Chris Floyd comes out in favour of 9/11 re-investigation, but thinks we cannot progress very far

The following is an excerpt from an article by Chris Floyd, posted at his site:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1281/135/

Note the last paragraph. What might invalidate his conclusion?

Shadow and Swamp: A Brief Discursion on 9/11
Written by Chris Floyd
Tuesday, 11 September 2007

A commenter asked recently about my take on 9/11. In light of the anniversary (which I noted here; see also Jon Schwarz's piece here), I thought this might be a good time to set out, very briefly, what I think on the subject.

It's really quite simple and, to my mind, self-evident: the "official" story of what happened on September 11, 2001, is not a complete or accurate account. (We should of course speak of official stories, because there have been several shifting, contradictory scenarios offered by the great and the good in the six years since the attack. However, for clarity's sake, we'll stick with the singular for now, and will assume -- as the entire media and political establishment does -- that the report by the Hamilton-Kean 9/11 Commission is the final "official" version.)

To put it plainly, this official account is riddled with holes: unexplained inconsistencies, unprecedented occurrences, astounding coincidences, mysterious lacunae, and deliberate obfuscations. It is, in fact, a more improbable "conspiracy theory" than many of those suggested by the much-derided "9/11 truth movement."

What's more, the commission that was finally, grudgingly appointed to look into the attacks was obviously a whitewash from the word go. As I wrote in the Moscow Times when the panel was first formed, in January 2003:

...

Let us have such a probe, and let the chips fall where they may....

But you and I know that there will never be an investigation like that into 9/11. Regardless of what it might or might not reveal about the origin of the attacks, such a free-wheeling, fully-powered probe would inevitably uncover other vast swamps of bloody murk in the shadowlands where state power, criminal gangs, covert ops and financial interests mingle, merge, squabble and seethe. It would, in other words, open a window into the real way that the world works, into the bestial realm of raw power and savage greed that churns on behind the facade of public events and the trappings of state.

And this infernal blazon must not be to ears of flesh and blood. The rubes are never to know what their betters are getting up to, and how they are getting up to it, and the true cost -- in blood, so much blood, so much suffering and sorrow -- of their goings-on.

That said, I certainly applaud any and all efforts to force something like a more real investigation into events of that portentous day.

Kim from DV responds to

Kim from DV responds to Garcia:

Rejecting ad hominem attacks and arguments

With the exception of his closing remark, “‘Our way of life’ has caused a holocaust of unspeakable pain and suffering in much of the world, and for generations,” Manuel Garcia’s article, “Forgetting 9-11,” is an exercise in intellectual censorship, investigative debate, and the imposition of rigid ideological patterns under the pretense of achieved scientific and self-sustained epistemological verities.

Debating an article that is replete with ad hominem attacks and arguments is not something that we aspire to do. Nor is Garcia’s dialectically flawed article of such a clear-cut scientific relevance or factual compactness that makes it a model for rebuttal or debate. Nonetheless, the body of ideas that Garcia is advocating, which is to move beyond the 9-11 debate and accept the state’s version of it, is critically unacceptable in view of the countless holes in the Bush administration’s account of the event.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2429.shtml

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

quote: "But you and I know

quote: "But you and I know that there will never be an investigation like that into 9/11. Regardless of what it might or might not reveal about the origin of the attacks, such a free-wheeling, fully-powered probe would inevitably uncover other vast swamps of bloody murk in the shadowlands where state power, criminal gangs, covert ops and financial interests mingle, merge, squabble and seethe. It would, in other words, open a window into the real way that the world works, into the bestial realm of raw power and savage greed that churns on behind the facade of public events and the trappings of state"
-end quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange reasoning; You and I know? What? The likelihood of a real investigation in 9/11 is low BECAUSE it WILL (regardless of the outcome of 9/11 research) reveal far more evil things going on on other levels of government?

