So let's begin with a literary passage:

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true in itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...

Quite an astute observation from the little guy with the funny little mustache. The idea of the Big Lie is the key that unlocks the heart of 9/11. 9/11 was, and is, the Big Lie of our times. Perhaps there has never been a bigger lie ever perpetrated on the world. The unfortunate, painful truth of the matter is that 9/11 was an inside job. Even as you skeptics roll your eyes, understand that to ridicule this thesis out of hand is to be, by definition, among the "broad masses" mentioned above, complete with the "primitive simplicity" of mind. Think about that.

The only way to uncover a Big Lie is to investigate it. Simple enough. Well, people have investigated 9/11, and obviously no Big Lie was discovered, therefore there is no Big Lie to be associated with 9/11. QED.

But I would warn you that you might want to be careful as to who you rely on to chew your food for you. And if you don't want the responsibility of chewing your own food, then you may have to live with some unpleasant consequences. And then whose fault would that be?

Ah, but there are any of a number of very good reasons—common sense reasons—why people do not have to investigate 9/11 for themselves. Quite simply, 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job because:

no members of our government would ever do such a thing (currently, only brown-skinned people from foreign countries with funny religious practices are capable of such atrocities).

members of our government could not have possibly pulled such a thing off—too many people having to keep too many secrets—and these are the same hapless keystone cops that allowed the attacks to succeed through bumbling incompetence (but a handful of fanatics guided by their genius leader in a cave in Afghanistan could overcome the multi-trillion dollar defense system of the US quite easily).

if they actual had pulled it off, someone would have come forward by now and blown the whistle (the people who have come forward and blown the whistle are obviously cranks).

none of the government-sponsored investigations found any evidence of such a conspiracy (we hereby find ourselves... not guilty!).

if there were credible evidence to back up such a claim, then it would be all over the news media. If 9/11 was the news story of the century, then "9/11 was an inside job" would be even bigger. No news organization would fail to cash in on such a sensational story (unless more profit comes from actually not publishing the story).

Ah, the convenience of having someone else chew your food for you. Make no mistake: the above list does nothing to investigate the facts surrounding 9/11. The above list gives you reason not to look at the facts surrounding 9/11. I could critique the validity of these reasons point-by-point, but that would be a rather lengthy and completely unnecessary side track.

Because if the facts show that (A) 9/11 was an inside job, then by definition, whether you would like to believe it or not, (B) there are members of our government who were (im)morally capable of doing it, organized and secretive enough to pull it off, and were effectively able to stifle any accusations, allegations, investigative reporting, or even meaningful discussion about it afterwards.

I'm sorry, but you can't argue with me about the previous paragraph. If (A), then (B).

If you don't accept the inside job thesis, then you do so because you assume (not B), therefore (not A)—a stance in which the facts of the matter can be completely ignored. How convenient.

Well, obviously Hitler couldn't have pulled off all of his alleged mischief because it would have been impossible to find a large number of people willing to commit outrageous acts against humanity, and if he could have assembled such a group, someone surely would have exposed the evildoers and the public would never have stood for it. This is why World War II and the events surrounding it never happened. I don't think we need to concern ourselves here with the alleged "facts" found in history books and the supposed "witnesses" to these fictitious events. Common sense tells us they couldn't possibly have occurred.

Understand? (not B), therefore (not A).

But how ludicrous, to compare 21st century America with Nazi Germany. They have nothing in common, and it is an insult to this great country to even suggest such a thing.

Here's a catchy phrase to remember—perhaps you may have even heard it before: Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

**************

Let me summarize what we've covered so far: Blah, blah, blah. Just about a complete waste of time. There is only one thing worth discussing: What are the facts surrounding the events of 9/11? Is there reason to question the official story?

Here is where it gets too difficult for many people to hang with the program. The evidence for the case that 9/11 was an inside job is overwhelming. It's a slam dunk. A no-brainer.

And here is why these assertions seem completely over-the-top unbelievable: 9/11 was a masterful psychological operation. The Big Lie applied with a vengeance. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. Logic and critical thinking applied to the evidence leads inexorably to the undeniable fact that 9/11 was an inside job. But when the person demands to be convinced of the opposite, then the evidence matters not one whit.

The underlying principle of the Big Lie is that psychology trumps logic. They say that 2 + 2 = 5? Well, O.K. (StopThink)

You are either able to overcome your fear and rebuild your world-view, or you are not. Simple as that.

