Even harsh critics of the 9/11 truth movement should admit that it’s gaining lately.
By John Kusumi
An ancient Chinese curse says, “May you live in interesting times.” In their college years, Baby Boomers reacted to the Vietnam war. The Civil Rights movement; high profile political assassinations; and Watergate also made a big impression. In my GenX college years, we reacted to President Reagan; Tiananmen Square; watched the Cold War end; and noted the first Gulf War as the U.S. military kicked the forces of Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
Some number of people in Generation Y (the Millenials, who are now 28 and younger) can say, “I went to college, and what I learned was that 9/11 was an inside job.” Several influences are contending for the attention of that generation: the 9/11 Truth movement; the pro-Constitution and end-the-Fed movements (call it the Ron Paul movement); and the Tea Party movement. And, GenY is making its own movement against budget cuts to higher education.
Most of the matters above are outside the scope of this article, but when the 9/11 Truth movement holds sway, there is need to correct the national narrative. That national narrative has been hijacked by the faces of “Old Media,” rendering stories that are bought, paid for, and/or dictated by those who hold undue sway in the public discourse.
Brass tacks about 9/11
The 9/11 truth movement, if not conclusive, is at least persuasive. Most readers should be aware that they are out there, with evidence that “9/11 was an inside job,” or as I prefer to phrase it, 9/11 had inside help.
For evidence, they make cases out of (A.) things that did happen on 9/11 (improper behavior of solidly-constructed buildings; anchormen fingering Bin Laden by lunchtime; and even anchormen reporting that Building 7 fell before the fact of the occurrence of the fall of Building 7) –and– (B.) things that did not happen in relation to 9/11 (interception by NORAD of diverted airplanes, defense of the Pentagon, and the fact that authorities did not release passenger lists, black box recordings, nor a picture of a plane hitting the Pentagon).
For a short article, I cannot go into all of the ins and outs of each suspicious thing. But, I’ve compiled a list of 11 unanswered questions — matters about which authorities are silent. I believe that any layman can understand these 11 questions, and that we lack a national narrative to adequately account for these points raised.
(a) Where were the interceptors of NORAD? Why was there no response from America’s air defenses? (b) Who gets to hit the Pentagon, of all places? Of all places to be undefended, where were Pentagon defenses? (c) How did those buildings fall so quickly? Why was the scene “too Hollywood,” such an exactly fatal blow on such a pristine clear day? (d) Why did the anchormen know that it was Osama Bin Laden by lunchtime? (e) Why did the FBI have mug shots of these dead hijackers already on file, like a prepared slide? (f) Why did a third skyscraper, Building 7, that was not hit by an airplane fall? (g) Why were passenger lists not released? (h) Why were the black boxes not recovered, or not released? (i) Why was there no investigation by the NTSB? (j) Why did families have to push for a year before there was any investigation of any sort? (k) Why did no one lose their job?
Whether for their own convenience or for more sinister reasons, political pundits like to avoid tar babies, and this issue is definitely a tar baby. If one wades into the above thicket, there could be a lot of back-and-forth as one side or another asserts, proves, or defends each point. My own preferred tack goes to the physics involved in the buildings’ destruction.
A group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) has been collecting signatures on their petition for a new 9/11 investigation. I signed on in the “supporters” section, since I am not an architect nor engineer, except with software. I am a software developer and “1984 independent Presidential candidate,” as it identifies me there. I am no more nor less than that, but I added my view into the “Personal 9/11 Statement” field that accompanies signatures at that web site. I said,
“Buildings do not spontaneously pulverize from fires, otherwise we would never need demolition experts to carefully bring down buildings — Why should that profession exist if a simple match will do the job to bring down steel framed skyscrapers? That’s a tongue-in-cheek question, but it highlights a serious point: Those buildings had assistance to fall on 9/11. We should all demand an inquiry to uncover the details, culprits, and to initiate prosecution for those criminal culprits who must be brought to justice.”
There is “reductio ad absurdum” at work in this situation. Wikipedia notes that “in formal logic, ‘absurdity’ applies only to impossible self-contradiction.”
Once more around this block
It’s not the first time these matters have been discussed, but some Americans are casual observers and would not have taken this in yet. For their benefit I will restate the following.
