9/11, 10 years on, why care?

I was sent a CD today. It was unmarked. A letter asked that I watch it and act on its contents.

The CD was Loose Change 2 which I’ve known since it came out and given away dozens of copies myself.

But what new is there to be said about 9/11? Or done? There is enough information out there – and has been since 2004, I’d say – to beg any number of questions of the official story.

People know I’m a huge sceptic of the official story these past 7 years (it was only 2004 I questioned it).  And some have even heard me at length on the subject (2 hours to cover the basic detail!).

But I think the battle is lost. That’s not to say I suddenly think the most mendacious American administration this century has been telling the truth! Quite the opposite. But that they’ve won the propaganda battle. And not only that but they invaded Afghanistan on the back of it and even conquered Iraq by conflating 9/11, Saddam and WMD.

In this way it’s like the JFK killing. The BBC still plays a documentary blaming Oswald as the lone nut gunman, clearly oblivious to the finding of Congress that it was very likely he was killed as the result of a conspiracy and that there was a second gunman. And yet who precisely killed Kennedy gets safely side-stepped and much evidence kept away for another 50 years.

The recent BBC2 documentary was like this. You pick and choose which aspects to look at. You use the details you can “debunk” but avoid any lines which could debunk your debunking. This follows in the BBCs tradition on this subject. We shouldn’t expect much more, after all in the lead up to Iraq BBC coverage was measured as 97% pro war. Of course they’re not going to debunk official 9/11.

But the major question is: why care now? Why care who precisely killed 3000 Americans (largely) that day? Why care about the 50,000 the West killed in Afghanistan? Why care about the maybe 50,000 largely dead from NATO bombs in Libya?

Why care, particularly in Britain, where the biggest demonstration in our history failed to stop Blair, all the Tories, most of Labour, from starting a war of  aggression on Iraq? Why care bout the 1.5 million dead now that Iraq is free…?

But in political life the most important things are the lies, the spin, the misrepresentations. And most paramount are those lies… which we actually believe are true.

If it COULD be true that the US government was involved then that’s the prime focus for investigation. After all, they were the prime beneficiaries: they got to attack Afghanistan (who they’d already threatened), attack Iraq (which they planned and wanted first), and even now Libya which can be argued on the back of 9/11 and the eternal War on Terror. They got to advance a police state and majorly develop their “defence” industries, a key way America socialises its economy. All major wins for a range of very powerful people in very powerful industries.

And yet neither FEMA nor NIST investigated the twin towers for being taken down by explosives, for example. Still the pretense continues that two 110 storey buildings, uniformly, collapsed, at near freefall speed, due to office fires (fuel fire was discounted),  clearly explosively and so destructively that hardly anything was left. Many people assume the official investigations have crowned the story but in fact they actually fail to do this crucial task.

And 1500 experts have declared themselves completely unsatisfied with these technical explanations.

And there are DOZENS of major aspects of 9/11 that ask us to suspend our disbelief that certain events happened the way we are told or that government agencies could have been as incompetent as we are asked to believe.

Hitler and Goebbels talked about telling a lie big enough, and often enough, and people will believe it. We, on the left, are used to attacking this in the form of lies about asylum seekers, for example, but 9/11 sneaks under the radar because it was an attack on “us”.

A lot on the left think that 9/11 arguments are distractions. But they miss an important point themselves: if, even remotely, US government agents had a hand in it, it is the most important political news this century as it has coloured everything that has happened on the international stage since.

But we give it a free ride, even foremost leftist commentators, completely unprepared to countenance the idea that a government could do it to its own people. And yet there remain thousands of professionals, some far closer to the events than they’d wish, who know different.

And no. We don’t NEED to show 9/11 in this light. We have Iraq. We have all the mendacity and wilfulness and evil necessary to launch a war killing a million and the people who justified it, right on our doorstep.

And now Iraq doesn’t matter either. It too is history.


4 thoughts on “9/11, 10 years on, why care?

  1. I agree with most of what you say here Martin.

    On the day it happened I asked myself cui bono? (for whose advantage?) and the answer that came, and which has been confirmed over and over again, was the US military-industrial complex and all of its agencies and servants.

  2. I was intrigued to find out that they wanted to blame Iraq for it straightaway. “How is Iraq involved… find out, get back to me” Rumsfeld and Rice told their people. On finding out Afghanistan had a link, Rumsfeld said something like “Afghanistan’s no good, there are no good targets there.”

    So they got Afghanistan, they took Iraq, they’re working on Libya, and lining up Syria and, goal of goals, Iran. Afghanistan they had threatened before 9/11, Iraq a major oil country, black gold, Iran even moreso, and Syria for pipelines to the Med.

    Ok, it’s not exactly how the Project for a New American Century planned it, but it’s close enough so America and its agents can control the oil.

  3. What a lot of offensive, badly argued tripe!
    You’re just accepting evidence that accords with your pre-existing prejudices, and then, presumably, twisting it to absurdity.
    The evidence is absurd, such as the alleged quotes of Donald Rumsfeld; which MUST be either out of context or inaccurate, as no conspirator would really ‘give it all away’ so blatantly.

