12-06-2012, 01:26 PM
Kevin,
This may sum up Phil's position.
I don't think anyone is disputing the outcome.
It is interesting about history and how it is over revised. There's this from Wiki:
"Historical revisionism is either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favourable light. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism.[SUP][1][/SUP] This article deals solely with the latter, the distortion of history, whichif it constitutes the denial of historical crimesis also sometimes (but not commonly) called negationism.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]
In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism appeals to the intellectvia techniques illegitimate to historical discourseto advance a given interpretive historical view, typically involving war crimes or crimes against humanity. The techniques include presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious, but implausible, reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing his or her own conclusions to books and sources reporting the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist's).[SUP][4][/SUP] Practical examples of negationism (illegitimate historical revisionism) include Holocaust denial and some Soviet historiography.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] Contemporarily, hate groups practice negationism on the Internet. In literature, the effects of historical revisionism are usually described in science fiction novels such as Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell. ..."
Perhaps we witnessed real time historical revisionism.. that is the actual history was ignored and the one *they* wanted us to have was created. In the weeks and months and now years after the event people still seem to not have a clue about what actually happened. Lots of theories which are now based completely on some videos and images... some testimony of witnesses who clearly were under stress at the time thinking we were under full on *terrorist* attacks... every aspect perceived as part of the *plot*... every loud sound a bomb, every dust cloud the tell tale signature of an explosion. There were few to no cool heads that day and then the historiography was cemented to advance the agenda as noted in the above quote.
It seems that perhaps we live in the age where history can be rewritten as it's happening! An age where the creation of fiction and reality are merged and almost indistinguishable... Where we are subject to infotainment and produced new by the DOD for example... with polished media supplied to the mainstream media... Where almost everything we know is supplied by anonymous official sources to media *reporters*.
So does this mean that 9/11 was or wasn't an inside job? It may mean it's almost impossible to know because they've robbed us of our history and given us a media event.
This may sum up Phil's position.
I don't think anyone is disputing the outcome.
It is interesting about history and how it is over revised. There's this from Wiki:
"Historical revisionism is either the legitimate scholastic re-examination of existing knowledge about a historical event, or the illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favourable light. For the former, i.e. the academic pursuit, see historical revisionism.[SUP][1][/SUP] This article deals solely with the latter, the distortion of history, whichif it constitutes the denial of historical crimesis also sometimes (but not commonly) called negationism.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]
In attempting to revise the past, illegitimate historical revisionism appeals to the intellectvia techniques illegitimate to historical discourseto advance a given interpretive historical view, typically involving war crimes or crimes against humanity. The techniques include presenting known forged documents as genuine; inventing ingenious, but implausible, reasons for distrusting genuine documents; attributing his or her own conclusions to books and sources reporting the opposite; manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view; and deliberately mis-translating texts (in languages other than the revisionist's).[SUP][4][/SUP] Practical examples of negationism (illegitimate historical revisionism) include Holocaust denial and some Soviet historiography.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] Contemporarily, hate groups practice negationism on the Internet. In literature, the effects of historical revisionism are usually described in science fiction novels such as Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell. ..."
Perhaps we witnessed real time historical revisionism.. that is the actual history was ignored and the one *they* wanted us to have was created. In the weeks and months and now years after the event people still seem to not have a clue about what actually happened. Lots of theories which are now based completely on some videos and images... some testimony of witnesses who clearly were under stress at the time thinking we were under full on *terrorist* attacks... every aspect perceived as part of the *plot*... every loud sound a bomb, every dust cloud the tell tale signature of an explosion. There were few to no cool heads that day and then the historiography was cemented to advance the agenda as noted in the above quote.
It seems that perhaps we live in the age where history can be rewritten as it's happening! An age where the creation of fiction and reality are merged and almost indistinguishable... Where we are subject to infotainment and produced new by the DOD for example... with polished media supplied to the mainstream media... Where almost everything we know is supplied by anonymous official sources to media *reporters*.
So does this mean that 9/11 was or wasn't an inside job? It may mean it's almost impossible to know because they've robbed us of our history and given us a media event.