The official cover story about 9/11 introduces a new brand of physics by claiming that the impact of jetliners, and resulting fires, weakened the structures and brought down those buildings in a “pancake collapse.”
The following is absolutely true, no matter who is the source that relays it to you: From the late 1960s up to 9/11/2001, it was public knowledge that the World Trade Center towers were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner. This was common wisdom, because it was part of the design from the architects in this high-profile construction project.
Jet fuel is essentially kerosene. There is a particular temperature at which it burns, and that temperature is lower than the melting point of steel. In your house, you may have a kerosene heater or cooking stove, which means that you yourself may burn kerosene — but the equipment does not melt down! The melting point of steel is far higher than that temperature.
So, what brought down those buildings? Airliner impact? No, that’s discounted from the above information and the fact that the buildings continued to stand during the first hour after they were hit.
What brought down those buildings? Fires from jet fuel? No, that’s discounted from the above information.
By process of elimination, we are left to surmise that extra energy, such as explosive demolition, must have caused the destruction as witnessed on 9/11. In fact, Building 7 was a third skyscraper which collapsed on that day, and it was not hit by an airplane. Hence, even those who think that airliner impact and jet fuel are plausible ways to explain the first two skyscraper collapses are left to scratch their heads, because airliner impact and concerns about jet fuel do not apply to the THIRD skyscraper which collapsed in New York at Ground Zero.
They can’t explain Building 7. The authorities who told us that “jetliners, and resulting fires, weakend the structures and brought down those buildings in a pancake collapse” are very quiet authorities when it comes time to explain about Building 7. THEY DON’T HAVE AN EXPLANATION! Their cover story has unraveled as attention and awareness has come to the foregoing matters.
Adding nails in the coffin
At this point, it is safe to pile on against the government’s cover story. And that is what the 9/11 Truth movement has done — all these years, and even moreso recently. In 2007, I published in favor of 9/11 Truth, and Charlie Sheen and Rosie O’Donnell were early celebrity voices in favor of same. But, we also watched Rosie O’Donnell lose her job as a panelist on The View. For a time, we expected that Loose Change, Final Cut would be released in movie theaters; but the powerful were able to nix that appearance.
However, the issue has not gone away and the movement’s reach only grows across time. Entertainers such as Sean Hannity, Bill Maher, and Dennis Miller have disparaged the “truther” movement, but they have broken no new ground, with no new arguments against the truthers. It is predictable that they will either change their stories, or they will repeat themselves until blue in the face. Are they paragons of upright, respectable political correctness, or are they paragons of moral cowardice and group think, if not establishment collusion?
Meanwhile, there has been a change of presidential administration and political climate in the United States, as reflected in this article’s second paragraph. Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura was given a series on TruTV, in which he addressed 9/11 and other suspicious behavior by the U.S. Government (USG). He then came out with a book, American Conspiracies. On March 10, 2010, Venutra was the guest on ABC’s The View, plugging away on the book tour for American Conspiracies.
And on March 6, 2010, Geraldo Rivera on Fox News had as his guest Alex Jones, who is an alternative broadcaster and frequent voice for the 9/11 Truth movement.
The 9/11 Truth movement has long had a presence on foreign news channels. It is notable that Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Russia have allowed robust debate about 9/11 Truth to be aired on their publicly-owned broadcasting stations. But these recent events mean that 9/11 Truth has become visible on American channels — TruTV, ABC, and Fox. Hopefully soon, more channels will be added to the list.
On February 19, 2010, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (ae911truth.org) held a simultaneous, 31 city press conference (in six countries), calling attention to their petition for a new investigation, and the fact that over 1,000 licensed, professional architects and engineers are now co-signers.
The ae911truth action drew coverage from the Washington Times, but not the Washington Post.
On March 4, 2010, Russia Today reported about New England towns that are having ballot initiatives, allowing voters to call for a new 9/11 investigation. They said,
At 81 years old, Gerhard Bedding devotes nearly all his time to the Vote for Answers campaign. Though the movement for a new 9/11 investigation began in the Big Apple, it’s seeing more success in New Hampshire.
“This is so central to the future of this country. There is no future, as far as I’m concerned, if we do not get to the bottom of this, because we steep in lies upon lies, and soon we do not know what is what anymore,” Bedding said. “I do believe truth matters.”
