So I saw this film, rated four out of five stars. It is called, "The Reflecting Pool", from 2008.
Directed by the star, Jarek Kupsc. The production values aren't "A" level but the story is solid and engaging. The write up on Netflix says "A journalist teams up with a man who's daughter died in 9/11 to investigate the U.S. government's possible involvement in the destruction." Okay, this is a movie. You make a drama, you make it work, it is not a documentary. But the web site for the film has an interesting research page available for people to look things up for themselves. And they have an intriguing story, because it asks reasonable questions.
I have watched the twin towers go down in replays, since it happened, over and over again. I listened to the explanations. I heard all about the Pentagon, the plane that crashed in the field because of heroic efforts of the passengers. It all sounded to me like Bin Laden did it, from the information we heard over the months and years afterward. But every since I first got the news that it was happening, I've had questions.
I've had friends talk to me about conspiracy, over the years. I first heard of conspiracies over Vietnam, decades ago. They are fun, interesting, intriguing. But then I looked into the phenomenon of conspiracies, how they work, the psychological process, etc. They are easy to build in hindsight, even when there is nothing there, we tend to find patterns. Many things that look like a conspiracy, just aren't. So I wasn't really interested in hearing 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Now, that being said....
This film brings up some good points. Some that bothered me too, right from the beginning. For instance, building seven at the World Trade Center, goes down pretty symmetrically. Why and how? The twin towers drop straight down. Now, the explanation was that the jet fuel burns hotter than what the buildings were designed for, so when one floor drops, it brings down all the rest beneath it.
The pentagon was just being rebuilt to protect against just that kind of attack that happened, so the terrorists struck a part of the building that had few people in it and had been reworked to prevent a really devastating event. How convenient. There were cameras pointing at the pentagon, the film of which we were never shown, with only five frames made public that showed nothing but an explosion. We saw no plane, before, during or after. There were no pieces of a plane at the crash site that we saw. The flight pattern was too sophisticated for bad pilots to have pulled off. On and on.
Now all this may be explained by the explanations given. But that would have taken a "perfect storm" of events to have all happened together. Occam's Razor states that from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false. Unless, an event, or events have been designed so that it appears one way, when it is actually, something else. A kind of Rube Goldberg event, if you will. An event that makes no sense, unless Occam's Razor makes the most sense, but would be totally incorrect.
Typically, this falls through, as it requires incredible planning, high caliber individuals to pull it off and secrecy the likes of which government's don't seem to be able to pull off. Not in democracies anyway, unless there is a controller behind the controllers; a government inside the government, a rogue element the size of which requires secrecy beyond the point of believability. Sounds like Churchill's vision of the old Russia, doesn't it: "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."
Anyway, I assume that the pilots on 9/11 were Bin Laden's. I can assume luck had some part to play in it. I assume most of what we've heard about 9/11 is true. But that is how to build a good conspiracy theory so that people will discount it. Sometimes you can see what is there by looking at what is not there. Make it mostly true but manipulate things behind the scenes so they point away from the truth. What about all the peripheral elements? The film does a good job of pointing these things out, of building a plausible scenario with previous incidents that allowed a country to go to war by faking attacks against itself. This has been done in the past, as the film also points out. A scene, that is a little bit chilling, to say the least.
I have to assume that this is in a way, the same situation as with the Kennedy assassination. We may never know what happened; at least, not until no one is alive any longer who really cares. If we ever find out what happened, and it was our people attacking our country, then those people should be put to death over it. If the president did it, it would send a good precedent and bolster our claims of what a great country we truly are. Those responsible should either be brought to justice, or a future president should sign off on their demise. I would say, maybe Guantanamo, for life would be a choice appointment.
Now, let's change gears a little.
