The Psychology Behind the Denial of 9/11 Truth

A recent post at AlterNet by novelist Jane Smiley reminded me of the often strange reasons on which people base their assessment of 9/11 and whether it was an inside job. Smiley writes about the psychology of George W. Bush, and includes this passing mention of 9/11:

"At the same time, Little George has a hard time with bad news, so he was never going be told the truth -- he can't take the truth, as Jack Nicholson might say -- this is evident in the famous 9/11 film of Bush reading about his pet goat when he gets news of the WTC. Talk about dumbstruck and unprepared and feckless and doltish! No, I don't think Little George planned the Trade Center attacks. If he had, he would have practiced a smarmy fake reaction, and he didn't."

I'm sure Smiley has other reasons to doubt Bush's complicity with 9/11, conscious or unconscious, but I find it curious that her reading of the question pivots on the expression on Dubya's face following Andrew Card's famous whisper. Not only is Smiley's reading of Dubya's face potentially wrong (that is, I find his expression to be an exact replica of "a smarmy fake reaction," as long as you remember the psychopath who is faking it), her reading also ignores the public record of that day. Bush himself admitted he "saw" the first plane crash, an impossibility since video record of this didn't surface until the next day.

Another recent example of a truncated explanation for denying 9/11 Truth comes from academics Robert Stam and Ella Shohat and their book Flagging Patriotism: Crises of Narcissism and Anti-Americanism. 9/11 is not the subject of their book, but they write in a footnote on page 341:

"The thesis [that 9/11 was an inside job] strikes us as somewhat implausible, not because the Bush administration is incapable of spectacular mendacity but rather because it is not clear why the American government could foster an attack on the central symbols of its own power, both military and economic, in a situation where it could not possibly have been clear how such an attack would play out. Furthermore, there is more and more evidence (from Richard Clarke's book and from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission) that the Bush administration was completely uninterested in and unprepared for terrorist attacks within the United States, a fact that has now become an embarrassment for the administration. The attacks might have triggered a revolt against a massively expensive military establishment that had failed to protect American citizens; it was not at all foreordained that the attacks would redound to the favor of George Bush. A massive media campaign was required to channel grief and mourning into feelings of revenge and a desire for war. That said, 9/11 did provide the neocons with the perfect 'Pearl Harbor' alibi to go to war."

As with Smiley, these authors don't bother to look at any evidence from 9/11: they base their understanding of 9/11 on a personal preference, a general whim that surely no government would risk a self-inflicted wound when the whole thing could backfire. It's a terribly flimsy argument, 9/11 evidence aside.

Consider, for example, that public support for presidents governing during a terrorist incident has always been elevated by such attacks. A president never loses popular support after a terrorist incident.

Carter's poll numbers increased 6% in the immediate aftermath of the Iran Hostage Crisis. Reagan's approval rating increased 5% following the TWA hijack crisis in June 1985, and 6% after the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Dubya's approval rating soared 39% in the first poll after 9/11.

The neocons had no reason to worry about press coverage. In the CNN coverage of 9/11, in the first 12 hours the word 'war' was mentioned 234 times, and countless analogies with Pearl Harbor were made. The media immediately framed 9/11 as an invasion by a foreign enemy that should be met by a military response. There was never any question of the military's preparedness. Within minutes, everyone was on board waving their fists at Osama Bin Laden.

I could continue to dissect Stam and Shohat, but my point is simply that most people who dismiss 9/11 Truth do so for tenuous reasons unrelated to the facts.

Clarke on Colbert

Richard Clarke is on The Colbert Report tonight, FWIW.

Highly Recommended

I use Ken reasoning all the time when trying to appeal to people about 9/11. It works sometimes for me.

To me Bush's facial expression was an attempt to hide a smile. I seem to have read the notion "I will be king now".

“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Resistance to 9/11 Inquiry

This is a great topic and these quoted authors definitely seem simplistic and wrong, but we need to figure out the real reason people are so hesitant to discuss the possibility of nine eleven being an inside job. It is scary how few are actively considering it and exploring it.

I suggest the reason people are resistant to 9/11 investigation on a personal level is possibly fear of such a powerful and potentially aggressive government, apathy in general, or the fact that if it is true they don't care. Maybe they think it is a justifiable action for America's interests as PNAC does?

