Time to Remember, Time to Forget?
As America commemorates the 10th anniversary of the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001, the MSM is filled with stories that tell us what emotions are appropriate, while also urging us scoff at the poor, deluded “9/11 truthers” who, a decade later, still cling to preposterous theories. ‘Enough conspiracy, already!’ we’re told.
I’ll deal with my own emotions, myself, thank you. But, indeed, the truther theories, with planned demolitions, phantom planes, and vast networks of conspirators, are almost exclusively garbage.
All conspiracy nuts suffer under a sense of helplessness in a world they find hard to comprehend. The nut takes comfort in the “knowledge” and certainly of secret forces controlling events behind the scenes. Icons of power — the military, obscure government agencies, pan-global corporations, feature prominently. To provide an explanation suitable for complexities they themselves can’t figure out, the nut’s conspiracies must be massive, elaborate, widespread — an host of confederates; plans perfected to the minutest detail; the gullible public always responding exactly as intended.
While these baroque fantasies make entertaining cinema (cf. THE STING, THE USUAL SUSPECTS, NINE QUEENS), in reality they are impossible … and unnecessary.
Conspiracies and conspirators do exist, but not at all like the nut’s visions. Like the blind pig that occasionally finds an acorn, truthers do rarely stumble across something real. But in their zeal to uncover a clue under every leaf on the forest floor, they only obscure the very thing they hoped to reveal. Sniffing false trails galore, and drawing ridicule on legitimate inquiries, the truther is unwittingly the conspirator’s most diligent accomplice.
Rather than elaborate hoaxes hatched in underground lairs and supported by convoys of black vans, a minute number of people in power, for intents both altruistic and craven, do steer the course of events via subtle, covert nudges. ‘Spark’ moments need not be created out of whole cloth, merely facilitated, or at the very least, exploited with vigor when they fortuitously occur. Just a few examples of “nudges” of serendipitous turning points that dramatically changed the course of History:
- 1862 — Lincoln seizes on the marginal victory of Antietam to issue his long-contemplated Emancipation Proclamation;
- 1870 — An unexpected dynastic crisis in Spain allows Bismarck, knowing France will go to war to prevent German unification, to goad the French Emperor into mobilizing his unprepared army;
- 1898 — Coveting Spanish colonies in the Caribbean, the U.S. uses the sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana harbor (labeled a terrorist attack, it was in fact a chance boiler explosion) as a causus belli;
- 1933 — The Nazis use a terrorist attack on the Parliament building (Reichstag) as a pretense to declare martial law;
- 2001- 2003 — The Bush administration uses the 9/11 terrorist attacks to implement surveillance on citizens, then launch wars in oil-producing nations.
Better to label these actors “Manipulators” than “Conspirators”. Whether the sparks were created, facilitated, or simply exploited is besides the point. In every case, the manipulator(s) had an ultimate goal, with a broad but definite plan, well in advance, just waiting an opportune moment to enact.
9/11 — M.O.M.
The classic sleuthing technique is to identify who had the means, the opportunity, and the motive to commit the crime. There was a small cabal in the United States who had a burning desire for a terrorist attack. Known as “The Vulcans” (in honor of the Roman God, not the Star Trek race), they were neo-conservatives, pro Israel-expansionism, capitalist purists with oil connections. All held positions in the Reagan/Papa Bush administrations. Their names are familiar: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell.
Declaring the USA the last superpower standing, they saw a golden opportunity for our nation to mold, though unopposed military action, the world to our whim. They also entertained the jalousie that capitalism fosters democracy — open up a country to big business, lay a few pipelines, and peace, freedom & coca cola sales will follow. We know this was their plan, because Cheney & Wolfowitz first put it to paper in February, 1992, in what became known as the Wolfowitz doctrine.
With their golden chance to implement their New World Order cut short by Bush’ failed reelection bid, they sullenly awaited a future opportunity. Growing restless, the Vulcans formed the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and issued periodic calls for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, unilateral strikes to seize oil-producing regions, and fun stuff like that. Yet they lamented that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one” to be expedited only by “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Then opportunity knocked again with the 2000 election of
Al Gore Baby Bush. Happy as pigs reunited with shit, the Vulcans commandeered the administration:
- VP/Puppet Master — Cheney
- Secty of State — Powell
- Secty of Defense — Rumsfeld
- Deputy Secty of Defense — Wolfowitz
- National Security Advisor — Rice
They only had to wait a further seven months, 32 days for their catalyzing, Pearl Harbor-like event to occur.
No need to detail here how ruthlessly they exploited that event, only to mention in passing how the complete failure of their New World Order highlighted their hubris.
Indisputable is that their actions & lies following the 9/11 attacks were criminal, deserve punishment and, thanks to Nancy Pelosi, will go unpunished. Yet the unanswered question, which, a decade later still deserves an answer, is: did the Vulcans just exploit a chance event, did they create it from scratch, or did they willingly serve as the event’s mid-wives?
The evidence is compelling to indict Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice guilty of conspiring to intentionally allow the 9/11 attacks to occur.
They did so, not by arranging planned demolitions, staged crash sites or faked phone calls, rather simply by preventing any action being taken on overwhelming evidence of imminent terrorist attacks. In other words, Cheney and Rice conspired to ‘let one through’ to get the Second Pearl Harbor they craved.
A few others, like Donald Rumsfeld and Scooter Libby, may have been involved, but for it to work, no one beyond the VP and the NSA were required to be ‘in the know.’
