Why the 911 Dispute?

The ONLY solution is to enforce The Plan against the traitorous N. W. O. Zion-Nazi mass-murder, inside-job perpetrators of OKC, 911, Bali, 7/7/2005 and the phoney War on Terror and Freedom, and reinstate God's Perfect Laws of Liberty and bring the perpetrators to Justice:- http://i.am/ jah/plan.htm

Time is running out:- http://i.am/ jah/signs.htm


Why the 911 Dispute?

by Steve Martinot

There are two 911 factions, neither of which accept the government's account of what happened. One side takes a look at the physical wreckage, and other evidence, and concludes that the planes that hit the twin towers did not bring those towers down. The other faction attacks them for saying so, calling them conspiracy theorist, morons, and worse. They say that the planes brought the towers down, and that though the government had forewarning of the attack, let it happen. (The idea that the government is too incompetent to have done this itself is a red herring; those in the administration who wished to bring off any such event have enough money to hire the best professional planners, designers and engineers in the world.)

Both sides agree on the role 911 has played: the event has been used for the purposes of constituting a police state in the US, starting unprovoked wars with other nations, and dragooning other nations into supporting it in those wars. Most agree that control of the oil in the nations invaded by the US is the US goal. This is key, and should not be forgotten. Control of the oil does not mean having it to use. It is a colonialist paradigm: he who controls the oil controls all industrialized countries.

Six years into the occupation of Afghanistan, and four years into the occupation of Iraq, with hundreds of thousands of people killed by these invasions, why should the question of whether airplanes or controlled demolition brought the buildings down be such a touchy subject (and it is its touchiness that is critical here) that it cannot be discussed rationally, or the evidence considered objectively, in a forensic manner. But those who look at the wreckage forensically, who we could call the "questioners, " receive only derogation ("conspiracy theory," as a phrase, has been turned into a derogatory term; it no longer signifies anything discursively with respect to 911) when they try to speak about what the wreckage says to them through their forensics. There is a strange rabidity with which the expression "conspiracy theory" emerges, almost as a knee-jerk response. And I am not just speaking of mailing list fulminators, but also such thinkers as Cockburn and Monbiot; the latter may be more practiced in political writing, and better able to temper its animus, but their discourse remains derogatory in its non- factuality and rhetoric. It is necessarily non-factual since they accept the basic premises of the government's account, but need to stay outside the domain of governmental support.

Because, in their derogation of the "questioners, " this faction has to make do with an empty rhetorical position, characterized mostly by shouting "conspiracy theory," the term "anti-questioners" seems appropriate.

What is the real issue between these two 911 factions, between the questioners and the anti-questioners. Why is the dispute between them so vituperative, and so often vicious. What is driving someone like Monbiot to claim that arguing for "controlled demolition" will destroy years of his political work?

Let us follow the logic of each position backward. The anti- questioners claim that the government let 911 happen, despite the fact that they had forewarnings. That means that planes were hijacked, and flown into the buildings. If planes were hijacked, and those who did the hijackings were foreigners, then the event constituted an attack by those foreigners on the US.

The questioners look at the way the towers came down (imploding, straight down into their footprint, at almost the velocity of free fall, throwing heavy steel debris hundreds of feet to the side, with the massive central columns all cut off horizontally at ground level, leaving tons of molten steel burning in the basement for weeks afterward), and deduce that only controlled demolition, and not gravity working on the upper floors, could have done this. In that case, the buildings were brought down not by airplanes but by whoever directed the placing of explosive charges in the buildings. That means that the planes that hit the towers were not hijacked. Those who directed the demolition would need to be certain that planes would actually hit the towers on the proper morning in order to make it look like the planes brought the buildings down, and thus could not afford to rely on hijackers. They would have had to find other ways to fly planes into those buildings. (Thanks to Hufschmid for that argument.) But if no hijackings occurred, which is the logic of the controlled demolition argument, then the planes that hit the towers did not represent an attack on the US.

Now, there we have the real conflictual issue between these two factions, the questioners and the anti-questioners. Both agree that the government lied. One reasons from the evidence that there was no attack on the US. The other reasons through a modified version of the government's account that 911 was an actual attack on the US.

