I was reading The Independent by mistake on Saturday and came across an article by their, um, “controversial” Middle East Correspondent Robert Fisk saying he was “increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11.
Has Fisk finally lost all reason? You decide:
No, he has not lost all reason. In fact he’s being very reasonable to ask questions for which he has would like answers.
A work colleague of mine, would not shut up about the fake moon landings until his lack of rationality started to irk me. I spent some time getting answers to his 20 0r 30 ‘unanswerable inconsistencies’. I then demolished each and every one of his outlandish claims. Because he was quoting from TV programmes and leading proponents of the fake moon conspiracy landings he became angrier and angrier. In fact he became very downcast that I had burst his balloon. Such is the grip of irrationality some have for their pet theories.
When I said he would have better luck trying to get me to disprove the 9/11 conspiracy he hooted with laughter that anyone who believes in that must be a fool. So he has his limits of credulity.
But my point remains – I can disprove EVERY single ‘fact’ brought up by the fake moon landing conspiracy nutcases – but I can’t find all the explanations to refute all the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
I’m reminded of the Sherlock Holmes quote which goes something like: “When you’ve removed the impossible, whatever evidence remains, however unlikely, must be the truth.”
Fisk is right to call for credible explanations. All he wants are answers, just like the answers provided by NASA and other scientists to explain the irrationality some hold for the Fake moon landings. What’s wrong with that?