LOL check this out: 9/11 "Truth" = Waste of Time

Some people might remember this guy from here, if anyone wants to give his ass a truth-spanking feel free;,149.msg1300.html#msg1300


I have been extremely busy, and it's refreshing to finally have time to sit down and write some things that I have been wrangling with for the last couple of weeks.

Last month was the five-year anniversary of 9/11, and with it came equally extreme reactions from the political right and left. The reactions on the right are well-documented by the corporate media, namely, the usage of that event to justify (unconvincingly) a war on an idea/tactic (terror) and America's continued imperial gallivanting throughout the world, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as roll-backs of domestic civil liberties. On the left, in particular the far-left, it was a moment to commemorate what some call "the big lie" or "the inside job" or even "the most important event in American history." Those that are convinced that 9/11 was an "inside job" are those that this piece will focus on. I will not address their "evidence," but rather why the energy spent trying to "expose" well-established truths is a political dead-end and a waste of time given the very real and very open criminal acts that are being perpetrated on black and brown people throughout the world.

Most of these thoughts come as a result of discussions on this website.. The specific discussions are in the "Politics" sub-forum. If you want to see what I would call the cutting edge in 9/11 "Truth" conspiracism, look under the sub-forum entitled "Crossing the Boundary." In a stroke of supreme irony, I have been banned from the site (which is probably the fifth ban I have received in the last two months for espousing unpopular beliefs regarding 9/11 and other things). As I will discuss later on, 9/11 Truth is an inflexible, and at times totalitarian movement, whose inability to tolerate the possibility that there was no direct conspiracy eerily mimics the "fascism" that it says is on the horizon if the "Truth" is not exposed.

Conspiracism is a common thread that runs fairly strong in far-left/progressive circles. It exists for what I think are several reasons: first, the left is well aware of the unconscionable things that the American government has done throughout its existence. Secondly, it exists because many leftists are entirely skeptical of power, especially the concentrated power that rests in the hands of America's ruling elite. Lastly, it exists because it is an easy solution to what are often complex, multi-layered problems and events. It is much easier to assign world events and conflicts to the machinations of a shadowy, Illuminati type organization, than it is to unpeel the onion of chaos, incompetence and luck that color intricate human interactions. The political effects on the left of the third reason are particularly disheartening and counterproductive as people waste precious time trying to “uncover” the works of a probably non-existent “New World Order” instead of fighting the open secrets that directly impact billions of the earth’s peoples.

I cannot speak directly to the ethnic, racial and class composition of the 9/11 "Truth" movement, however I can speak to it anecdotally. 9/11 “Truth” is a movement of largely white, middle-class college-aged to middle-aged individuals who are on the positive side of the digital divide. They have consistent access to the Internet and use it as their primary vehicle for organizing and the dissemination of information. The very nature of Internet activism precludes consistent participation in Internet-driven social movements by the poor. Needless to say, in the United States poverty and race are inextricably linked, and the doors to accessing this so-called movement are closed to an important segment of the population. Many discussion forums, both on the net and before live audiences are bereft of people of color and their perspectives, especially if those perspectives do not support the “inside-job” line that dominates the movement. They claim that a New World Order is emerging as a result of 9/11, however they fail to see, or admit, that this New World Order is certainly not new to people of color in the United States and around the world. American power has been projected into ghettoes, barrios and black and brown countries for more than two hundred years, yet it only becomes apparent to this movement when it is exposed by the events of September the 11th and put into the faces of those who have been sheltered from the dirty end of American politics.

Another important feature of the movement is that its basic premise is dismissive of people of color. A common argument is that the operation was far too complex for a small cadre of Arabs and Muslims, whose handlers were cave bound in faraway Afghanistan, to pull off. It is automatically dismissive of the very tangible reaction that people of color have to white imperialism and American (white) foreign policy. It is dismissive of the agency that those individuals took on that day in order to carry out a task that they believe was orchestrated by the Bush administration. It is beyond the realm of possibility that everything that happened on that day, even with its myriad anomalies, was done by brown skinned people directly in reaction to the political policies of the United States government (which is largely, I would argue, 98% controlled by white men). This movement is entirely dismissive of the power of individual action in the face of perceived tyranny. It attributes the events of that day not to the ingenious plans of politically savvy Muslims who took advantage of the weakness of a white-run government whose own hubris made the mental possibility of a domestic “terrorist” attack slim to none. It attributes them to the actions of those largely white neo-conservative idealists whose unabashed conceit has landed American military power in a quagmire on two fronts; to men (and a few women) who cannot admit that their plans and estimations of the people they sought to conquer were far from realistic. They deny the very strong possibility that Osama bin Laden and what has come to be known as Al Qaeda actually outsmarted the richest and most powerful country in the world and struck at its very heart. They cannot accept that the men who more than likely carried out the acts witnessed by millions of people were in fact highly trained warriors who had fought in countless guerilla-style battles. Nor can they accept the fact that the CIA or CIA operatives trained the trainers of the hijackers in how to carry out actions like those taken on 9/11. All of this very real, and very loud resistance is swept under the rug and out of the realm of possibility by the 9/11 “Truth” movement. This dismissiveness is reflected most keenly in the fact that there are very few prominent people of color in the movement.

