Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by BlueRaja
Look, with the best will in the world, we're going nowhere.
It would be impossible to construct a scenario that was analogous simply because the government and issues involved are so extraordinarily complex.
I just wanted to demonstrate that, when one of the entities suspected of a crime develops and controls the evidence, clearly there is a conflict of
interest.
I just came back to this thread after starting it this morning and the posts here are fully illustrative of the problem 9/11 Truthers are having
reasoning.
I have to compliment BlueRaja for being the calm voice of reason, as always. He understands and articulates the issue quite clearly but 9/11 Truthers
like coughymachine illustrate quite clearly what happens when one is not actually listening.
9/11 Truthers don't listen by nature. They talk, but the ability to listen and understand is overwhelmed by a need to proselytize about the "truth"
they are certain they possess, and the "questions" (already addressed) that they are certain have "never been answered."
Coughymachine illustrates the problem with 9/11 Truth quite clearly: it's based on an entirely faulty premise, never once questioned by 9/11
Truthers. And that premise is that the 9/11 Truthers have decided the "government" is a "suspect", even a "defendant" in a crime, all without
ever being able to articulate why the "government", as opposed to anyone else
should be a suspect in the attacks of 9/11.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has been quite clear from the beginning. This is what it is
actually saying:
"
WE say such an event as 9/11 could not be carried out by 19 hijackers alone. There MUST be someone or something much bigger behind it.
WE say it could only be the US Government that had the power and capability to pull off 9/11.
WE say the US Government is
hiding the truth from us.
WE say that the attack on Iraq
followed 9/11 therefore,
WE say the government had a
motive and, therefore
WE say 9/11 was committed by the US Government to
justify the attack on Iraq. Therefore,
WE
will
prove that the US Government was behind 9/11."
Therefore, as coughymachine eloquently states above, the government IS the suspect (because the 9/11 Truth Movement says so), that despite the fact
that the evidence demonstrably
never originated WITH the government NOR was it in its control, 9/11 Truthers can only rationalize that since
the government is the ONLY suspect, that
somehow (always left unexplained by truthers) the government MUST have had "developed and controls
the evidence."
Yet, rationally there is no more reason to "suspect" the government of 9/11 than there is to suspect Santa Claus. BlueRaja puts it quite clearly:
"It was never the government's responsibility to prove that we were attacked. It merely tried to find out what happened, and there are gaps in
info."
But reason has never played a part in those, like 9/11 Truthers, who are emotionally susceptible to conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories develop
when the the proven cause (19 hijackers, Lee Harvey Oswald) seem to many people so weak and inconsequential to the size and impact of the event. It is
a common psychological reaction documented by psychologists for decades.
It is common that many people believe that significant consequences MUST be the result of significant perpetrators, therefore, to them, how could it
be
possible that 19 Arab hijackers pulled off 9/11?
9/11 Truthers, somewhat understandably, have a real problem of acknowledging and letting go of something they have invested so much mental and
emotional energy in for such a long time. It's an admission of being wrong, of being misled, a terrible blow to one's psyche, unless one is willing
to face reality and accept wherever the evidence leads. And I am quite certain that actual evidence is what 9/11 Truthers fear most, and what they
must avoid to hold the painful reality at bay that they have been misled and never bothered to question what they believed.
Are you 9/11 Truthers willing to acknowledge that?