Now, in the presence of an evidentiary argument that there was no attack on the US on 911, why would the anti-questioners press so hard for the idea, hidden in their derogation of the questioners, that 911 was indeed an attack on the US. What is their interest in 911 being an attack on the US, that they would have to denigrate anyone who would call that idea in question?

We could say that, in being as vociferous as they have been, using endless rhetorical derogation, that they want 911 to have been, and to continue to be, seen as an attack on the US. That is, they have an identity involvement in 911 being an attack on the US.

When people want to be attacked, it can only mean that they have a strong desire to be able to respond to that attack, to defend themselves, to partake in the glory of a noble struggle for self-defense. You can't defend yourself if you have not been attacked. In order to join the noble cause of self-defense, and the solidarity that this requires, an attack is absolutely essential. Perhaps it is that feeling of solidarity that the anti-questioners desire, though it would be a corrupt solidarity. It might even be what leads Monbiot to say the questioners are disrupting all his political work, which is presumably based on some kind of solidarity.

We have a name for all this when it concerns a nation, and the possibility that a nation may have to defend itself against a foreign attack. It is called "nationalism. "

The anti-questioners are revealing a very profound intense nationalism in their attacks on the questioners, a nationalism that the questioners themselves do not feel. Does that mean that the questioners do not care? Not at all. They care very much about bringing to justice those who carried out this criminal act called "911." And they wish to investigate the government, to find those guilty of this deed. Unfortunately, the anti- questioners can redirect their feelings toward no such idea of justice, since the people who they think conceived and carried out this attack all died in the crashes. Against whom can they express their nationalism, and against whom can they experience the glory of solidarity against an aggressor? Hence, there is a frustration among the anti-questioners that they do not acknowledge; their adopted position elides their ability to seek justice. Perhaps that is what they are taking out on the questioners. Perhaps that is why they react to the questioners as if they were aggressors.

I shudder to think that perhaps it is even worse than a frustrated nationalism; there is the possibility that the anti- questioners' animus is a contemporary form of yellow-perilism, a need to hate a perceived Asian evil (Islamic fundamentalism, in this case, which is what the government targets). Is that what sustains these people's identity as "good Americans," especially in their opposition to the government? Their ability to defend the US against an Asian peril?

Monbiot is not American - JAH.

Well, US nationalism is not an enviable position or ideology to hold. It means support or complicity in the carpet bombing of Vietnam and Afghanistan; overthrowing democratically elected governments in Chile, Indonesia, Iran, and more; dropping the atomic bomb on two cities in Japan for no reason except to test them; organizing death squads throughout Latin America; using biological weapons against Cuba a number of times; embargoing nations until they cried uncle; and all the time, speaking hypocritically about equality and democracy. A nationalism that supports all this is hard-pressed to see itself as virtuous.

It behooves those who are either open nationalists, or unconscious nationalists, to sit down and seriously reconsider the ideology that they have chosen for themselves.

PS: Among those who think the government just let it happen, there are many who add that what happened on 911 is not the real issue, and that it is silly to spend time on it. When I suggest that it is central to all foreign and domestic policy since it happened, as motive, icon, and rationale for what the government is doing. The response is that this is true, but it is not the real issue. But the government's use of 911 makes it the essential fulcrum between those who support the government's wars, and those who wish to win people away from the government's wars. How, then, could it not be a central issue?

I ran into such a person, someone I knew, on the last anti- war march. We walked along, talking about the march, and exchanging some political ideas. I asked him about his own refusal to discuss what had happened on 911, which I knew about from other encounters. We agreed that nothing has occurred since that moment that has not been grounded on that event. But when I mentioned that understanding 911 was therefore crucial to all political opposition to the government, he simply threw at me that people would refuse to take up the discussion because they had better things to do. Oddly, he didn't walk along with me and explain what those better things might be, neither for him nor for others nor for myself. Instead, he simply fled from me. We had nothing better to do than walk along with the march, and talk politics. But he found a "better thing" to do, which was to flee from me.

It was an ironic example of an identity involvement in something, in not confronting an issue of nationalism, right there in the midst of an Iraq anti-war demonstration.


( categories: )