What to say if you liked it
An insightful annihilation of the dubious myths that have been immorally wreathed around a modern tragedy, often for the authors’ own ends.
What to say of you didn’t like it
A vastly partial analysis of the events surrounding the attack, which debunked valid unanswered questions, frequently through the authentication of a former Republican senator, with such summary haste, it could have been produced as part of the cover up itself.
What was good about it?
• The eyewitness accounts that dismissed the belief that the plane that flew in to the Pentagon was actually a missile.
• The weary resigned tone of the narration that added to the sense of the ludicrous in many of the theories, and didn’t encourage any wild speculation.
• The reason given for the US Air Force’s failure to intercept the hijacked jets ( the US weren’t prepared for an internal assault) was the most intriguing of the theories.
• The revelation that the US modus operandi for the new millennium (to become the dominant global power), would occur quicker if hastened by such an atrocity as
the destruction of the World Trade Center.
What was bad about it?
• The word “chilling” was twice used to describe the actions of the terrorists. “Chilling” is now so hackneyed by its use by the tabloid press to instil fear in readers that it has lost all potency.
• Craig Unger crippled his own authority by calling the Russian president “Valeri” • Putin.
• Most of the theories were developed on the internet, a place with as much credible veracity as the testimony of Jeffrey Archer.
• Many of the later conspiracy theories seemed to be time fillers and easily dismissed such as the US government collapsing both towers through a covert detonation and that Israel was aware of the planned attack but would gain more politically through the
attack going ahead.
• That many of the theories seemed to have been enthusiastically, but ineptly, extrapolated from George Orwell’s 1984.
• The hookline at the start said that “millions claim there’s another reason” for the attacks other than Arab terrorists. What it neglected to add was how many of these “millions” are informed enough to make a rational decision, and how many are disenchanted disciples of Nostradamus searching for a new illusory cause to follow.