911: A conspiracy, not just theory

There are probably dozens (if not more) conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11 and whether in fact Al Qaeda was in fact responsible.

I for one was never convinced that Osama bin Laden was behind the hijacking and the resulting destruction in the US that day. A lot of it never made any sense to me – most importantly the motive was never clear.

I mean if you look at the facts as they have played out neither Osama bin Laden nor his Al Qaeda movement has benefited in the least... if anything they have lost much more.

But then who has benefited?

It's all about ME!

Now this might seem completely a bizarre outlook and the height of egotism, but sometimes I believe that the world is only at most 100/150 years old and has been developed for my sole entertainment and for the stage that is my life.

In other words my life is nothing short of my life-long movie, brilliantly choreographed by millions of extras who are only on stage and performing their roles when I am around.

A made up true story of something that might have happened, maybe

This is a true story I could be made up (but it could very well be a made up story that could be true).

A neighbour couple's son walked in on them while they were 'cooking up a storm,' or 'peeling the banana,' or 'tying down the boat.' Now perhaps they were doing literally that (I wan't there so I don't know), i.e 'cooking up a storm' for a big dinner party, or 'peeling the banana' to put in their cornflakes, or 'tying down the boat' since a storm was moving in... but you, the reader, probably jumped to a conclusion and made a fairly broad assumption about what they might actually have been occupied with.

Assumptions can be a pain (in the leg)

Jumping to conclusions...

Things are never as bad as they are perceived to be... and very seldom are they ever worse. Yet time and time again I have found myself postponing the unavoidable in the glitched assumption that the eventual encounter will be a bad (rather, emotionally painful) experience.

It never is as bad as the levels my imagination takes it to. On second thought, it never is 'bad.' Period.

Assumptions are like in-built reflex actions masquerading as base survival instinct; it has really little value in the whole scope of things. In my opinion assumptions feed on the relative insecurity and gnawing self-doubts of individuals. The more confident a person the less assumptions he invariably makes – or perhaps the less he allows assumptions to take control of subsequent actions.

That is all well and good, but very few people (if hardly any at all) never assume – its like not being able to help but judge taste by aroma or looks alone.

Simply put, people assume to prepare themselves for what they imagine they should expect (when particularly what they imagine is not real) – it's like the shock of choosing to experience without assumption first could prove fatal.

Of course some assumptions – like judging the speed of an approaching car as one crosses the road – are vital and can actually prove fatal if misjudged and then followed by an incorrect decision. Rule of thumb is that if you have to assume and err, err on the side of caution.

That said, while it is safer to assume that an encounter with the business end of a speeding bus could be severely detrimental to one's health, the same assumption does not extend to an encounter with a person (no matter how belligerent in appearance), yet at times our reluctance seems to reflect that very expectation.

Of course one should never completely discount just keeping to oneself and not getting involved – after all no blame on someone who has not played a part. But then neither has anyone ever won the lottery by not getting involved.

Then again getting involved may not always be a conscious choice, often times lady fate has a hand and gets you involved...

Just read about the story of a Florida woman who broke her leg when a 60-75 lb jumping sturgeon landed on the airboat she was travelling on as it taxied to the boat ramp and hit her. You can be sure she didn't want to get involved with that show-off fish.

According to experts, apparently the sturgeons jump out of the water (with all intentions of landing straight back in) as either a sign of communication or dominance. Ironically the poor fish neither failed to communicate its intention clearly (although it was able to slid back into the water after the impact) nor demonstrate its dominance (or lack thereof, unless you count its dominance over the woman's femur bone).

Which brings me back to my original point about assumptions, contrary to increasing assumptions following the incident, sturgeons don't 'attack' people.

Allen Martin, a biologist at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, explained in a statement “these fish are in no way attacking when they jump. They are simply doing what they have been doing for millions of years: jumping. They aren't targeting the boaters."

Go figure... another glitched assumption.