
Of course, the film and the movement's fatal flaw is that it can only draw a small level of suspicion as opposed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The phrase, "We may never know what happened on 9/11" is repeated multiple times, while Wikipedia is also cited in multiple instances. The movement is fascinating if ultimately not enlightening. I suggest reading a Salon.com article from last year sheds light on the many facets and opposing theories in the movement. Both that article and a Rolling Stone op-ed even imply a whold different controversey - where the "9/11" conspiracy is actually drummed up by the Bush administration. "[I]f there were any conspiracy here," writes Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone, "I'd be far more inclined to believe that this whole movement was cooked up by Karl Rove as a kind of mass cyber-provocation, along the lines of Gordon Liddy hiring hippie peace protesters to piss in the lobbies of hotels where campaign reporters were staying."
And, thus, we arrive to the biggest contradiction of all - thanks to the internet, Loose Change and the 9/11 truth movement are able to thrive by reaching a wider audience. Yet, that same medium opens the floodgates to theories that either oppose it or take it in a new direction (blaming it on Satan worship, and denying the existence of al Qaeda, for instance). Thus, there is no concrete theory with which to build an actual movement around.
No comments:
Post a Comment