Why Conspiracy Theory is Essential
With a title like that you might imagine that this is going to be a long, perhaps convoluted, argument. In fact it’s entirely simple. By regarding governmental complicity in 9/11 as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, voices such as Kos preserve manufactured terror as a sort of royal road to power. In short: a public manifestly paranoid about its government is less open to those willing to descend to such depths to manipulate it. So long as terror works to goad people down the road to knee-jerk authority worship it will remain a primary weapon in the arsenal of tyranny – whether Bushco was complicit in 9/11 or not.
We should limit the availability of this weapon so far as possible.
Of course the defenders of naive orthodoxy never explain exactly what’s so extraordinary about imagining one’s own government as one’s primary enemy. Sure, it’s one of the principle understandings behind the American Revolution. Sure, other governments act against their own people all the time. Sure, our government has done so in the past. Sure, Bushco has demonstrated again and again its will to power above all other values. Still, we hear again and again that putting two and two together to get four is an extraordinary act. Why? Don’t ask naivety’s defenders. They’re above the question… which is rather fortunate for them, given that they have no answer for it. It is apparently enough for them to deride the allegedly immutable insanity of conspiracy theorists. Chalk it up to American Exceptionalism: even our ruthless psychopaths are limited by a sense of national unity that they can’t transgress.
They’ll lie to get us into war, killing thousands and maiming tens of thousands more. They’ll hold a fundraiser while New Orleans drowns. But orchestrate an attack to provide themselves exactly the pretext they need to execute their entire program? That’s just crazy talk.
My point is this: regardless of whether or not the case for Bushco complicity will stand up in some hypothetical court, Americans need to become highly aware of false flag terror. We need to be aware of this venerated tool or ruthless statecraft. We need this awareness because this awareness is in itself our greatest protection.
Nine Eleven was Rove’s Reichstag Fire.
See, this is the kind of statement that doesn’t help.
All you have to do is preface with “I believe” or “I think the evidence suggests” – but to state as fact something that cannot (yet?) be proven doesn’t help the cause.
One thing people don’t talk about is how much worse 9/11 could have been.
The Pentagon plane hit a part of the building that was under renovation. What if it had hit a populated area or killed Rumsfeld?
Meanwhile, what if Flight 93 had not been delayed on the runway and it slammed into Congress while it was in session?
Whoever did it, and planned it, were really going for a knockout punch and were not overly concerned about possible retaliation.
I don’t know what that means, but it does mean something.
Yes. I’m very distessed that there can be no sane discussion of 9/11 in many circles. I’m distressed that journalists think it’s either “no plane hit the pentagon” or the official story is true.
There is much that needs an honest airing in relation to this event, and the history of false flag terrorism.
The US committed false flag terrorism in Indonesia when it helped foment a fake “counter coup” – Suharto came to power to “put down” a supposed “communist coup”, but the evidence suggested the coup plot that Suharto was supposedly fighting was a CIA-orchestrated fiction. Complicated story that I will not rehash here, as few probably care what we did in Indonesia forty years ago (although we should).
But yes – false flag ops are standard practice in intelligence circles.
That said, of course, I’ve seen no direct evidence that 9/11 was a false flag operation. But there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that should at least cause us to mentally allow the possibility.
Entertaining a discussion of conspiracy possibilities would be a healthy airing of the points. I just get upset when conspiracy promoters or conspiracy deniers insist they “know” what no one can yet know because there isn’t enough solid evidence. There are lots of reasons for suspicion. But I sure haven’t seen many reasons for certainty from any side.
For a number of reasons too lengthy to go into, I doubt that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the US. Among those reasons is not the belief that BushCo wouldn’t sink to such depths.
I find it a lot easier to believe that BushCo allowed it to happen in order to put their neo-con PNAC plans into action. It has, after all, been conclusively established that they had advance warning that al Qaeda was preparing to launch an attack on US soil. If that is indeed what happened, I think they were probably as surprised as the rest of us at the scale of the attack.
Unlike the rest of us, I suspect that it was a pleasant surprise for them. On 9/10, after all, Dubya was on track to be “the education President” as he presided over the bursting of the dot-com bubble. On 9/11 he had carte blanche to be king of the world.
Well, I don’t rule out a third party doing the neocons a favor, with or without their overt consent. I look forward to a time about thirty years from now when the truth may start trickling out. It took that long to get a solid peak into what the government REALLY knew about the Kennedy assassination….
I agree. See my previous comment about Rove and a certain notorious fire. I know, I know…..I can’t help myself. Sometimes one just knows things. Just ask King George.