Ron Paul recently made a statement about the demise of our country: “I fear there will be eroding civil liberties, a Soviet Union-style economic collapse, violence in the streets, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria!” Then he said: “If you really think about it, there have been multiple warning signs – possible government shutdowns, natural disasters, the Kardashians…”
Obviously, the man has seen "Ghostbusters" and has a sense of humor. But if you think about it, what is going on here? Yes, it's going on all over the world. We seem to be going through the death throes of the old ways. Something, is changing anyway. But what? The question is, is it what is best for "We, the People?"
Doubtful.
I had the same questions that the film I've discussed brings up. What took so long to respond to the 9/11 attacks? If you stand back and look at the overall picture, it does make you wonder. Bush wanted to hit Saddam Hussein (so did I); it would seem, he wanted to clean up the mess his father left in Iraq when he was in office and took on the Nut in Bagdad. Saddam had to go. I agreed. But I was offended when Big Bush had the guts to take on Saddam, got him out of Kuwait, but then didn't kick him out of his (life) office in Iraq. I felt offended for the Iraqi people.
But we sent in the CIA with Special Ops troops to take out the Taliban from power in Afghanistan within weeks of 9/11, as they were supporting Bin Laden. We pretty much took them out in short order and got Bin Laden on the run to Pakistan. Now, Ole' Bin is done. That should have been the end of it. So, why'd we hit Iraq again, after getting Bin on the run?
Even if Bin Laden sent in those pilots to take out a few locations in the US, some of the peripheral events leading up to, and after the fact, are very peculiar. When you put that all in context with how things are going now in the US, it's really very strange. If you then look at the "Arab Spring", it throws more dust in the eyes of history. Are these all simply disconnected events? Is anything anymore, disconnected, in the world stage?
We helped the Soviet Union to fail by scaring them so bad militarily, that they ran themselves into bankruptcy over their military industrial complex, among other things, including their own bad management and greed. Have we done that here now, too? Manipulated change? We've seen bad management, and greed. Obviously, but does it include 9/11? And does it include what else is going on? Or did the banking and home mortgage bubble bursting throw dust in the eyes of those with plans, against us? I say against us, because I find it hard to believe, with what I've seen, that they, whoever they are, are doing this for us, for the majority of Americans, for the guy or gal in the street.
Who is it, and why are we making changes in the US that are so questionable? Why do our civil liberties keep eroding? I'm not really seeing any changes myself; life for me seems to be pretty normal, but then, I still have my job, I'm one of the lucky ones. But is that all part of the plan? That we don't notice because we are looking in the wrong directions? We've long known when large events are about to happen, the government will do something big to distract the people. Mostly, not a big deal, but sometimes, sometimes, it gets out of hand. In some cases, millions have lost there lives over it.
But not to worry, that could never happen, here.
If someone keeps changing the laws so that they can one day, "if necessary", take all your money, and then one day, they deem it necessary and all your money disappears from your bank account, isn't it then, too late for you to do anything about it? Won't they just say then, that they are "only following the law"? Sounds pretty reasonable, right? Following the law. Wouldn't you then feel that you should have done something about it, ahead of time?
We are asleep. All this protesting makes us think we are awake, alive, but we're not. Changes are continuing to be put into place, right under our noses and we're not doing a thing about it. And who do we have speaking out? No one, no one who can do us any good. Only crackpots and people who never have a chance of getting into power. No one who is really playing in the game, will speak up. Why? Because then they will no longer be playing in the game.
We need to keep our eyes open, and start asking questions. All the time. Be annoying. Question authority.
It's been said that Thomas Jefferson said that "A government afraid of it's citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!"
I'm not sure if I'm afraid of my government, yet, but I'm not feeling real secure about it anymore.
Anyway, as I said, I don't typically believe in conspiracy theories. Because they are so easy to pick out, in hindsight. But when you have so many elements that don't make sense, you have to stop and ask yourself, "what's going on here"? Because obviously, something is going on here. I just don't know what.No one seems to. Now there, is a conspiracy theory.
Yes, I am concerned. We should all be concerned.
No comments:
Post a Comment