- Their many position papers provide Motive;
- One month’s advanced notice of a pending terrorist attack provided the Opportunity;
- Holding all the necessary key positions in the administration, with the power to direct the actions of the military and security agencies, provided the Means;
It’s plausible, though not required, that the Vulcans knew the exact date and details of the terrorists’ plan, and iced the cake by diverting the Air Force with a “routine” training exercise involving hijacked airliners, having FEMA stage a practice response to a terrorist attack in Manhattan, and sequestering Shrub in a kindergarten in Florida. But sometimes dumb luck happens, too.
The ‘tell’ that 9/11 was more than just a dream-come-true for the Vulcans is the handling of the infamous President’s Daily Brief (PDB) of August 6, 2001. How Rice & Cheney must have squirmed at that morning’s briefing, when Shrub’s brain inexplicably turned on for a moment and with growing alarm scanned the words:
“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
“… since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. …”
“… his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber….”
“… to retaliate in Washington …”
“… patterns of suspicious activity … consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks …”
“… Bin Laden supporters … in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.”
The suddenly conscious president’s concern, and his suggestion that something be done about all this, where brushed aside by Condi: ‘No need to worry, Mr. President, that’s historical information.’ Thirty-seven days later, that “historical” information became very up-to-date.
Flash forward to Rice’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission, where, like the consummate liar, she diverted scrutiny by focusing on an irrelevant details. In response to criticism of her and the administration’s handling of the crisis, Rice emphasized repeatedly that she’d told the President the PDB was “historical information.” The members of the commission, so intent on posturing and blustering, failed to ask the logical follow-up question:
‘Secretary Rice, seeing as it was made painfully clear that was NOT historical information, what led to you believe it was?’
Which makes Condi Rice either really fucking dumb, or really fucking evil. She’s never struck me as unintelligent.
Keep Seeking, Keep Asking
Ten years after, and no serious questions are asked anymore. We’re encouraged instead to remember, honor, mourn, commemorate, etc., while singing so loudly during the seventh inning stretch as to drown out any voices of doubt inside our heads. We are then shown the deluded 9/11 Truthers as a moral lesson.
That is a false dichotomy. The dead can be remembered while serious, albeit uncomfortable, questions are still asked:
- What was the scope of culpability of National Security Advisor Rice in not responding to the PDB warning?
- What is the full explanation for Cheney’s actions on 9/11, and the NORAD & FEMA hijacking/terrorism drills scheduled that day?
- Why has no one been charged with crimes for willfully lying about Iraq’s WMD program?
- By what measure can we evaluate al quaeda’s potency, 2001 v. 2011?
- By what measure can we say we are “safer” now than before?
- Why do we continue to engage in useless airline travel precautions that add up to nothing more than shamanistic ritual?
- Why are we still fighting two hopeless wars that have nothing to do with terrorism?
- Why are our constitutional liberties still being violated?
- What’s so wrong about seeking the truth?
(c) 2011 by True Liberal Nexus. All rights reserved.
Nothing. All though I have to laugh at 9/11 conspiracy theorists who think that the illuminati and the Trilateral commission conspired with the United States Government to attack the WTCs and blame it on Al Queda. I know people that actually believe that.
I think asking these important questions would be a better way to commemorate 9/11 than the dozens of copies of the same picture of a poor man in midair currently populating many of the blogs today.
Chris Hedges (I thank TL for introducing me to him via comments on JWS’ blog) makes it cogent: “The sad legacy of 9/11 is that the assholes, on each side, won.” “We Are What We Loathe.
In addition to your post I was wondering, The truly liberal philosophy (see below) has been sold out to benefit either the neo-Marxists or their “greedy capitalist” opponents. We are bounced back and forth between them as each plunders our freedom and economy for their purposes. I hope that’s just opportunism on both sides, but could it be intentional? I generally reject conspiracy theories and believe in “bandwagons” instead. I see people jumping on and off the “bandwagons” as they veer toward or away from advantages to the temporary riders.
True liberalism advocates: individual freedom, weak government, and free markets. Conservatism advocates: moral responsibility, strong government, and protected markets. Socialism advocates: social responsibility, omnipotent government, and controlled markets.
All the Best
Thanks for stopping by and weighing in.
You’ve equated “true liberalism” with what’s known in America as “libertarianism.” Libertarians sometimes like to fancy themselves ‘classical liberals’, and I know in Europe they are known as ‘liberals’. I believe that holds true for the Australian Liberal Party and the National Liberal Party of Queensland, fair dinkum?
When I began this blog, I chose the term “true liberal” to distinguish myself and my fellow thinkers from, one the one hand the irrational & emotional “progressives” who veer to the far left and are willing to trample civil liberties and abandon logic & pragmatism to achieve ad hoc ends, and on the other, the so-called “neo-liberals” who are socially liberal but who embrace corporate greed & exploitation.
To echo your formula, my true liberalism advocates: individual freedom and civic responsibility, a strong government that serves the people, and regulated markets.
Why do you not think the towers were detonated?
Watch the video if wtc7 comming down. If you accept that it was pulled then why not the towers. Eye witnesses talk of explosions in the lobby and subfloors prior to the colapse. Don’t you think that some of the core structures would have survived? What about the molten steel?
I suggest you read Mario Salvadori’s excellent books: “Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail”, and “Why Buildings Stand Up: The Strength of Architecture”, then get back to us.
So are you saying that WTC7 collapsed so completely on its footprint because of the falling debris and or fire? If you compare the ruins of WTC7 to the other damaged buildings you will see a stark difference. It’s hard to believe but it there plain to see.
I’m saying, show me evidence from an architectural or demolitions expert that refutes any & all non-conspiracy-dependent explanations for WTC7, and then I’ll entertain your amateur hunch.