Apparently, so do thousands of others. Twelve towns are making a new 9/11 inquiry a ballot box issue this spring. Voters heading to the polls will vote on a non-binding resolution that supporters hope eventually sparks momentum and legislative power nationwide.
Also in mid-February, Elizabeth Woodworth, writing for GlobalResearch.ca, titled her article ‘The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement.’ She notes that, “Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a “conspiracy theory” ignoring science and common sense.”
The above is a capsule summary, merely some but not all of the recent new nails in the coffin for the old version of the 9/11 story.
Correcting the national narrative
In the fullness of time, the truth comes out. There could be a bumper sticker, “Pearl Harbor: FDR Knew.” Perhaps 50 years ago, it would have been controversial, but by now historians and pundits agree that yes, the U.S. President (FDR) knew in advance about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, that precipitated the U.S. entry into World War II. Similarly, there is now agreement that the Gulf of Tonkin attack, which precipitated heavy U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war, was phony.
One can also Google “Operation Northwoods,” and come to know that, yes, the USG is not above staging false flag attacks to start wars. When newbies first consider the prospect of the USG being behind something as atrocious as 9/11, there is always an incredulous question: “Why would they do that?” However, the answer is already above — “to start wars.” Wars are very profitable to the defense contractors who supply the weaponry, the material, and the contractors for war — and to bankers, who finance all of the foregoing military spending.
9/11 was the crime of the century, and led to devastation for three countries: America, Afghanistan, and Iraq. What is also devastated is the stature, standing, and credibility of the U.S. MSM, or “lamestream media.” And as far as I’m concerned, they can’t go out of business fast enough to suit me! But, I will say that this issue calls for presidential leadership at the top, because that is probably the only thing that can save the credibility of the USG.
I believe that the MSM and the USG should not merely be “the corrupt, flacking for the corrupt.” Someone in the establishment should aspire to having better national circumstances than this. When the 9/11 attacks occurred, not many people lost their jobs in government. But, the news business shows the scars of carnage. How many voices of reason — dissidents — went away? Off the cuff, I can name Ron Insana, Phil Donahue, Rosie O’Donnell, Dan Froomkin, and Lou Dobbs. Even more could be named by those who are inside the news business.
In a nation founded on political freedom and free speech, all this banishment of dissidents makes me wonder of newsroom managers — what country were they raised in? The silencing of dissent is positively un-American! In fact, both the MSM and the USG are (ostensibly) supposed to be “on our side,” standing with the American people. So what’s their excuse? In this new “era of globalization,” is allegiance to America and its principles quaint, passe, and an anachronism? If so, I believe that only applies on their side of the fence.
There certainly is an other side of the fence here. Above I noted that recent 9/11 Truth activities were covered by the Washington Times, but not the Washington Post. Is Fred Hiatt reading my article, here? (He is the Post’s censor-in-chief.) What we see is a bifurcation or a divergence in the public discourse. Response to the 9/11 Truth movement now runs hot-and-cold. Some people have researched, reflected, and reasoned it out. Others are still being like the antagonist in the movie Avatar — corporate pricks with kneejerk sophistry that represents the company’s politically-correct (i.e., profitable) policy to run everything over with a bulldozer.
At some point, “we the American people” are going to look at each other and allow that we are sick of being bulldozed!
It should be the job of the U.S. President to wield a national narrative that accounts for “reality, as best we know it.” Right now, that function is abdicated by the White House, and the Internet / blogosphere is filling in and performing that role of questing for a healthier narrative. However, the MSM and the USG must step up and perform their roles. The alternative is permanent, intractable Balkanization of multiple narratives, as is reflected when one browses the Internet. (As they genuflect to the establishment, Huffington Post and Wikipedia both censor 9/11 Truth.) In the time since 9/11/2001, the establishment narrative has served merely as an excuse and pretext which serves as a cover story for mass murder.
As the old lies give way to wider truths, it is time to have investigations and prosecutions and to bring the mass murderers to justice. There are establishment figures who have been heedless of their own evils and acting as though there is no consequence to be feared since they are perceived as “powerful.” I suggest: Let’s perceive them as being in the dock at the International Criminal Court, or in some other fitting venue. That’s where mass murderers belong. Yes, indeed, this was the crime of the century. MSM and USG should act commensurately, and take up the case.