Sunday, July 31, 2005
Consciously Lying about 9/11
Sydney Indymedia is running the usual 9/11 conspiracy theories. The article states:
Delving a bit deeper shows the source for most of the text to be W. David Kubiak, executive director of 911truth.org. That he believes the 9/11 terrorist attacks to be a Government conspiracy is no surprise. However, I suspect Zogby would take a dim view of how their research (apparently commissioned by Kubiak) was being abused.
Looking at Kubiak's site gives a bit more detail. Compare the boldface text above with that which appears here:
As the article appeared on Sydney Indymedia, it's worth noting John Howard's belief in the possibility of impending terrorist attacks in Sydney. Does this mean however the Australian Government is implicated?
Thus goes Indymedia logic. Commission a poll and then distort the wording to lend further wait to an outlandish conspiracy which all the while dismisses the (oh so slight) possibility that yes, Osama bin Laden really is a Bad Man. Whilst those polled (and yours truly) believe the Government may have been able to prevent the attacks (or at least defer them) I have little doubt a subsequent question of "do you believe an Islamic terrorist group was responsible" would yield a result that wouldn't help the argument they are trying to make.
It's a shame comments are turned off... I'd love to see the excuses for this latest distortion of reality to suit the end argument.
There is now an enormous amount of scholarly evidence and expert testimony that a) clearly demonstrates the official 9/11 story is a sham, and b) supports the millions of New Yorkers who, according to a recent Zogby poll, believe that top US officials "consciously" allowed the attacks to happen and that we desperately need a new investigation now.Excuse me?
Delving a bit deeper shows the source for most of the text to be W. David Kubiak, executive director of 911truth.org. That he believes the 9/11 terrorist attacks to be a Government conspiracy is no surprise. However, I suspect Zogby would take a dim view of how their research (apparently commissioned by Kubiak) was being abused.
Looking at Kubiak's site gives a bit more detail. Compare the boldface text above with that which appears here:
Half of New Yorkers Believe U.S. Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9/11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To ActNewsflash: US Leaders have had foreknowledge of a terrorist attack on the WTC since 1993, the last time it was attempted. There is a major difference however between fuzzy intelligence and the implications of the text on Indymedia, that they "allowed the attacks to happen".
As the article appeared on Sydney Indymedia, it's worth noting John Howard's belief in the possibility of impending terrorist attacks in Sydney. Does this mean however the Australian Government is implicated?
Thus goes Indymedia logic. Commission a poll and then distort the wording to lend further wait to an outlandish conspiracy which all the while dismisses the (oh so slight) possibility that yes, Osama bin Laden really is a Bad Man. Whilst those polled (and yours truly) believe the Government may have been able to prevent the attacks (or at least defer them) I have little doubt a subsequent question of "do you believe an Islamic terrorist group was responsible" would yield a result that wouldn't help the argument they are trying to make.
It's a shame comments are turned off... I'd love to see the excuses for this latest distortion of reality to suit the end argument.
