Why 9/11 Is the Defining Issue of our Time
"In matters of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one single person."
- Galileo Galilei
The mainstream official story holds that 9/11 was an attack by outsiders (in the form of fanatical Islamists) on the U.S. and by association also on all free democratic nations.
The MIHOP ("make it happen on purpose") alternative view holds that 9/11 was an attack by insiders on the same.
Let's call the official story the OMIHOP version ("O" standing for Osama). In the OMIHOP scenario we have fanatics lead by Osama who “hate our freedoms” bent on an irrational campaign of punitive justice based on a distorted interpretation of Koranic Law.
In the MIHOP camp we have a variety of views which center on the idea that a cabal of business men, industrialists, generals, intelligence agencies and politicians conspired to engineer a “New Pearl Harbour” - effectively a coup d’etat which allowed them to seize executive control of the U.S. government and military machine - to invade and occupy the Middle East as anticipated in the PNAC documents, and enforce a "New World Order" over numerous other countries.
A third position, the LIHOP view, involves a mixture (of varying proportions) of MIHOP and OMIHOP elements.
All of these scenarios are largely speculation and require conspiracies. The question an impartial observer would ask is not “are the 9/11 conspiracy theories true?”, but rather “which 9/11 conspiracy theory best matches the known facts?”.
Which Conspiracy Theory Best Matches the Facts?
I am often asked if I "believe" the "conspiracy theory". I find this question perplexing. The question implies so many assumptions that are clearly wrong, such as:
- there is one unambigious mainstream version of events
- the mainstream version of events does not involve a conspiracy
- the 9/11 Truth perspective is based on "belief"
- the 9/11 Truth perspective is represented by one unifying alternative theory
When a friend asks this question in good faith it is best seen as an expression of their confusion and ignorance - and we need to be patient with our friends. We need to politely sit them down and explain the complexities to them slowly and carefully. The question itself needs to be deconstructed. When a journalist poses the same question we don't need to be so gentle however. Journalists are paid professionals. They make a joke of their profession and fools of themselves when they project simplistic "flatland" interpretations of the 9/11 Truth movement. They deserve to be reprimanded severely.
The alternative theories address gaps and contradictions in the official account, while the official theory stands like a monolith, dismissing alternative views with a wave of the hand and casual remarks about "nutty professors", "idiot paranoia" or the "vile and poisonous effects of trutheriness" (see below for more delightful quotes). The alternative theories appeal to our capacity to look at the evidence intelligently, to use inductive and deductive reasoning, while the official theory merely says “trust the government, we are here to protect you - only a fool (or a traitor) would believe otherwise”.
The alternative theories appeal to those of us who have outgrown a naive belief that governments are fundamentally committed to protecting their own people. They make sense of many anomalies and odd coincidences in the official story, such as the simultaneous war games on the morning of 9/11, the failure of NORAD to follow its normal, routine procedures, the ignoring of warnings, and the fact that Hani Hanjour was refused permission to rent a Cessna. These points of fact are addressed in the MIHOP/LIHOP alternative theories - while the official story ignores or minimises them. I offer these points as examples - the goal of this essay is not to catalogue evidence for alternative 9/11 theories but to try to express why it is that the alternative theories are more satisfying to thinking people.
For quite a while I myself was unwilling to accept the possibility that a modern, democratically elected government would murder thousands of its citizens. This cognitive dissonance is the biggest barrier for many now as they try to grapple with 9/11 alternative theories. Cognitive dissonance works like a weapon in the hands of the State. It threatens our self esteem to believe that the State may want to hurt us. It is like discovering you were abused as a child. The immediate tendency is to suppress the awareness so as to maintain one’s familar self image.
The reality of childhood abuse is that the damage was done long ago, and the same goes for all of us who have been abused by the propaganda of the “war on terror”. The terror attacks, followed by promotion of lies and disinformation via the mass media, damaged us emotionally and psychologically - just as a parent or a priest who abuses a child and then publicly denies it (or worse, blames it on someone else) damages that child.
We live within a framework which includes an implicit social contract between the citizens and the State:
Without society, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms … and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten one's own self-preservation; there are no positive rights, only laws of nature and an endless "war of all against all" ... To avoid this, we jointly agree to an implicit social contract by which we each gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to honor the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so. The figurehead of the society we create, representing our joint interests as members and formed by the delegation of our power, is the sovereign state.