Regardless we need much more discussion of this if we are going to have a successful movement.

"The Truth is an Offense, but not a Sin" ~ Bob Marley

Psychologists and insight into human behavior needed.

We have many scientists and educators in our field of research here, but we need some psychologists and people with common sense insight into human behavior to help us make our calls for another widespread investigation into nine eleven more effective and ultimately successful.

"The Truth is an Offense, but not a Sin" ~ Bob Marley

Hell no he didn't plan it . .

Geogre Bush had only been in office 8 months when 9.11 went down. This took years of planning. Neo-Con infrastructure planned it, not this class clown.

But another reason is that he is really not very intelligent. I read that he had an IQ of 91. It can't be far off from that, no matter what the source of that info was. The guy can barely get his arms around the English language.

He is managed by "handlers" or "wranglers" if you prefer. Note the well groomed town hall audiences, and the limited exchanges with the "free" press.

Set up a complex false flag attack like 9.11?

No way.

Knew something "big" was coming? Clearly.

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know it - now"
- Patrick Henry

Show "IQ Urban Legend" by James (not verified)

Both degrees are bullshit, you can be sure!!

Where did you ever hear that his grades at Yale were better than Kerry's, and why would you make such an idiotic comparison and think it holds water? For all you know, Bush took the most basic courseload he could, and Kerry took the most advanced. Bush is widely reported to have one of the lowest IQs of any President in US history, so your point?!?!

I love the Mikelsons' refutation...and they are...neocons, perhaps?!

"Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest." - Benjamin Franklin

Urban Legend

What part of "urban legend" did you fail to understand?

As far as the grades, that part is actually true.

"We're actually doing this."

Bush didn't plan it, but he knew. His daddy was having breakfast with the Carlyle Group. His bro had declared a state of emergency in Florida days before 9/11, and was ready to visit the flight schools and be off with the evidence within hours of the crashes. The whole clan knew what it was doing.

Imagine, for example, if, after getting the news, Bush leaped into the air with a panicked expression and jumped into action. Imagine, that is, if he had actually done something, as he should have. No, I think that blank look is Shrub thinking to himself, "Sweet Jesus. We're actually doing this."

Ultimately, of course, it doesn't matter what Bush knew or what his face looked like. Actions speak louder than words. The cover-up that followed says pretty much all one needs to know about Dubya. Puppet? Sure. But he's a useful idiot. You can't have the president out there saying shit the rest of the plotters don't want said.

The numerous war games being staged on 9/11 were a very

effective way to jam-up our civilian & military defenses, with only a handful of people knowing what was actually going on.

Down on de dKos plantation

Here's a remarkably funny (if arguably un-PC) string of comments at Daily Kos. Check'em out before they're purged.

Massa Kos don't like 9/11 Truth.

hahahahaha Thanks for the


Thanks for the tip, casseia! I rarely visit dkos anymore, primarily because of the stance the massah there has taken on 9/11 discussions and the banning of those who initiate them, regardless how cogent their case.

However, in this instance, it may be a little difficult to "justify" the banning of wildhand. wildhand has cleverly found a way to insert a discussion of 9/11 at dkos and get certain facts on the record there that will be hard for the minister/massah of troof to purge without illuminating the hypocracy of singling out 9/11 to many of the willfully blind dkossacks. I encourage everyone to jump over and just read. Keep your comments to yourself for now. In regard to 9/11, wildhand really doesn't need any help and we may get lucky and this thread stay alive a bit longer.

Sadly, wildhand's sig reflects support for yet another pretty-boy, southern lawyer for president, John Edwards. When are the people gonna realize that contents of the slick packages created by the tweeps (two parties in partnership) is still little more than just another maggot?

Sigh. Clone Ron Paul, not sheep!

The true threat to liberty comes not from terrorists but from our political leaders whose natural inclination is to seize upon any excuse to diminish them.
~~ Walter Williams, Nightly Business Report, September 2001

Edwards IS A Fraud! IMO

A member of our group volunteered for his campaign a while. Long enough to learn that all the money he was collecting to aid the poor. Was really going to his campaign.
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

A dear, dear, dear! That's

A dear, dear, dear! That's racist, casseia! How could Dkos do This? Smelling salts! *swoon*

Seriously--or not--I think they'll leave it up to prove how tolerant they are.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.