"If you examine enough conspiracy theories, such is the kind of conviction that people have, and so good are they sometimes at putting together the science, there are always moments when you suddenly think, 'maybe it's not them, maybe it's me, maybe I'm completely wrong', and you're gonna go back to basics and you look at it again and you ask yourself this one simple question: what is the actual evidence for their version of events? And the answer almost always is, there is not only just not very much, there isn't any at all. Not 'what's the evidence suggesting that the official version has problems in it?', because all versions have problems in it, but 'what is the actual evidence for their version of events?', and you won't find any."
Oh really, you want evidence? Fine!
I guess the peer-reviewed and twice independently verified documentation of high-tech explosive nanotechnology in WTC dust samples is all in our heads then!
There's plenty of evidence supporting alternative views of 9/11 especially, not just evidence against the official story, you just deny it exists. But even if there wasn't, should we just ignore all the evidence of a coverup and other problems with the official story (and they're big gaping holes, not just minor issues) because there's no evidence for anything better? No. The fallacy in that is that the stuff that's being covered up is probably evidence for something better, and by ignoring the coverup on the basis that there is no evidence for anything better, you are never going to uncover the evidence for anything better! It's basically just a circular dismissal of our side and an acceptance of, and borderline complicity in, the coverup.
Our criticisms of the official story go far beyond slight inconsistencies. Take for example the 9/11 Commission documents leaked by Cryptome that show Sibel Edmonds' and Behrooz Sarshar's testimonies basically fully censored. This is not just "evidence that the official story has problems in it", this is evidence of full-blown intentional coverup!
Aaronovitch was in the National Geographic hitpiece. His main argument in the piece was the usual 'it would have required thousands of people' chestnut, with added psychological BS. As I keep saying, ignoring hard evidence of a conspiracy on the basis that you can't concieve of how it could be carried out is an argument from personal incredulity, a logical fallacy ... but he of course would disagree, because he denies there is any evidence!
A BBC article published today attempts to debunk concerns about the Bilderberg Group. Before mixing Bilderberg researchers in with anti-semites and believers of David Icke's colourful views, the BBC article quotes Aaronovitch as saying "It's really an occasional supper club for the rich and powerful"!
HAHAHA! A supper club?! How many 'supper clubs' are protected by armed guards ordered to shoot trespassers on sight and F-16 fighter jets?!
How is it people like Aaronovitch & Kay can dismiss Bilderberg as a benign 'supper club' when many of the US officials who attend are violating federal law (the logan act), leaked documents from the 50s reveal they were planning the EU way back then, the Treaty of Rome in 1957, essentially the birth of the EU, was signed by Bilderberg attendees, most NATO leaders have been attendees, Bilderberg chairman Étienne Davignon admitted in 2009 that they created the Euro, the president of the EU, Van Rompuy, was a Bilderberg attendee, presidents and prime ministers such a Clinton, Blair, Obama and Cameron all attended the conference shortly before being 'elected', Kissinger was able to attend the meeting in Spain last year despite being wanted for war crimes there, and moles inside often leak information that allows people to accurately predict the future?
Last year, former NATO secretary general Willie Claes discussed Bilderberg proceedings on a Belgian radio show. At 9:06 in this MP3 recording, he says:
... maar natuurlijk, de rapporteur probeert toch altijd wel een synthese te trekken, en iedereen is verondersteld gebruik te maken van die conclusies in het milieu waar hij invloed heeft hé.Which Google translates as:
... but of course, always the report tries to draw a synthesis, and everyone is supposed to use those conclusions in the environment where he has his influence.Oh, and apparently they discuss assassinating people too!
Just a 'supper club'? Sure, you keep telling yourself that!