And so a junior-high physics student can show beyond any doubt that the three towers collapsing the way they did due to gravity is an impossibility according to the basic laws of the the universe in which we live, and an advanced-degreed physics professor can discount any doubt about the official story as conspiracy theory nonsense. One judges the facts, the other does not. We trust the learned professional, and we worry about the mental stability of the young boy.

Just what in the hell are we teaching our children? (StopThink)

Look—this is not a subject that is too complex for your average Joe, where, well, I guess it depends on your point of view, you can believe this or that, and there are experts who say one thing and then others who say the opposite, and we won't ever really know exactly what happened, and other such noncommital, safe, let's-get-off-this-subject-and-forget-about-it bullsheet.

(StartThink) Investigate for yourself.

Or don't.

Do you really care? Is the subject worthy of your attention? If not this, then what?

What would be the consequences of the non-official theory? What would you do? Anything? What could you do? Nothing? What would you tell your kids? Would you leave the country? Are you paralyzed with fear just contemplating it?

If they did it once (my goodness, maybe they've even done it more than once), might they try something similar in the future? Can you find Iran on a map? Do you prefer to live in a make-believe world where you pretend these kinds of things can't happen? What are the consequences of living in such a fantasy world? Do you want your children to be likewise ignorant of the world that surrounds them? What might be the consequences of that?

Does living in a "democracy" mean that the citizenry is responsible for the actions of its government? Was there anything like that on the Constitution test? Or does voting every four years absolve you from any further participation in the system that represents you?

Tough questions? Are you getting a headache? Isn't this someone else's problem? Need to watch American Idol? (StopThink)

Here's what it comes down to: Prove me wrong. I dare you. It should be simple enough to debunk ideas that are so obviously crazy.

But I guarantee you one thing if you try: You won't stand a chance. I will crush your arguments. I've heard them all, and they're all tired and weak—every single one of them. Whatever you may think is substantial proof supporting the official theory is merely a mirage. It's just not there.

The emperor has no clothes, and all you have to do it open your eyes and look.

I have read books on 9/11 that cover in excess of 2,000 pages. I have taken in many videos on the subject. I have spent hundreds of hours investigating on the internet. I have the equivalent of a freakin' degree in 9/11 studies. How about you?

Do you know who David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, and Jim Hoffman are? They are three of the brightest and bravest among the few true current American heroes who have spoken out logically, eloquently, loudly and publicly for 9/11 truth. Read a book by David Ray Griffin. Read Steven Jones' paper. Browse Jim Hoffman's website for a couple of hours.

Contemplate the words of Mark Twain, famous "traitor turned patriot."

A Patriot is merely a rebel at the start.

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been.

In any civic crisis of a great and dangerous sort the common herd is not privately anxious about the rights and wrongs of the matter, it is only anxious to be on the winning side.

In the North, before the war, the man who opposed slavery was despised and ostracised, and insulted. By the "patriots." Then, by and by, the "patriots" went over to his side, and thenceforth his attitude became patriotism.

There are two kinds of patriotism -- monarchical patriotism and republican patriotism. In the one case the government and the king may rightfully furnish you their notions of patriotism; in the other, neither the government nor the entire nation is privileged to dictate to any individual what the form of his patriotism shall be. The gospel of the monarchical patriotism is: "The King can do no wrong." We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: "Our country, right or wrong!" We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had:-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.

(StartThink) Investigate for yourself. Or don't. I'm too tired to push on those who are too afraid, too weak or just plain don't care.

Chew your own food, dammit.

***

If you're interested, here is your homework assignment:

1. Read the following papers online:

Peer-reviewed paper by physicist Steven Jones:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm

Paper by David Ray Griffin:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/WTC-911-Griffin1oct05.htm

2. Spend at least one hour browsing through Jim Hoffman's most excellent website:
http://911research.wtc7.net/

and there is always something interesting and new here:
http://www.911blogger.com

3. If you have completed both 1. and 2. above, then purchase and read one of the following books by David Ray Griffin. For Pete's sake, at the very least go to Amazon.com and browse through the reviews:

Books by David Ray Griffin:
Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (good review of this book here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/7262)
The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions
The New Pearl Harbor
9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. 1

This is just a start. There is an unbelievable amount more beyond this, and with each passing day new evidence is added. Hey look, someone just leaked the Twin Tower blueprints out of hiding. Wrongfully withheld from the public for over five years, and now anyone in the world can download them to their computer. It's amazing just how wrong all the official reports were in regard to the structure of these buildings...

After completing the above assignment, explain to me how you know that the inside job theory cannot be true.

Else, welcome aboard. The tide is turning. The time to catch the wave is now.