Alternate definitions of the social contract: link
U.S. government representatives may have been behind the attacks, or may have simply lied about their lack of knowledge, or a bit of both. Either way, Locke's social contract (ie. to provide protection to the citizenry) was violated, and the damage of that is incalculable. You could say that the contract is null and void. The citizens are now entitled to rebellion. The alternative would be to lie down and suffer the consequences, which in this case, I suggest, will be to intellectually/emotionally cripple a whole generation.
Imagine yourself a teenager trying to form a sensible picture of the world over the past few years. Think about how all the phony terrorism would affect your brain. The lies and disinformation surrounding the war on terror are poorly constructed - the gaps in logic are huge, the flaws in the facade easily seen. The only way to avoid becoming suspicious would be to dumb yourself down to the point you could believe that two plus two make five if the mass media tells tells you so. The other option is to become an outsider - a weirdo who can't fit in. This is the choice facing young people right now.
The Dangers of Doublethink
There are so many questions to be answered about what happened on 9/11, including such details as the real perpetrators, their main objective, the means by which this was achieved, and their underlying motives etc… I doubt we’ll ever get satisfactory answers, but what is most important is that we strenuously reject attempts to force us into “doublethink” and subvert universally recognised principles of science and reason.
If we allow the State (or its agents) to persuade us there there were no explosions at the World Trade Center or that Newtons’s laws of motion don’t apply to its collapse, we are surrendering to a type of tyranny which George Orwell described only too well:
The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'
In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense…
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer…
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.'
George Orwell, 1984.
Orwell’s vision of the future seems exaggerated and a little silly these days, but it depicts a type of pathology which, sadly, seems to be endemic to human societies. It has emerged in plain sight at various points in history. It made its presence felt in the first half of the 20th century, then receded. Its central characteristic seems to be the subjugation and denial of the value and power of the individual, and the promotion of the State to a wrathful godlike status, ie. the “boot stamping on a human face”, as Orwell puts it.
Now it appears to be on the rise again.
I can’t help being reminded of 1984 every time I read a media hit-piece on the 9/11 movement. And it amazes me, because these journalists are university educated, they probably read Orwell or at least are aware of the themes expressed in his books. Yet they talk and act exactly like the fictional “Party intellectuals” satirized above. They mould their perceptions to match any version of reality fed to them as fact by their masters, and they are able to effortlessly gloss over logical contradictions, errors of fact and the evidence of their own senses. This worries me.
The Australian - Outright Smear
David Nason - link
The membership is mostly ordinary folk such as Acosta but there are also film stars such as Charlie Sheen and a band of academics known as "the nutty professors" who give an appearance of intellectual and scientific respectability to theories that would otherwise be dismissed as the idiot paranoia of fringe-dwellers.
Time Magazine - A More Condescending Tone
Lev Grossman - link
There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it.
The Nation - Outrageous doubethink plus smears
Alexander Cockburn - link
You trip over one fundamental idiocy of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts in the first paragraph of the book by one of their high priests, David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor…
One notorious “deductive” leap involves flight 77, which on 9/11 ended up crashing into the Pentagon. There are photos of the impact of the “object” -- i.e., the Boeing 757, flight 77 -- that seem to show the sort of hole a missile might make. Ergo, the nuts assert, it WAS a missile and a 757 didn’t hit the Pentagon. As regards the hole, my brother Andrew -- writing a book about Rumsfeld and the DoD during his tenure -- has seen photos taken within 30 minutes of Pentagon impact clearly showing outline of entire plane including wings. This was visible momentarily when the smoke blew away…
we believe you alexander - but please ask your BROTHER to post this photo to the web !
The nuts disdain the real world because, like much of the left and liberal sectors, they have promoted Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons to an elevated status as the Arch Demons of American history, instead of being just one more team running the American empire, a team of more than usual stupidity and incompetence (characteristics I personally favor in imperial leaders.)
The Washintong Post - Sneaky, Ad Hominem thrusts
Michael Powell - link
As cacophonous and free-range a bunch of conspiracists anywhere this side of Guy Fawkes, they produce hip-hop inflected documentaries and scholarly conferences. The Web is their mother lode. Every citizen is a researcher. There's nothing like a triple, Google-fed epiphany lighting up the laptop at 2:44 a.m…
There is a "morning after" quality to the conspiratorial romance. One moment you groove on the epiphanies and the next moment you're lost in a dull haze of "this cannot be a coincidence," "perhaps significantly"…
"They don't do their homework; it's a kind of charlatanism," Berlet says over the phone. "They say there's no debris on the lawn in front of the Pentagon, but they base their analysis on a photo on the Internet . That's like analyzing an impressionist painting by looking at a postcard."
