Support 911Blogger


New articles at the Journal of 9/11 Studies

We would like to announce the publication, in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, of Matthew Witt’s article, “Morewell than Orwell: Paramilitarization in the United States post-9/11”. Matthew Witt is well known as a member of the group of scholars that has encouraged the study of “State Crimes Against Democracy” (SCAD). In this article he looks, not at the events of 9/11 themselves, but at the crisis of legitimation that the U.S. state faces and the way it has, since 9/11, chosen to respond to this crisis. The Occupy Wall Street movement is taken as the central example of state response and repression.

As we announce this publication we also want to announce our intention to broaden the scope of the Journal. The historical importance of the Journal lies in detailed, critical examination of the events of the day of 9/11, and we have no intention of abandoning this focus, but there are many disciplines we would like to invite into the conversation and we would like to include studies of the context and meaning of 9/11. We are aware that there are other journals that attempt to deal with these issues, but with few exceptions these journals accept the official narrative of 9/11 and tend to exclude the writings of authors with a critical perspective. In our view this means that the interpretations of 9/11 developed in these journals are bound to be faulty. We want to create a space where researchers working in the humanities, such as John McMurtry, whose recent article on the moral decoding of 9/11 has drawn a good deal of attention, and Matthew Witt can write without the usual pressure to adhere to flawed accounts of 9/11. In this process we also hope that people who have not traditionally read our Journal will find themselves drawn to it and to its critical perspective on recent history.

Please post links to these articles on all relevant websites so that we can invite as many people as possible into a dialogue on these important events.

Kevin Ryan and Graeme MacQueen

Great!

An important and positive direction for the Journal. Thanks.

Agreed (with a couple of points)

Nice job. Even those who avoid 9/11 as a topic would be hard-pressed not to see the relevance of what's discussed here.

I would like to point out a couple of things though:

On page 6, it says the attack on the USS Cole took place in 1993. In fact, it took place in 2000. The first WTC attack, on the other hand, did occur in 1993.

Also, on page 24, there is a reference to:

'the alleged attacks by foreign terrorists on September 11, 2001'

Whereas I think it would be much better to say, 'The attacks allegedly by foreign terrorists....' (or 'allegedly carried out by foreign terrorists....') To those who think the difference may be moot, I would point out that the Tonkin Gulf incident of August 4, 1964 was an 'alleged attack' that turned out not to have even occurred--whereas there's no denying that attacks were carried out on 9/11. It's the who and the how of 9/11 that's alleged, not the attacks themselves.

With that out of the way, here's a link to an article covering another part of the same basic story that is outlined in this paper (which readers here may already be familiar with):

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-bush-moves-toward-martial-law/

And something else that seems relevant to mention in this context--It occurs to me that around the same time Habermas was writing about contemporary 'legitmation crises,' the Trilateral Commission came out with a report called 'Crisis of Democracy,' in 1975. The chapter on the U.S. was provided by none other than Samuel Huntington, who fretted over an 'excess of democracy' and the threat this posed to elite goals.

correction

Thanks for noting the mistake on p. 6. I should have caught it. We'll fix it.

Graeme

Side note/question

Graeme,

According to Jonelle Bryant's story of Atta seeking a loan a year before 9/11, Atta was said to have praised both bin Laden and Al Qaeda, is that correct? If so, that's odd, as I'm given to understand that bin Laden and company didn't refer to themselves as "Al Qaeda" until after 9/11 "when they realized that this was the name the Americans had given them" (The Power of Nightmares, Adam Curtis).

You've pointed out some great incongruities in this narrative and I was wondering if this is yet another one. I may be incorrect and it came up sometime sooner, but I ask since you have a lot of expertise in researching these narratives. Thanks for your important contributions.

side note

Yes, come to think of it, you're right. Bryant explicitly mentioned that Atta talked about both al Qaeda and OBL. Mind you, she gave that extended interview in 2002...but the events she was supposedly talking about took place well before 9/11. I'm writing an article on the anthrax attacks at the moment and I hope to cover lots of oddities!

Graeme

Historical Analogies and Perspective..

I think it basically comes down to that 9/11 was their Reichstag Fire. The Patriot Act was their Enabling Act of 1933 or Reichstag Fire Decree. Blackwater, Xe, Academi is basically their SS.

I'm not sure how accurate or how far this analogy is going to go, but they've improved on their tactics and I don't see an enemy that is going to stop them at hand. If we don't expose the truth about 9/11 we don't stand a chance in my opinion. The truth stands the test of time.

This whiteboard animation shows what happened when Hitler lied to get elected and people don't care or pay attention to the lies of their leaders, until they do care...and at that point, it is too late. Parts of this video are narrated by a man who served as a German soldier and a German woman who lived right by the railroad tracks the cattle trains ran on that carried the Jews to their deaths.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH_Izul6J5M

Based on Andy Andrews' book, How Do You Kill 11 Million People?

This is real, don't be fooled. This is happening.