THE PROBLEM WITH ALEX JONES Part 2.

© Gerard Holmgren:Dec 8 2006: This article or any part of it may not be reproduced without express permission from the author in writing. This prohibition excludes quotation for reasonable reference purposes, providing that the article is linked to.

THE PROBLEM WITH ALEX JONES Part 2.

DOUBLETHINK ON FLIGHT 93.

In my article The Problem With Alex Jones dated Sept 27 2006, I demonstrated an example of the extremely poor standards of self styled anti NWO warrior Alex Jones. This article provides another example, and it is directly related to the above linked article.

First let's revisit just a few of the many problems with the Jones article which I examined in the above link. The article was actually written by Paul Joseph Watson who does a lot of the writing for Jones' site. As the site owner who employs Watson and posts his material, Jones is also responsible for the content of Watson's articles, in the absence of any specific disclaimers relating to such articles.

In the article referred to, Watson alleges Government criminality on the basis that Flight 93 wasn't shot down when it should have been. Watson apparently believes the official story that it crashed after heroic passengers rose up against the nasty Arabs who hijacked it. Watson isn't bothered by the fact that the alleged crash site shows no evidence whatsoever of a plane crash. Watson is also not bothered by the fact that according to the FAA aircraft registry, the plane which flew UA 93 that day was still registered as valid for more than four years after its alleged destruction. The lack of evidence for any of the alleged Arabs on any of the flights is also of no concern to Watson.

If Watson doesn't believe the hijacker story (he's never really clear about this), but believes that by an amazing coincidence, the electronically hijacked flight just happened to crash due to a mechanical failure, then he doesn't bother to tell us that he believes the reason for the crash to be different from the official story of the heroic uprising.

But that's not the focus of the complaint in my article linked above. The Government and the media says that the heroic passengers overpowered the nasty Arabs and crashed the plane and it seems that this is good enough for Watson, so I let that pass.

I hypothetically followed the idea of four planes crashing as per the official story and showed that even in the context of accepting that, Watson's article was gibberish, an exercise in self contradictory obfuscation, and an undercover strike against the real stand down research.(That is, research demonstrating that even if one accepts the mythical hijackings, then the planes could not have reached their targets without being allowed to do so by means of a stand down of the US air force.)

Watson's article attempted to create the impression of disputing the official story, but actually fully supported it.

The Watson article also employed a good degree of doublethink. (Triplethink actually) On the one hand, Watson claimed (ignoring the documented proof to the contrary) that the air force scrambled (activated for interception) fighter jets as required. His problem was that the allegedly scrambled fighters were denied the shoot down orders necessary to remedy the situation.

But in the very same article he also claimed that they didn't scramble when they should have, perhaps indicating a stand down.

And then he claimed that they were ready and willing to scramble but were so confused by "noise in the system" that they had no idea what was going on and therefore did not know what planes they had to chase

In relation to third scenario in the many parellel worlds of Paul Joseph Watson... If they didn't know what was going on sufficiently to even know what plane if any, to chase, then how could anyone have known enough to issue a shoot down order ?

That's only scratching the surface of the problems with Watson's piece, but one can read the deconstruction linked at the beginning of this article to pursue that subject fully. In this article, I will let all that go and simply accept the following. That Watson ( and therefore Jones) claim Government criminality on the basis that flight 93 was not shot down when it should have been.

Here is the relevant quote from Watson's article.

[[Despite the lies of Cheney in his subsequent TV interviews and statements given under oath to the 9/11 Commission, those shoot down orders never arrived, even after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania.]]

OK, if that's what Watson and Jones believe, then that's what they believe. That flight 93 crashed, and that the lack of a shoot down is evidence of Government criminality.

But it seems that they are "flexible" on this belief, depending on which article you are reading.

Because if you go to Alex Jones' companion site "Infowars" you 'll find an allegation of Government criminality because flight 93 allegedly *was* shot down and should *not* have been.

Flight 93 Shootdown Pilot Identified

Not only have the supposed facts of the incident changed dramatically, but also the definition of Government criminality. Not shooting it down was a crime. So was shooting it down. And it seems that both happened.

Here are some excerpts from the latter claim.

[[Major Rick Gibney fired two sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in mid flight at precisely 0958...Major Rick Gibney did as he was ordered and did nothing criminal. He was merely following orders, of which he had no choice. Please do not harrass this man or bother him for doing what his CO & ultimately George Bush, ordered him to do.Major Rick Gibney has no reason to feel guilty nor regret following orders. The fault lies with his superiors...He had no way to know that this plane wasn't a 'hostile.']]

The discovery of this information is attributed to "Let's Roll" but if you click on the supplied link to Let's Roll" it takes you to a page saying that there is no evidence of any plane crashing or being shot down.