Now comes a loud sigh.
"I love 'The X-Files' but I don't base my research on it," he says. "My vision of hell is having to review these [conspiracy] books over and over again."
Salon.com - Mocks the Pentagon no-plane theory, presents obtuse counter arguments, then finishes with a big smear
Patrick Smith - link
According to the would-be detectives, it wasn't a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, but either a radio-controlled fighter or a missile. The conspicuous dearth of wreckage proves this. This is the "magic bullet" of Sept. 11. Almost no recognizable pieces of the supposed 80-ton 757 were found at the scene…
...The effects of ground effect can be mitigated by changing the plane's angle of attack -- in this case, that meant adjusting its nose-down pitch. This low-level finesse would have been a challenge for Hani Hanjour, but by no means impossible, especially if he'd coordinated his final descent with help from the autopilot, which can make the needed adjustments easily…
yes, it would have been quite a challenge for a guy who “could not fly at all” (see quote above) ! No one said it’s IMPOSSIBLE, it’s just extremely unlikely, like a pig with wings. So the above doesn’t refute anything - it is merely furious handwaving - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwaving
It's distressing that so many people become married to a preposterous idea based on little more than erroneous interpretations of some pictures and selective, manipulative use of evidence. But in debating this stuff now and again, you learn that it can be a bit like arguing religion. Evidence, or lack of it, has little to do with what motivates many believers. At the heart of their convictions is something utterly unprovable. It's faith.
Salon.com forces you to sit through interminable ads in order to read the full article. Pop-up animations appear on top of the text as you try to read it. It’s clear that professional journalism is the least of their concerns.
New York Post - FIVE YEARS AFTER 9/11: TINFOIL HATS ATTACK - The title really says it all
Michelle Malkin - link
I GET several e-mails from 9/11 conspiracy theorists every week, usually typed in all capital letters with minimal punctuation and maximum sputter. Here's a typical message I received last Tuesday: "It appears you are not a believer. So, I have only one question, perhaps, but doubtfully, you can answer. WHY DID BUILDING SEVEN COME DOWN?" …
In case the subtlety of this argument is lost on you... Michelle is basically saying that 9/11 Truthers are mentally retarded (:
As it happens, Popular Mechanics magazine's new book, "Debunking 9/11 Myths," answers that question concisely - with the caps key off. Among the unhinged fever swamps in academia and on the Internet, there is widespread suspicion that World Trade Center 7 collapsed as a result of a controlled demolition set by Secret Service and CIA agents who had offices there…
"Debunking 9/11 Myths" is a necessary antidote to counteract the vile and poisonous effects of Trutheriness. Unfortunately, it will not cure the persistent symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome that have blinded so many to the evils of jihad that exploded before our eyes five short years ago.
Counterpunch - Left Gatekeeper doubethink plus the usual insults
Joshua Frank - link
I really have no interest in debunking all the nutty conspiracies revolving around September 11, 2001. I find the exercise about as entertaining as discussing the virgin birth with a Christian fundamentalist. The truth is, it's is damn near impossible to convince a zealot of their senselessness.
While some BYU physicist rattles his brain over the intricacies of WTC #7's collapse, our government is dropping toxic gas on poor peasants in Colombia in attempts to eradicate coca production. While David Ray Griffin pens his next best seller, forests in Alaska and Appalachia are being obliterated in the name of corporate profit.
Reading these articles it becomes clear that the journalists have taken it upon themselves to instruct us! It seems they think their job is to tell us what to believe, what to ridicule, who to laugh at and and who to jeer at. They come in all shapes and sizes and political colourings. The left gatekeepers are the most ridiculous - they argue that the 9/11 conspiracies are irrelevant (while refusing to look at the evidence) and cast scorn on people such as Jones and Griffin - accusing these men of shameless grandstanding and profiteering. I wonder how many of the gate keepers would be prepared to put their own careers on the line for what they believe as Steven Jones has done? My guess is - none.