Coupled with the patronizing paternalism of the movement and its inability to accept acts of violent resistance by brown skinned peoples, is its total ignorance of the struggles of people of color in the United States and the United States’ own history of severe, proto-fascist legislation that pre-dates the events of 9/11 by many decades. Many in the 9/11 “Truth” movement think that 9/11 was staged as a pretext to introduce draconian legislation aimed at suppressing domestic dissent and to hasten the rise of a fascist state in the wake of the destruction of our oh-so-perfect current one. They believe that the “elite” saw 9/11 as the perfect opportunity to roll back all of the gains that have been made over the last thirty five years, and to do it in one fell swoop. Many others argue that 9/11 is the most important event in recent history and that it presents a singular opportunity to expose just how down and dirty the US government is willing to get. These beliefs are particularly shallow because they ignore the history of the US government and how war has always been used as a pretext to roll back civil liberties.

One need only look at the history of African Americans to see that many of the hyperbolic, chicken-little, “the sky is falling” arguments are but repetitions of common themes in US history. Black people are well aware of the underhandedness with which the US government often carries out its agenda. They were brought here in chains, forced to build the economy of their enslavers without compensation, be raped and murdered, have their languages and histories erased and taught to hate themselves by the very men who represented the highest levels of that government. The political and social effects of slavery are still felt today and are a stain on any moral legitimacy that the US might ever try to claim. Meld this with the histories of Native Americans, women and the poor and there exists a smorgasbord of events to choose from that display the sickening depths that the powerful will sink to further their own agendas and maintain their grips on their ill begotten gains. Yet all of this is lost on the 9/11 “Truth” movement. In their zealousness to prove the “Truth” they ignore the very real fact that often amoral and downright evil acts committed by the US government are not secrets and that even if 9/11 was an inside job, it merely falls into a larger pattern of domestic and international abuse perpetrated by a sociopathic state entity.

This “world changing” movement was non-existent during the decades when urban police forces were being militarized to fight a “War on Drugs.” They were silent as thousands of black men were sent to jail while their communities became essential police states. They say that the “War on Terror” is a possibly endless war and that US civil liberties are being rolled. True, however, these are merely the latest in a long line of possibly endless wars that the US has decided to fight. The “War on Drugs” is a miserable failure, resulting in nothing more than the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of poor and people of color (some might argue that the point of that war was to do just that) and an increase profitability and purity of drugs. The “Cold War” was seen as something that would never end, and it did. The point is that these wars are never permanent, and never met without resistance. They are usually spectacular failures that are merely mid-range subsidies of defense contractors. Yet, all of these points are ignored and the problem becomes real only when a camera is installed at an intersection in a white neighborhood or the latest piece of legislation used to consolidate the political class’s power is passed. Again, the short-term historical memory of the 9/11 “Truth” movement blinds its followers because they are so convinced that there particular historical moment is the most important ever.

One need only look at US history when there is a threat to see that things like the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act are typical and that as long as people are vigilant that they never last. If people are not complacent, and are willing to struggle, then they will not stand, and history shows this to be true time and time again. For example, there were the Alien and Sedition Acts, or the 1917 Espionage Act or the 1917 Sedition Act. These things were challenged and they were defeated. People do not just sit silently when these things happen, and certainly are not silent now. The times and actors in history change, and therefore the possibility of change is constant. However, these examples might as well not exist in the minds of the 9/11 “Truth” zealots.

A large number of “Truthers” claim that the events of that day were singular in American history, when they most certainly were not, not even in comparison with modern US history. One example that should temper the indignation of these crusaders are the events that took place at the Gulf of Tonkin. This event preceded what, until now, was the biggest US foreign policy disaster of the last seventy-five years. Tonkin followed others like that of the USS Maine or the Lusitania. Some of the more savvy members of the 9/11 “Truth” movement say that all of these events were false flag operations and that they were orchestrated by the very governments who claimed to be victimized by them. This may very well be true (more often than not it is not), but what matters more is how these events were taken advantage of by those governments, which takes me to my last and most important point: proving that 9/11 was an “inside job” does nothing to establish that the US government is willing to do anything to its citizens to further its domestic and foreign policy goals, nor does it do anything to stop the suffering of the hundreds of thousands of black and brown people around the world who are dying as a result of US foreign policy.

