Reading The News

When we read a story in the newspaper or even by a well intentioned and intelligent individual should we accept this as fact ?

I generally take individual news stories as a small peek and look for an underlying truth by reading many stories of similar incidents. The news is a product of the information age, it is filtered, third hand information. Plato talks about shadows on the wall and this analogy is very good for considering news stories. We are not seeing what actually happened, we are seeing a shadow on a wall depicting what someone else believes as important regarding the events. The written word by the author may actually have a different meaning to the reader when sentences or paragraphs are considered. A grander truth may be exposed that the author had never intended in the case of fiction and non fiction reporting - this is certainly true of Mary Shelleys Frankenstein which speaks of the technological era and was written before technology had a discernable affect on society. Factories didn't exist, plowing was done with the aid of animals rather than machines.

So what can we discern from the news ? Many stories fit patterns, from those patterns we may discern a grander truth. An example of this is stories related to child or sexual abuse. Any one story is likely to be very loosely related to facts based on the subjective interpretations of writers which are based on the subjective feelings of victims. But when we hear these stories over and over again, certain patterns emerge and we must ask ourselves of the grander truth: what is it that causes this to happen and how can the problem be mitigated? Has this stuff always happened ? Can society protect us from this ? Should society protect us from it ? Is it a manifestation of the structure of society or is it primarily human nature ?

I think stories of children being abused by priests and judges expose grander truths - the corruption that can (and therefore will) exist within any secret society or organization. I think this is an important aspect that is a common thread running through many of these stories and is a grand issue exposed. They expose a fault that exists in the structure of society that if fixed, would prevent things like this from happening.

The events surrounding 9/11 show us that someone is keeping secrets. If the events occurred the way we saw them on TV then the official version, scientifically speaking, must be lies. I think we can safely say that the buildings collapsed straight down through their own footprint - no one has said any different and the accident scene would be different if the buildings had actually toppled as would be required, scientifically speaking, if the official version of events was true.

Can we say that airplanes hit the buildings? As far as this goes there are very few witnesses and the witnesses we do have video taped what they saw, but there were few of these and videotapes can be doctored up.

Many people suggest that the buildings came down for another reason other than the plane crashes - if indeed planes did hit the buildings. So, did planes need to hit the buildings ? Maybe. Do we need to know if planes hit the buildings or not to make the conclusion that we are being lied to by the very officials that are supposed to be uncovering the truth about this ? No, its practically irrelevant - but if planes did not hit the buildings it would expose just another lie - that is it.

I think its a provable scientific fact that the buildings came down for another reason other than planes hitting them. To me its almost irrelevant as to whether planes were actually even there.

I don't know how the buildings came down, there are a lot of competing ideas on this. I do know that they collapsed straight down through the path of maximum resistance and for this 9/11 was a controlled event. It was a planned event. There had to have been explosives pre-planted within the buildings and officials are covering this up. Therefore it had to be an inside job and our officials are protecting whoever did this.

All other facts, innuendos, ideas, are just window dressing. From a very small set of facts the case can be proven with almost no doubt. This is VERY RARE. Normally we do not get to see and examine the evidence supporting news stories for ourselves. Normally the evidence is not so clear even when it can be examined.