Rational or Irrational Methodology?
Likewise I have read in a periodical devoted to the thinking classes (either the Spectator or the News Statesman) an article written, once again in all seriousness, of conspiracy theorists who claim that the 9/11 planes were not really planes, but missiles made to look like planes by having holographic images superimposed on them.
Of course conspiracy theories come in all shapes and sizes, from the plain ridiculous to the uncomfortably plausible. And yet the establishment, at every turn, seeks to disprove and ridicule the whole of that wide spectrum, by not taking the best example of it, but by taking the worst.
And that is irrational!
It is an unspoken rule of the adversarial nature of debating that, when you argue against a point, you should always argue to the best example that your opposition has to offer. And this should especially be so when the opposition do not have the opportunity to present their case.
Such treatment does little to answer credible conspiracy theories.
And there are credible theories! Mostly, all you have to do is to read the press with a view to ironing out conflicting testimony. That is to THINK!
He was head of The French Anti-Terrorism Coordination Unit and one of five senior officials sent by the French government to London immediately after the attacks. He reported in Le Monde on the days following the attack, and spoke of military grade explosives, lower limb trauma and hinted that the perpetrators were known to the authorities.
That is as opposed to home made fertilizer explosives, upper body trauma (consistent with back-packs) and a HUNT!
Of course he later retracted his statements, which only added to their poignancy.
Taking his statement as the cornerstone of any theory, one could build a very plausible narrative of events which could just as easily fit what we know, as the narrative produced later by the government, but with drastically different conclusions.
That our government will not cave in to the very real need for a public enquiry into 7/7 only adds credibility to any and all conspiracies.
1) Last week we were told that....Princess Di was poised to make a very important celebratory announcement. The media who were privvy to this assumed it to be either her pregnancy or imminent marriage.
2) There was a black car, evidently, jostling with her car as they entered the tunnel at high speeds. This was seen by members of the public as the cars entered the tunnel. These people also mentioned 2 distinct types of sounds as if the cars collided before the crash.
3) A driver of a car towards the front of the Tunnel testified that he did also saw a black car. And that he saw a blinding flash in the tunnel. And that after the crash a motorcycle carrying a passenger, which was in front of Diana's car, stopped. One man got off, looked inside, remounted and they sped off away. The way the flash was described was more akin to the blinding flashes that the military use to stun, than to flash photography.
4) Another man was woken up by the noise of crash, went to his window and saw two cars exiting from the tunnel at high speed. A black car exited and appeared to be being shielded by a white car. They went hurtling around a corner bumper to bumper, the white car behind the black car.
The focus of the inquest may have turned toward the Papparazi. However, I for one do not think the Papparazi capable of driving with such skill!
However, even now explainable by majority us (British, American and Citizens of the World) who believe that there are things that we are not being told. More for the good of the powers that be, than for our own good.