I have been in many arguments with members of the 9/11 “Truth” movement who say that this event will “make Americans wake up” and maybe even push for revolution. They say that throwing the Bush administration will change the world forever. These are both naïve concepts to say the least. The grip that corporate controlled news has on the flow of information into the lives of many Americans is almost unchallenged. The Internet is a valuable tool, but not one that is as nearly accessed like television. Merely showing that corporate media conglomerates and the government work together does nothing to change the structures that allow them to do this. The same goes for throwing the Bush administration out. It does nothing to change the fundamental core of the system. In fact a democratic regime would not be under the kind of scrutiny by the left that a conservative regime would be. One need only look at Bill Clinton to see this and how the left was silent as he expanded the federal death penalty, destroyed welfare, and supported a level of unprecedented corporate malfeasance. At the very least, a conservative regime keeps the progressive left honest and on its toes. Knowledge without a plan of action is merely edifying and not world changing and that is what a main argument for 9/11 “Truth” is. They have a magical faith in knowledge not backed with a detailed course of action. It is fairytale politics. Magically, one day people will wake up, and only showing that the government is shady will do this. They ignore the fact that most people who are lethargic are that way because they have a level of material comfort that shelters them from having to face hard reality. Unless 9/11 “Truth” changes material reality, none of that is going to change and no one is going to “wake up” and see the system for what it is.

Lastly, 9/11 “Truth” is a waste of time given the heinous acts that need to be fought on a fulltime basis and that it is a movement that does not tolerate heterodoxy. The orthodox viewpoint is that the whole event was orchestrated by the Bush administration and other, greater, and magically unknown “elites.” Anyone who argues for government complicity, incompetence, or the fact that they should be spending more time planning a course of action to resist and fight the policies that have come after 9/11 than proving that the government did it is shouted down. The fervor with which many approach the subject is almost religious in nature. Attacks on respected leftists occur with common frequency. Noam Chomsky is a favorite target because he thinks that it is a waste of time and energy to pursue investigation of an event that does not serve to further resistance to American global policy. In other words, Chomsky sees it as moot. As a result, he has seen no small share of mudsling and name-calling, “gatekeeper” being a favorite. It’s as if the movement is so desperate for his, and other highly respected academics’, approval that they will do anything to get it, and when they don’t they will stop just short of physically attacking them. But Chomsky and other critics of the movement have a point. Let’s look at Darfur, Sudan, where more than 200,000 civilians have died; or the aftermath of the earthquake in Pakistan that killed nearly 75,000, or the tsunami that killed upwards of 500,000 people. These are things that the 9/11 “Truth movement” ignore in their zealous rush to prove that the Bush administration was responsible for the “Big Lie.” They oppose the policies that came after 9/11, but have not put together a political platform or course of action that will tangibly change anything other than people’s minds. They think that merely exposing the “catalyzing event” for what it is will set things in motion. Well, that is not how real activism works and how real change is made. Real change is acknowledging that your personal crusade is one of many, that other people have suffered injustices far greater than those that happened on 9/11 (if one believes it is an inside job) and that proving something that a great number of the world’s population already understands (that the US government is capable of anything) is a waste of time. Until this “movement” sees that a plan of action for the present and future is better than proving a crime that happened in the past, then they will merely be causing a welcome distraction in the eyes of those who need fractured resistance and wild goose chases to have opposition to their agenda reduced.

reading that rant was a

reading that rant was a waste of time, I want my 5 minutes back DBLS!

i just skimmed thorugh, but

i just skimmed thorugh, but i could tell they were taking a classic Chomsky tactic. i even saw one line that was something like-"the murder of 3000 people is nothing in comparison to this and that,plus since they were mostly white,americans, thats why people in the truth movement are outraged". just like Chomsky, totally ignoring the impact of 9/11 while trying to make us feel guilty for being american and not paying attention to his pet issues which in reality never change anything. when has Chomsky changesd anything? really? he keeps fools going in circles,thats the point. Chomsky is a steam valve and he clearly has this godfather guy in a mindlock.

He makes some good points,

He makes some good points, frankly. Simply "waking people up" is not going to cut it. Police state measures have always been used in the US against poor people and people of color, regardless of the Constitution. 911 truthers seldom talk about solutions except for cosmetic modifications, such as abolishing the Fed. Conspiracism can be dangerous in that it points people's eyes at unknowable shadowy enemies instead of institutional structures which we CAN modify. Religious fundamentalism is rampant. And so on.