This man implies a mega-conspiracy even laughted at by the most fringe conspiracy theorist!
(As if to say: "Don't touch 9/11, it's just the tip of the iceberg" - well it could be... but hey, only research can lead us to ANY conclusion about 9/11 or what might come along with it ..)

time to stop laughing

Chris Floyd has been documenting the "vast swamps of bloody murk in the shadowlands where state power, criminal gangs, covert ops and financial interests mingle, merge, squabble and seethe" since long before 9/11.

He knows a lot more about it than many of us will ever understand -- more than many of us can stand to bear.

Maybe he's wrong to say "you and I know" ... maybe he's too humble to say "I know but you don't" ... but he's quite right, in my opinion: a real investigation would reveal all sorts of things that people don't want you to know about. And that's why it will never happen.

The point I was trying to

The point I was trying to make was that most of the resistance to a 911 investigation comes from the fear of people that questioning 911 is equal to blaming or accusing the government of something.
The main reason for not wanting an investigation is NOT that the general people suspect an iceberg of crime onder the 911 official story in my opinion.

I'm sorry if I didn't understand you

IMO the resistance to a new investigation comes from two distinct groups -- the very powerful who are desperate to conceal their crimes against humanity, and the not-so-powerful who are more comfortable sleepwalking, and, as you say, afraid of accusing the government..

It's the first group who are preventing a new investigation, not the second. And it seems to me that this is the group Chris was writing about.

The second group make a lot of noise but they have no power to initiate or prevent anything.

Two groups

What makes power?

----

If you're talking Bush and Cheney, you're talking Israel.

BBC's "War Party": a 49 Minute Documentary about the Neocons
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4667039539703585825

There is an old cartoon, And then some magic happens.

There is an old cartoon, perhaps from the New Yorker. If I remember correctly, if shows a couple of lab-coated men in front of a blackboard. There is a lot of scribbling, and somewhere in the middle, there is section where none of the logic has been worked out. The researcher says that the connection results here because, "some magic happens".

Sometimes I despair . This is analogous to our efforts in trying to spread the a message about 9/11. We have excellent evidence that the official government stories on 9/11 are full of holes, and that at the very least, a new and real investigation is needed. However, I don't remember reading any article that seriously could make the case that just exposing more and more people to 9/11 ideas, and convincing many of the core positions, will lead to any effective changes. There seems to be a mater of faith that if we just get the word out to some unknown critical mass, there will be a phase shift, a new investigation will be launched, it will be fair, the criminal perpetrators will be revealed, prosecution and conviction will follow, and all will be well with the world again.

Chris Floyd is very politely saying, 'dream on suckers, ain't gonna happen that way'. So, can anyone give me a reasonably coherent account of why he is wrong, of how events could unfold for a more just resolution? Is there a solid body of writing explaining how we will succeed? I just can't remember seeing it, but maybe I was not looking at the time, being more focussed on searching for the evidence, than thinking about how it might all be used.

Clearly Chris Floyd wishes that the situation were otherwise. I have read him for many months now.

Clearly I wish that the situation were otherwise. I would like to be convinced that we can win. I suspect that we need to have a clearer strategy as a start. What I see for the most part, my apologies if this seems wrong, is a focus on the tactical, but not on the strategic. Heck, I am not proposing that I can do any better, I certainly can't, but there are lots of people in the truth area who can think circles around me.

Please, let me know where and how I am wrong. I really want to be wrong on this. I hope that this is annoying enough to get some critical, creative, but reasoned replies.

Mike Zimmer

Chris is right, and so are you, Mike.

Who is going to push the administration in a direction it doesn't want to go?

The Supreme Court? Sorry. That's how we got this administration in the first place.

Congress? Sorry. We can't even get a bill of impeachment on the table.

Only a massive popular uprising is capable of getting us anywhere, in my view, and I still haven't seen any evidence that one is about to happen. Like you and Chris and many (but apparently not enough) others, I also wish it were different.

If we all keep on plugging, maybe, someday, it might happen.

But certainly if we stop working for what we believe in, that day will never come.