Who are the enemies?

[Garamond]

Quite a few weeks ago, after watching a few films which certainly gave a distinctly different view on the 911atrocity in New York I was so incensed by the ramifications that I wrote to my MP, the BBC and 18 newspapers, both dailies and weekliesdetailing my concerns and offering them copies of they hadn't seen them.
I thought the views expressed on the films were completely water-tight and defenceless, but then who am I? I wanted them seen by those in the know and whose opinions were worth listening to.

So far I haven't had one reply.

Spooky

[Octavius]

Water-tight and defenceless?

Isn't that a paradox?

[Garamond]

In what way? How are they ambiguous? Even if they were, I don't think any smart alec throw-away remarks add anything positive to the posting, do you?

I'm sorry if my lack of knowledge of the English language offends you; I'll certainly enroll with the Open University at my first opportunity so I can't do it again. Yeh right.

[BrainMonkeys]

And what makes you think that 'those in the know' don't already know what has been put forward in those various films and documentaries? They probably know even more than those that researched and made the films, as the higher echelons in power both here and across the world are privy to a hell of a lot more information and data that is kept from the public and the media on the 'grounds of national security.'

Also, you have to take into context film as a form of medium put forward by the film-maker; what are they trying to say? Do they have an agenda? It may look like a very well-argued case study, but never take anything at face-value (that's the historian in me coming out; beward bias!)

True, there is more than meets the eye to this, but there is to everything in the world if you start picking away the layers.

And throwing mud at each other certainly doesn't get you any answers or positive comments. Octavius was right to point out that the two words do cancel each other out, thus making the comment null and void. Water-tight = absolutely no uncertainty, whereas defenceless = weak to any argument against. Your response was puerile and childish, amd after such a promising first post too.

[bernardo]

I am confused. You haven't said what the "different view" was that was being portrayed in the film(s) to which you are referring. Do you mean a conspiracy theory about who did it?

[dawkins]

Not that spooky Garamond.

Ok lets assume that your fears are well founded and the documentary you watched did unearth the real facts of the 9/11 attacks. Lets also assume that the government and press thought that terrorists attacked the world trade centre until your letters arrived at their desks.

Do you think they would have to reply to your letters out of courtesy? Should you now consider yourself in the loop? Should they keep you informed about what they would do with this astonishing information? Or, would they send round a couple of guys to "silence" you?

Or: lets assume that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists as is conventionally believed and the government and press get thousands of letters all the time about conspiracy theories and file them in a bin marked nutters.

Either way you don't get a reply.

By the way Octavius, isn't tupperware watertight and defenceless?

[Octavius]

Not with a decent flame thrower