But there's still no excuse for ignoring or attempting to marginalize 911 truth. The best way for leftist radicals to interject these ideas into the debate is NOT to attack truthers, but to join them.

and again, Chomskys work has

and again, Chomskys work has changed exactly NOTHING. the way you throw around the term "conspiracism" shows the apple doesnt fall far from the control valve tree. i rarely theorize about what happened on 9/11, i just want answers. you and the Chomskys of the world would rather talk about east timor than strike at the root of so many problems, which is of course 9/11. the big lie which is the springboard for almost all that we see now. you say policie state measures have been used against poor people forever. i agree, but with 9/11, we are that much closer to it being used on all of us and the Chomskys of the world are doing more harm than good by using terms like "conspiracists" to desribe us.

da Chumpmeister

very well said

You said that extremely well. Thanks.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.

Anonymous makes one good point

that "(p)olice state measures have always been used in the US against poor people and people of color, regardless of the Constitution." This was blatantly true in the aftermath of Katrina and it needs to be known, understood, and combatted by everyone with an interest in justice, which is what motivates the Truthers I know.

On the other hand, when it comes to allegedly misdirecting our attention away from "institutional structure which we CAN modify," anonymous needs a bitch slap from Dr. Phil and to be asked "How's that workin for ya?" I'm not seeing a lot of structural modification, other than the kind that is accelerating our downward spiral into fascism. Maybe anon and company could hurry up and get that institutional change going.

I think truthers want Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Rove/Rice investigated,

indicted, prosecuted, & imprisoned. From there, we can follow the rabbit hole to the ultra-wealthy fascists who are really responsible for creating 9/11, and do the same with them.

These would not be "cosmetic modifications" as you said.

First steps are being made in Germany!

War Crimes Complaint against Rumsfeld

read this!


Could I give this Ward Churchill wanna-be a REAL spanking

instead of a truth spanking? Because I've let myself be exposed to waaaay too much idiocy in the last couple of days to want to argue with him/her, but I could really stand to blow off some steam and I've heard administering corporal punishment can be good for that.

"and again, Chomskys work

"and again, Chomskys work has changed exactly NOTHING."

Pure absurdity. How do you know if Chomsky’s work has changed nothing? You don't. He was among the first professors to protest against the Vietnam war. His books have been read by millions. These facts alone demonstrate that he “changed” something, if only some people’s minds on some subjects.

"the way you throw around the term "conspiracism" shows the apple doesnt fall far from the control valve tree."

Alex Jonsian “conspiracism” is primitive. It doesn’t address core issues such as the state, capitalism, institutional hierarchy and the role of poor people in bringing about profound change for the benefit of us all. Pure institutional analysis, on the other hand, fails to take into account the role of conspiracy in bringing about negative change. Both views address a slice -- albeit large -- of the problem. Chussodovsky combines the two views rather well. In any case, worrying about the “illuminati” has never really solved anything, whereas mass mobilization against institutional structures has brought about profound change.

"you and the Chomskys of the world would rather talk about east timor than strike at the root"

The root is not 911. If you think that you’re gravely misguided. The root is the state and, more specifically, state capitalism, mass production and institutional hierarchy. 911 was one of its many rotten fruits. Serbia -- pre-911 -- was another.

The 911 false flag presents a great potential for change, but it’s certainly not the “root” by any stretch of the imagination. An important branch, if you like.

“I'm not seeing a lot of structural modification”

The knife cuts both ways. My point was that merely “waking people up” is not sufficient, and the truth movement should welcome constructive criticism.

give me one example. Chomsky

give me one example. Chomsky didnt stop Vietnam so go ahead and give me one concrete example where he did more than preach to his cult-like choir. and please get a name. 9/11 isnt the root? im misguided? no, sorry kid, your the one that keeps going in circles. how you and Chomsky(and those like you) fail to see the importance of 9/11 and exposing it is beyond me. whats the root to you? i would love to hear this. and tell me if what you percieve as the root has the potential for causing change that exposing 9/11 has. Chomsky is a control valve and it seems to be working on you quite well. you sound JUST LIKE him, ive read a lot of Chomsky and you seriously sound a lot like him in your reasoning. this is typical of Chomskyites though. Chomsky does just enough to get people angry but never leads them far enough, he keeps them going in circles.

Warning: Speculation Ahead

Where has mass mobilization against institutional structures brought about profound change? I haven't had my coffee yet, so maybe I'm overlooking something. I guess possibly the labor movement -- I'm glad I don't have to work a 7-day work-week.