In fact, the first words on the linked "Let's Roll" page are

[[The Movie Flight 93 is a TOTAL LIE! No Plane at Shanksville, Pennsylvania. No Crash, No Shootdown, No Flight 93. ]]

How the "proof" of a shoot down came to be attributed to a web page which denies that any such thing happened is not explained. Perhaps "Let's Roll" used to believe in a shoot down and changed their minds and therefore the page, and Jones hasn't caught up with that development? If better standards of referencing had been used, we might have a clearer idea of whether there was ever, at any time, any justification for Jones attributing this to "Let's Roll ". But careful and clear documentation was never Jones' strong point.

Because Jones' standards of referencing are so poor, all we know is that we see a claim that UA 93 was shot down, all proved by "Let's Roll", but if you actually go to the supplied link you see a denial of any evidence of any plane disaster in Shanksville.

The standards of the Prisonplanet/Infowars sits are so appalling that in order to properly examine one problem, we have to ignore a host of others. So, now let's set aside the fact that one article alleges Govt criminality on the basis that Flight 93 was not shot down, while another alleges Govt criminality on the basis that it was.

Let's also set aside that the credit for the discovery of the name of the pilot who supposedly shot it down is attributed to a site which actually says that there is no evidence of any plane crash or shoot down.

Let's also ignore that Jones apparently finds it too difficult to look at photos of where the plane apparently crashed (*and* was shot down) and think "hmm, where's the wreckage ?"

Let's set aside that Jones doesn't consider official records from the FAA aircraft registry even worthy of mention.

Let's also ignore that Jones apparently believes in the nasty 19 Arabs and the heroic passengers who overpowered them them to cause the crash.(That's in the parallel universe to the one in which it was shot down for no reason.)

Or perhaps Jones accepts that there weren't any nasty Arab hijackers, and therefore no uprising, and that therefore by an astonishing coincidence, this plane crashed via a mechanical failure. And Jones never strokes his chin over this one and asks "hmmm What's the likelihood of that ?".

But then again, it didn't crash. It was shot down. Well...maybe. It depends on which Prisonplanet/Infowars article you are reading.

Setting all this aside, what is the basis for Jones' belief in a shoot down - apart from a link to website which actually denies that this happened ?

Someone told Jones that it was his friend who shot the plane down, and that's good enough for Jones.

Forget the photos of the alleged crash site. Forget the FAA aircraft registry. Someone said "my friend shot the plane down" and said it in an interview with Jones, so there's your proof.

While we're at it we can solve the Azaria Chamberlain controversy, because if Alex will let me go on his show and tell him that my friend trained the dingo to snatch babies, then that's all settled too.

If Jones has a dictionary, he would be well advised to look up the word "hearsay". In case he doesn't have one, my dictionary defines is as "gossip, rumour".

So there's your proof of Government criminality in shooting down flight 93 - except in the parallel universe where the criminal Government failed in its duty to shoot it down.

If Jones and Watson have a disagreement about what happened to flight 93, as well as a disagreement about what constitutes Govt criminality (shooting it down when it should not have been, or failing to shoot it down when it should have been) that's OK. There's nothing wrong with people on the same website disagreeing on specific pieces of evidence. As long as the disagreements are acknowledged. Jones authorizes Watson to write for his site, and is therefore responsible, in the absence of a disclaimer, for Watson's claim that it should have been shot down and wasn't.

It's not as if this is an oversight atypical of the site. Given the astonishing levels of doublethink within the one Watson article, as shown in my linked deconstruction of it, it's hardly surprising that we should see cross-doublethink from one article to another. Alex Jones also seems to have a knack of infecting his followers with this doublethink disease.

I received an angry email from one Alex Jones fan , castigating me for my deconstruction of Watson's article. An extract.

[[Flight 93 was shot down ! Alex has interviewed the pilot who was awarded the Silver Star for this mission. Is that man a liar ?..What happened to flight 93 ? Was it space aliens instead of righteous generals in the US air force that shot down flight 93 ? Hmmm Gerard ?...Alex has stated enumerable times that flight 93 was shot down.]]

Fine. My angry correspondent can help Alex to argue about it with his own website writer- Paul Joseph Watson. That's who wrote the following words, which which caused such ire on the part of my critic.

My angry correspondent has no problem with Watson contradicting Jones, and therefore Jones contradicting himself, considering that Watson's articles are authorized by Jones. I just shouldn't quote from the offending contradictions when deconstructing them. In fact I shouldn't have taken issue with Watson's article at all. Alex is so sure that Flight 93 *was* shot down, that it's disgusting behavior on my part to expose the flaws in an article which claims that it was *not* shot down.

Apparently it's my fault that Jones contradicts himself.

This raises the wider question of the self styled "9/11truth movement" as a doublethink cult. This question is examined in greater detail in my article The Truth about Truthlings -The 9/11 Doublethink Movement.