I agree, there are definately some fishy things surrounding 9-11. I really don't know what to believe surrounding it, although the official story is not something I trust, I am not sure how much I trust the 9-11 conspiracy theorists either.
It would be helpful if we could all learn to use language more precisely. (This is being said by someone who can't spell and essentially flunked out of English in highschool--but who nevertheless persisted to educate himself as an adult.)
The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is a broad blanket that has been thrown over groups and individuals (not to mention their interests) who range from the serious and sincere (albeit perhaps unprofessional) investigator, through the fantastic, gullible and delusional, to professional counter-intelligence agents engaged in sophisticated disinformation.
Obviously there is a need to develop an ability to discern between them. Add to this:
• Even the most truthful reporter is never completely objective
• A reporter can be honestly mistaken
• Vital information is often classified or not readily available
• It is conceivable that the investigator's sources for information may be distorted by someone intentionally trying to decive
. . . and so on.
Obviously trust is not something that can be given lightly.
I am as certain as I can be that just about everything we witnessed on 9/11 was the result of a very sophisticated covert operation. I do not know what did happen but I am convinced that just about everything we've been led to believe happened--or, more precisely, the reasons behind it happening--didn't.
This is my personal certainty, the "belief" that informs my perception of what is real. It stands in strong contrast to what most people believe is real and, therefore, from their point of view, my position on this matter is extreme, absurd and potentially delusional. I know that. I accept it. (When I was a little boy I once lamented to my mother that some people thought I was crazy, to which she replied reassuringly: "Oh, you're not crazy--you just see things that aren't there." :crazy: )
When pressed to defend this admittedly extreme position, I have to admit that I do not have any "smoking gun" proof. I will admit that I may be wrong, but my commitment to this "sense of certainty" is based on a kind of intuitive discernment that has been honed over 56 years of living. I went through the "Paranoid Shift" (
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011004hasty.html ) many many years ago. Being gay--and seeing how that reality is not understood and is distorted by the society around me is part of the equation. Having used psychedelics and again seeing that the reality visible from within altered states is not at all understood and quite inaccurately represented by society is also part of the picture.
Perhaps I am suspicious by nature but I have been struck throughout my life how differently my perceptions of things are compared to how other people report seeing them. I chose "beam_me_up" as my handle not so much because I am a Traficant fan, but because of the profound sense of alienation I feel in relation to our society. I understand that social reality is a construct. That doesn't mean it isn't 'real'; only that it is real only to the extent we make it so. The line that divides the US from Canada has no actual existence except as an agreed upon boundary--in other words as a thought that is shared socially. Once you really understand that as a principal, you see things quite differently. For example, there is NO "President of the United States." What there is is an "office" or, more precisely, A SOCIAL ROLE that is played by one particular person. We speak as if the man "is" a "President"; but the man is only a man. The Presidency is merely an Office or a role he performs. The "meaning" this Office has for us is a part of the fabric of the social reality that we have constructed inside our own awareness of what "is".
We perceive ourselves and the world the way we do not because we have an objective epistemology but because we don't. Moreover, almost nothing in our education has led us to even begin to question precisely what an objective epistemology might be--or how we could possibly know if there were. Some take 'science' as a bulwark but even that is problematic because science studies matter and energy which, if they ARE properties of consciousness, are so on a level far more subtle than science has yet to measure. Others have come to the conclusion that no such objectivity is possible; but I question how they can possibly know THAT, given that this conclusion is based on an analysis of semantic and linguistic structures--i.e., conditioned thought which is the very fabric of the admittedly subjective social reality construct.
So far as your analysis of the video, I am as skeptical as you are. However, I will point out that you are assuming that the 757 that hit the building took off from a commercial airport. True, that's what we've been told and no doubt most everyone telling us this is not lying but reporting what they themselves believe to be true. But is it? "Whoever controls your perception of reality..."
One would think that if millions of people believe something IS true, then it must be true. As I intimated in a previous post, for thousands of years people saw the sun rise. Despite our best efforts, most of us still do. Of course to our pre-Capernican ancestors the sun that rose was a golden chariot driven by a Celestial God in a very nearby heaven under which Earth was seated quite centrally like the football field beneath the Astrodome. The Gods all had good seats. Understand, although one can assume that objectively our ancestors inhabited the same universe you and I do, experientially their social reality was quite different. Their sense of time, of identity, of place, of history, of 'what makes the world go round'--all this was very different. If you tried to inform them that their perception was wrong, that the Sun was not a God but an unimaginably enormous body of gasses residing millions of miles away radiating tons of energy every second while our earth is a tiny sphere orbiting around it--assuming you could find words in their language to do so at all--most would find your explanation quite incomprehensible. Some might argue--even acknowledging all you say is true about it being a body of irradiating gasses and so on--that there is no difference and you would have to explain how you KNOW the Sun is not ALSO a 'God'. Beyond semantics, to even begin to understand one another, you'd have to call into question what it is possible for you to know; and whether one can safely assume something isn't so simply because it isn't possible for you to know..
Witnesses saw and cameras recorded planes hitting the buildings. But where these plans came from, for that we rely upon--trust--the corporate media and various government agencies to tell us. We've been told that their transponders were off for quite some time and that their paths mapped by radar were not direct.
I wager that if you as a citizen inquire further regarding the physical evidence of this matter you will begin to discover something rather interesting: a) there is far less of it than one would hope clearly establishing the identity of the crafts and b) what there is of it is not easily accessible by a merely, however sincerely, curious citizen. Moreover, I'll wager that you'll notice that this is an overall pattern in regards to the whole 9/11 scenario. Witnesses there are, but physical evidence that substantiates the reported explanation of the events is scarce.
Besides, we all already know what happened; just like we know the sun will rise in the morning.
Edit: clarity