I don't believe that anyone who thinks seriously about 9/11 believes that it is "the root." I do believe (and this is the speculative part) that many of us suspect that we may be at a unique juncture in history, at which a tried-and-true method by which an elite seeks to control mass opinion and specifically willingness to go to war -- false flag terrorism -- has run into a new technology that was not anticipated -- the internet and all the related ways of quickly disseminating large quantities of information. Truthers recognize that 9/11 could be a tool that might possibly be used to open the whole can of worms and expose it to the light of day.

Your definition of the "root" doesn't seem particularly "rooty" to me, either. Where do racism and sexism fit into your analysis? And whereas you might think discussion of "illuminati" type groups is naive, I think pointing to the "state" as the source of dysfunction is overly optimistic -- the "state" may very well be the tip of a mostly invisible iceberg of power that straddles the line between visible government, less-visible industry and other structures that are like old-boys networks on steroids. The documentary on "Gladio" that is linked to on a couple other recent threads here is just one example of a power structure starting as a tool of the state, and mutating into something even more dangerous.

i think you missed my point,

i think you missed my point, maybe instead of root i should say the weakest point of the "monster" we face. thats what i meant by "strike at the root", strike at the weakest point. Anonymous, like Chomksy ignores the most historic crimes of "the state" like political assasinations and false flag events. that is a problem. these events are more times than not catalysts for war and horror and the types of things Chomsky rightfully dwells on. Chomsky does nothing but preach to his choir while making sure not to "go there" in regards to what he and others might call conspiracy theories. i call them assassinations and false flags. you agree that JFK was not murdered by a lone nut and that his death, regardless of what you or Chomsky thinks of the man changed history dramatically and for the worse(along with the hits on RFK,X,MLK,etc.) right? now dont you wish the people at that time would have done more to expose the killing for what it was? thus possibly blunting the effects of the killing? same thing with 9/11, here we have another historic event that changed the course of history for the worse. we have a chance to do what the people back then failed to do. having the mindset of people like Chomsky does nothing to help this. exposing 9/11 means exposing a whole host of other injustices in the process and changing history in a very real way. exposing the injustices in east timor and other Chomsky interests,while noble causes, will do nothing of that sort. your geting into philosophy, what i said wasnt that deep, my point is simply that Chomsky is suspect because while most of what he says is true and righteous, its not exactly helpful in a real world sense and his silence on such important issues is suspicious(or cowardly,im not sure which) to me. to take a phrase from Anonymous, hes not "waking anybody up". there is something to be said for "waking people up".

actually, it looks like you

actually, it looks like you were talking to Anonymous and not me,haha(except for the "root" comment). my fault.


Sometimes I have to look twice to figure out who's talking to who -- and anon made it weird by replying to both of us under a post of mine.

I think that really waking people up would go a long, long way to solving our problems -- not just about 9/11, but about the zillion ways some human beings control other human beings.

and thats my point! thats

and thats my point! thats why 9/11 is so important and not just a mere conspiracy theory, same with the assassinations i mentioned. speaking personally, i was very well versed in all the issues that Chomsky and other well known leftists/liberals speak on and agree with many of the things they say, even still, after going down the rabbit hole. but i can honestly say i was not much of an activist and i was pretty lazy in my beliefs, not exactly looking as closely at the issues as i probably should have. after i was exposed to the hard truths of 9/11(among other things that come with looking as closely at an event like that), it was like a jolt, it changed me. yes, i knew about JFK and knew it was bullshit, but my thoughts were that it was so long ago, it was obvious that nothing was gonna come from it(congress all but admitted a conspiracy). then i "woke up" and came to the conclusion that 9/11 was a fraud which in turn changed me. Chomsky didnt do that, Zinn,god love him, didnt do that. people like Alex Jones and websites like whatreallyhappened that had the balls to follow the info WHEREVER it goes helped to do that. thats my point and thats my problem with Chomsky. he just says- "i didnt look at the evidence, and its not important" in both the 9/11 and JFK cases. thats pathetic in my opinion. he lies about the importance of these "conspiracy theories". why does he do that? we are forced to speculate.

He equates

the far left with 911 truth. Never heard of Alex Jones, apparently. I have to say he has some points worth debating. Perhaps I'm just such a newbie at all this that I really DON'T "get" the big picture. ((sigh)) I just don't know anymore.

No, you were right the first time.

Sometimes you can watch someone edit their posts (because every time you edit your post is listed under the "tracker" header as new, again -- OCD helps, too, heh heh) and I think you DO know.