 2 wars and all the dead that went along with them and the loss of one of the most iconic structures the world has ever known.
That I never got to visit!!!!!
What's the line off The Wire? "The bigger the lie, the more they believe" - The Bunk.
Something has been playing around in my fevered brain these past few days - I'm off work currently, some combination of severe migraine and head-cold - and it's about an event that many think is cut and dried.
And i think if you think too much about this, and certainly if you voice your opinions to the wrong people, you could end up in a very scary place indeed.
9/11.
Well, Mark Stepnoski actually; the unabashed stoner of the Dallas Cowboys All-World Offensive Line of the early nineties. When he retired, having made zillions in the fledgling free-agency era of the NFL he got involved in various charities and causes. And one of these is the group of people who believe 9/11 was an inside job.
Of course another is the quest to legalise marijuana in the US, so take all of this with a healthy pinch.
Anyway, 9/11.
Reading the primary sources linked to Wikipedia I admit it does expose more questions than answers to what exactly happened that day. As well as the questions, or rather lack of them, that were asked after the event in an attempt to get to the reasoning behind it all.
Now, I want to make it very clear that I am sympathetic to all those people who died that day, and I am sane (mostly) and have all my faculties intact. I don't hate America but I do hate hypocrisy and... well... lying.
Which, if what many people say is true is what the Bush Administration, the CIA, whomever, did that day. Collateral damage has never sounded more blood drenched.
The South Tower (Tower 2?) collapsed in 6.5 seconds. From top to bottom.
The official reason for its demise is the impact from the aircraft and the jet fuel caused the superstructure to weaken to the extent that collapse was inevitable.
Fair enough. It's a passable theory. Pity it doesn't have a precedent though.
NO steel-framed skyscraper has EVER collapsed due to fire. And we have 3 in 1 day?
Ok.
Building 7 collapses in almost exactly the same time frame and is not even hit by a plane. Fire causes skyscrapers to collapse? Really?
Ok, Tower 2 was hit by the larger of the two planes, and it was more heavily laden with fuel. Ergo a hotter fire, probably why it "collapsed" first. Fair enough. But how hot would the fire have to be to irreparably damage skyscraper-grade, concrete reinforced industrial strength steel? To cause it to collapse like that? 7, 8, 10,000 degrees? At least.
Jet fuel isn't that powerful.
I thought this for a long time, and I let it go because it could, theoretically be possible. 'Reasonable doubt' is the law term.
Then I read something about the New York Stock Market on 9/10. Apparently a number of traders were planning to buy A LOT of stock in United Airlines and American Airlines, knowing full well the stock would be rock-bottom.
Is this a smoking gun?
Maybe, but you'll never prove it.
Ok, so if it is an inside job, what's the goal?
The Iraq war? More oil for the West? Topple a despot or two; get a foothold in the Afghan poppy trade?
I can't believe dear ol' George was in on it, he wouldn't look that stupid down in that Florida school if he did, but someone for sure in his inner circle had the 411 on the plan.
I hope I'm wrong.
I hope this is just my deluded fantasy. But when the US government spent $15 million on the investigation into the attacks and they spent $40 million on the whole Monica 'Blowjob' Lewinsky scandal you have to wonder if someone didn't have their priorities skewed.
In any event they got what they wanted. And all it took was 3,000 dead that day, along with the destabilising of Western Civilisation, an increase in global fear and xenophobia, 2 wars and all the dead that went along with them and the loss of one of the most iconic structures the world has ever known.
That I never got to visit!!!!!
What's the line off The Wire? "The bigger the lie, the more they believe" - The Bunk.