This image illustrates extremely well the idea that there is a complex relationship of agents and motivations behind 9/11. Too often, I think, we are inclined to imagine a single person or unified institution pulling all the strings behind all aspects of the event. It's worth thinking about how these two different views affect 9/11 truth advocacy--on the one hand, the complex and subtle picture takes more work and is harder to convey to others. On the other hand, the single agent view is open to serious skepticism and criticism (Dick Cheney is pulling ALL the strings? Really?)
Personally, I think a good balance of the two views is useful--start with the latter and challenge people's understanding with some healthy cognitive dissonance as more and more disparate facts get thrown at them. Is there a small grain of truth to the MSM's portrayal of the war on terror? I think so. Is it even close to the whole story? Obviously not.
For people who haven't read him, Nafeez Ahmed is a good resource for getting at this more tangled picture between western intelligence, gov't and terrorist organizations.
ps. Also very interested in the explicit mechanics of how the media works. Once in a while you read bits and pieces (e.g. Thompson on journalists being told their careers are going to hit dead ends if they cover post-9/11 Israeli spy material). I think everyone is curious about the institutional changes in the way MSM covers 9/11 truth, etc... does Zwicker cover this issue? I haven't had time for his book yet...
single agent vs. multiple agents
This image illustrates extremely well the idea that there is a complex relationship of agents and motivations behind 9/11. Too often, I think, we are inclined to imagine a single person or unified institution pulling all the strings behind all aspects of the event. It's worth thinking about how these two different views affect 9/11 truth advocacy--on the one hand, the complex and subtle picture takes more work and is harder to convey to others. On the other hand, the single agent view is open to serious skepticism and criticism (Dick Cheney is pulling ALL the strings? Really?)
Personally, I think a good balance of the two views is useful--start with the latter and challenge people's understanding with some healthy cognitive dissonance as more and more disparate facts get thrown at them. Is there a small grain of truth to the MSM's portrayal of the war on terror? I think so. Is it even close to the whole story? Obviously not.
For people who haven't read him, Nafeez Ahmed is a good resource for getting at this more tangled picture between western intelligence, gov't and terrorist organizations.
ps. Also very interested in the explicit mechanics of how the media works. Once in a while you read bits and pieces (e.g. Thompson on journalists being told their careers are going to hit dead ends if they cover post-9/11 Israeli spy material). I think everyone is curious about the institutional changes in the way MSM covers 9/11 truth, etc... does Zwicker cover this issue? I haven't had time for his book yet...