    You quote Hitler and Goebbals and talk about a Big Lie. Well, a cursory knowledge of recent history will show you that neither the Nazi’s nor the Soviets nor any totalitarian dictatorship, went in for such elaborate ‘False Flag’ events, or elaborate conspiracies. Their lies were lies of ommission (not telling the truth about the Holocaust) and the creation of paranoid conspiracy theories. Just like yours. The Soviets blamed every setback on sabotage, all dissent on counter-revolutionary regimes abroad. The Nazi’s peddled stories of Jewish Bolsheivik bankers, of foreign aggression, and other made-up or misinterpreted stories.
    So totalitarian regimes, which inspired George Orwell with their twisting of truth, promoted conspiracy theories.
    Today, Iran and Russia both promote the idea of American complicity in 9/11. These are not absolutely totalitarian regimes, but they are authoritarian, and Iran’s goes to considerable lengths to control the information given to, and beliefs held by, its people.

    I put it to you- that the 9/11 conspiracy is incredibly unlikely, and would be completely unprecedented.

    I put it to you- that, straight away, there were those who believed it was a conspiracy, and immediately presented evidence for such – now shown to be false, and, that therefore there are people with a preconceived ideology or outlook who drive forwards this conspiracy narrative.

    I put it to you that – these conspiracy theories are gratefully seized upon and promoted by the state propoganda of genuinely undemocratic countries. This is not an inspiring association, it does nothing to enhance the reputation of the conspiracy cranks, and 9/11 Truthers may actually be helping to promote evil forces in the world

    I put it to you that – you mention Goebbels and “the big lie.”… I put it to you that

    It is the improbable and unlikely story that people believe BECAUSE it is improbable. That this is what Goebbel’s was really speaking about (the scale or audaciousness of the lie, not of the deed,) and that you are a part of it.

    Which seems to you more likely to be the “Big Lie”?
    That Al-Qaeda hijacked four planes and rammed two into the WTC and therefore the buildings collapsed?
    Or, that Al-Qaeda did this but at the behest of the US govn, or didn’t do this but evidence was faked that they did and then they chose to own up to it as if they had done it, and that the attack had to be supplemented by missiles and explosives, making it hugely more complicated and unlikely?

    The very multiplicity of contradictory conspiracies, nearly all of which would have to be unfounded even if one version were proved true, points to something beyond rational scientific enquiry motivating the Truther movement.

    You mentioned “Loose Change 2”. The latest is, I think, “Loose Change 4”. The reason there are multiple editions is because the previous ones were all discredited. Rather than accepting this as evidence of being incorrect, the makers of the video merely found new reasons to be distrustful.

    May I ask, what is the writers position within the Green Party?

    • Thanks you for your detailed post.
      The Rumsfeld quotes are easy to find on the net whether in commentary or through youtube clips.
      The False Flag label is given to an event which is rigged to blame another group or country with. Obviously they have to be kept secret but some important ones have come out and many more are highly suspected. The simplest Nazi example is Operation Himmler.
      Another famous one is the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in an apparent effort to (blame Egypt and) get American into war with Egypt. Survivors say this was in collusion with US authorities at the highest level.
      The 9/11 Truth Movement is firstly an American one. Websites such as –
      involve a serious number of experts, architects and engineers, in this case, commenting exactly contradictory to yourself, on how improbably and unlikely, even impossible, the official description is of what happened.
      Im not quite sure what your problem is with acceptign the possibillity of this. You don’t think that official America tells us the truth do you? Especially of events designed to get their next war?? Look at teh Gulf of Tonkin incident! A nothing of an event – involving no enemy – then used to majorly esaccalate the Vietnam War where 3 or 4 million died. Just for an ideology of keeping back Communism!
      The BBC does a tremendous job in dispelling people’s dounbts about events like 9/11 or 7/7. But, take Iraq for example. It’s pre-war coverage was 97% pro-war – worse than the Americans! You investigate and portray the things which back-up your position. Which is propaganda but not truth or history.
      It’s important to really take onboard Kean and Hamilton’s own criticism now of their Commission then. How they were under-funded, how they were lied to as they say. Also to recognise the role of Phiip Zeilikow, PNAC neocon insider, who basically drafted the Commission Report before it had even taken evidence.
      I recommend –
      The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions, by David Ray Griffin.
      It also remains a big deal that the actual destruciton of the WTC is *not* defined and put to rest by the FEMA report or the NIST report. Thre aren’t the facts and figures in NIST that back up the total observed destruction of the 3 main towers.
      The “multiplicity” of possible explanations has nothing to do with it. One of these conspiracy theories is nearer to the truth – and it’s not the Offical Conspiracy Theory either!
      It’s not true to say all the information in previous works such as the earlier Loose Change videos is all discredited. The vast majority of the content remains as hundreds of unanswered questions, even if some items aren’t as strong.
      When it comes to war, truth is the first casualty. This is the sort of thing it means in practice. Tonkin was very controllable; the story only came from within the armed forces. WMD in Iraq had to be worked at much harder, pressurising the intelligence services both here and in Washington, so Bush and Blair could have their war.
      Our unquestioning nature (by definition not rational or scientific) over events likely to lead to war, or to reinforce enmities between peoples, is our biggest weakness as democratic societies.
      I recommend all of David Ray Griffin’s books on the subject as the most sober and forensic analyst of the many details that have come to light.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s