19-03-2009, 10:53 AM
Damien Lloyd Wrote:I understand that it's not always possible to be 100% accurate all of the time. And that any journalist upon noticing a mistake would obviously jump at the chance to rectify that mistake. The example you give above is just that, an honest mistake. However sticking to the example I've given above, if you were doing a peice on the WTO collapse and you had heard a report that the presidents brother was head of security at the WTO. Then I'd imagine you would at first feel a sense of shock, and then you would seek to clarify the report before broadcasting it to the masses.
It is a HUGE deal, and the fact that it's incorrect has caused imo damage to the credibility of not just Alex Jones but to the whole idea that things are not as they seem with the official story. Just take a look at any of the 911 debunking sites that exist. The Marvin Bush accusation and it's debunking appears on all of them. Alex Jones has made the claim many times, and he has also reported on John O'Neill the real head of security. He knows he's stretching the truth but continues to use the line.
I've spent quite a bit of time looking at those sights, and I believe it is entirely possible that the WTO collapse of both tower one and two could have been caused by the impact and subsequent fires. It is also entirely possible that they could have been destroyed by controlled demolition. There are questions that obviously need to be answered. But the real question in my opinion is whether or not the powers that be knew of the attacks, and whether or not they acted on that information (if they had it). The reason I feel those are the questions that are paramount is simple. They are questions that can be answered, and evidence shown to support the answers. I do not believe that the same can be said of the actual collapses. For those questions can only be answered by theories and evidence will always exist to support those theories even when the theories oppose one another.
It seems to me that information regarding the attacks was known in advance and was not dealt with. This is either due to criminal negligence, or an actual willingness to see that the events of 911 were carried out unhindered (which would make the parties in the know accessories before the fact).
I agree with you about Alex Jones. It's beyond shoddiness. I also share your view about 911. It makes far more sense to me that powerful forces knew what was in the pipeline and let it happen. This was the Pearl Harbour option I believe. I submit that the Pentagon and CIA knew every move Atta made. This is the only interpretation I can reasonably arrive at in view of Operation Able Danger and the fact that Atta was protected from arrest by the FBI when the Pentagon stepped in to protect him.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14