So far, the media apparatchiks are confining themselves to ridiculing the leaders of the 9/11 Truth movement. At some point they may well accuse them of something worse. I would like to put my hands around their throats and choke them (figuratively) until they cough up their hidden agenda. The thing that worries me most is that perhaps they wrote these articles without any coercion at all, that they internalised the doublethink so well that this prose flows effortlessly from their brains.
The Australian Lifestyle - Relaxed and Comfortable ..?
On the whole, life is still pretty free and easy here in Australia, however it may surprise some visitors to this page to know that the War on Terror is a big deal here, and that we have recently passed into law some of the most extreme security measures of any western democracy. The government can detain our citzens indefinitely without charging them with any offence, or they can place them under “control orders” even after the legal process has exonerated them of comitting any crime.
Till now the application of these laws has been limited, and we are being lulled into believing that our freedom is not really under threat. However, it should be noted that there has been no terrorist attack on mainland Australia as yet, either. This can all change overnight. With the new laws, people can be routinely detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure if the State security apparatus determines that they pose a threat.
One of the provisions in the new anti-terror legislation concerns the crime of sedition.
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and (b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist, by any means whatever, an organisation or country; and (c) the organisation or country is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force.
To give an example of an application of the above provisions, a person who urged Australian soldiers and their allies to lay down their arms and refuse to fight, would be urging persons to engage in conduct that: (i) would assist a country at war with Australia, and (ii) assist a country engaged in armed hostilities with the Australian Defence Force.
This pacifist would possibly be committing an offence under the Act.
For the offences contained within the sedition provisions the penalty is imprisonment for up to seven years. Of the above five offences, the additional element of ‘recklessness’ applies to the first three. Recklessness under the criminal legislation requires that the person consciously considers the risks involved and nevertheless proceeds with the conduct.
From Arts Law Centre of Australia Online
As currently drafted there are “good faith” defences which provide protections for a person who:
a) tries in good faith to show that any of the following persons are mistaken in any of his or her counsels, policies or actions:
(i) the Sovereign;
(ii) the Governor-General;
(iii) the Governor of a State;
(iv) the Administrator of a Territory;
(v) an adviser of any of the above;
(vi) a person responsible for the government of another country; or
(b) points out in good faith errors or defects in the following, with a view to reforming those errors or defects:
(i) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
(ii) the Constitution;
(iii) legislation of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country;
(iv) the administration of justice of or in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country; or
(c) urges in good faith another person to attempt to lawfully procure a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country;
My understanding of current legislation is that websites such as 911oz.com can be defended against charges of sedition, since they are attempts in good faith to point out errors or defects in the Government and the administration of justice. However, were I to openly support the armed resistance in Iraq (which I do not) I would instantly be guilty of sedition and liable to a prison term of 7 years.
This is a serious situation.
Everyone who questions the “war on terror” needs to see this and realise that the power elite is quite capable of declaring us to be its enemies.
A New Investigation ?
Increasingly, members of the 9/11 Truth movement have been calling for “a new investigation”. I wonder whether this is the right approach. The real criminals are trying to buy time for themselves right now, and a new investigation would do just that. It would take at least a year to get started, and another two or three years to run.
The lesson from the first 9/11 Commission is clear: both sides of politics are tainted, and there appears to be no part of the executive government which is trustworthy. The new investigation therefore would probably end up being merely a cover-up of a cover-up.
The dangers of a new, government-run, 9/11 investigation are threefold:
- it may cause the 9/11 truth movement to lose steam just as it becomes a truly mainstream force.
- it may fail in its mission
- it may waste years in the process.
Meanwhile, the false flag terror operations will continue, and the real truth seekers will be, once again, marginalised. I think that the better solution is to continue to pressure for release of vital information under FOI requests, to continue to publicise the information that we have and to allow the normal process of law enforcement to follow its course.
9/11 was an event of global proportions. The globalists’ strategy to disempower us requires an equally “global” strategy to counter it.
Perhaps the most serious problem with a “new investigation” is that it will tend to isolate, regionalise and thereby disempower the movement.
Remember, Australia and the U.K have been fully recruited into the war on terror. We have been the target of terrorist attacks (in Bali and London), we have seen a rising tide of racist anti-Muslim polemic, an increasingly paranoid state security apparatus coupled with the passing into law of draconian anti-terrorism measures.
We need to understand that our commmon enemy is not the Bush regime or any specific political grouping. It is far more diffuse - apparently without borders. We need therefore to work beyond our geographical limitations, and counter its subversive strategies with equally sophisticated (non-violent) strategies.