17 juin 2006

The truth about 9/11 * La vérité sur le 11 septembre

* I don't know if 9/11 was deliberately provoked by a conspiracy within the US government. I personnally don't think so. But what I know is that the way the debate is conducted, with its underground, para-scientific, and highly emotional aspects, undermines the understanding of the main truth about 9/11:
The attacks, whether it was a conspiracy or not, were the opportunity for the Bush administration to change the face of the US politics and foreign policy in a way the US public opinion, if conscious of its interests and not turned blind by fear and anger, would not have supported.

* Je ne sais pas si les attentats du 11 septembre ont été délibérément provoqués par une conspiration au sein du gouvernement états-unien. Personnellement, ce n'est pas mon avis. Mais ce que je sais, c'est que la façon dont le débat est mené, avec ses aspect "sous-terrain", para-scientifique et hautement émotionnel, mine toute compréhension de la principale vérité à propos du 11 septembre:
Les attaques, qu'elles aient été l'oeuvre de conspirateurs ou pas, ont été l'opportunité pour l'administration Bush de changer le visage des politiques intérieure et étrangère des Etats-Unis dans un sens que l'opinion publique états-unienne, si elle avait été consciente de ses intérêts et non aveuglée par la peur et la colère, n'aurait pas approuvé.

3 Comments:

Blogger Alexandre Carvalho said...

And if you think how the post-9/11 has been conducted by state authorities, most likely no one will ever know THE truth about it. Nonetheless, i tend to believe it was actually a conspiracy, not by Al-Qaeda, nor by the US Federal Government alone, but together, and most likely with other organizations who also can benefit from this arrangement. If there is no doubt that the Bush Administration has gained a lot from it, so has Al-Qaeda, so has the military industry and others around the globe. Yes, this may sound a bit over-the-top, but as i said, 9/11 is in no ways a question where all sides are transparent and clear: and by this i mean not only the US Government for hiding and manipulating evidences, but all the anti-americanists who use propaganda in a devious way (Michael Moore - who i do not credit as an anti-american - included).


http://pirats.ttd.free.fr/ReOpen911/PainfulDeceptions_french.htm


http://www.sillygoth.com/pentagon.html#Main

Salut Julien

10:13 PM  
Blogger Susana Nunes said...

Whow... This goes beyond any conspiraty theory I ever heard about this issue.
I'm not sure that I would be able to unsderstand, better, to accept this as something true (but now I'm curious about your ideas about Michael Moore - what do you mean exactly?).
Anyway, the TRUTH is out there (somewhere)...

1:37 PM  
Blogger Alexandre Carvalho said...

I'm saying there are interests on many sides, each one taking advantage for selling the idea they want to sell. Example: the US Government as hidden many evidences that stated that it was no airplane that hit the Pentagon, neither it was possible for the Twin Towers to collapse with those two crashes. The Senate has obviously discussed this matter, and the US Government was stated as deceivers (not sure if that's the exact word, but you know what i mean), because many evidences first introduced were later reported missing or eliminated as it wouldn't be a proper evidence of anything really. At least it was what the Government said.

To give another example: the World Trade Center was built not also as offices but as a symbol of what the US represent. Therefore it was built with steel, so that an accident (or incident) - like missiles or airplane crashes - wouldn't destroy those towers. In fact, the only way those towers could have collapsed was to detonate tons of explosives on the foundations of the 2 buildings. And I don't think it is possible to place tons of explosives on the foundations of two of the most symbolic buildings without ever being noticed.

Another example: The 9/11 Comission was - again in the US Senate - denominated as incompetent and accused of not fulfilling the work they were called for. The 9/11 Commission Report was considered insufficient, when it's really up to them to tell the truth.

Michael Moore: made a name, and made it pretty big with The Awful Truth, Bowling For Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11. Although pointing out some interesting and somewhat true aspects of american policy, Moore uses information he receives and distorts it by not giving all the information one would need to conclude, or to sum information that could be described as «not exactly true». I think we have a name for it: propaganda.

My point is, there are way more interests than we could realistically imagine. And probably are more actors to this game than we know. And it's hard to tell which one is telling the whole truth, if there's any. And what Julien says ("the way the debate is conducted, with its underground, para-scientific, and highly emotional aspects, undermines the understanding of the main truth about 9/11") is for me - and this is just a belief - an evidence of interests taking their part of the game, creating illusions and distracting the public eye of the important matters.

6:30 PM  

Enregistrer un commentaire

<< Home