The Deeper Side of 9/11

The events of 9/11 go beyond the events to something far deeper and more important. Yes, the deaths of a bit less than 3k people is important but the national reaction to those events which resulted in tens of millions of people, killed, traumatized (we underestimate the trauma of civilians in war-zones and only focus on the soldiers trauma—lest we forget who caused the trauma in the first place), tortured, displaced and so on. 9/11 is the direct cause of the flood of refugees pouring into Europe disrupting lives there (they deserve it, frankly for being cowardly vassal states). But even that, being far more important than the original lives lost and property destroyed pales in comparison to what it indicates but did not cause about Western culture in general but USA culture in particular.

Those events represent the dramatic and final end of democracy, liberalism (in the old sense of the word), and the enlightenment ideas of truth, rule-of-law, reason, science and so on all mediated by 19^th and 20^th century ideas of compassion and sympathy for those who do not share our culture, religion or “race” (we are all part of the human race). We are, indeed, at “the end of history” at least as we knew it. 9/11 didn’t cause this but represented its values as personified by the ruling elite’s who were involved in the events and reacted to it in a fury of violence.

I’m not going to go into all the facts surrounding the events of 9/11 because they are clearly available on the internet and, if you look closely, even in the mainstream. I wish I didn’t have to even say this but the official story of 9/11 is beyond ludicrous—it is impossible and based on no facts whatsoever other than airplanes hit a couple of buildings and destroyed three of them completely into rubble and dust. One plane crashed in a field and left virtually no debris and the other “plane” flew into a solid wall of the Pentagon when the White House or the Capitol were available since Cheney (who was in charge as usual) told the missiles to “stand down.” This information is freely available from mainstream reporting and photos. Most of the evidence was seized whether cameras near the Pentagon, recordings of traffic controllers, and debris from the buildings destroyed—that was quite a feat to ship all metal which would have shown evidence of why two buildings specifically built to withstand a crash of the largest airliner at that time (Boeing 707) crumbled into dust as if there was no inner steel girders to at least slow down the collapse. There are literally, many hundreds of clear and unambiguous facts that prove that the official story of the events could not possibly be true. Yet, the government made no effort to investigate those crashes—just so you know all crashes and building collapses are meticulously investigated—but because we were “at war” no investigations were necessary. And in the panic and trauma of the moment the authorities got away with one simple statement on a TV network that Osama was responsible—that’s it. No need to think, no need to launch an investigation—WAR!

Now, culturally the problem is simple. By simply offering inconvenient facts I am therefore (you can see the logic) a “conspiracy theorist” which means in the common parlance someone who is mentally ill who has paranoid fantasies based on some misconstruction of a handful of facts. This means, essentially, that if you dissent from ANY official pronouncement by, say, the “paper of record” the New York Times then one is either illogical or mentally ill. That’s what you are saying. Now my simple proof that the official story, aside from what I said above, is certifiably wrong is that the authorities, at any level, to not tolerate any deviation in every detail of the official story—the official story is more iron-clad than the Bible is for fundamentalists. This attitude is the same in all major events accepted by official Washington which reflects the views of what us conspiracy theorists call the “Deep State” which I’ve explained before and won’t go into now.

Now, if we are not allowed to examine evidence or call for logical and scientific explanations for events like 9/11 or Syrian gas “attacks” then what remains of the spirit of our Founders who, for all their faults, reflected the values of the 18^th century Enlightenment? What remains? There is now an “acceptable” field of what we can talk about as represented by the mainstream media’s extremely narrow field of inquiry—but this area of discussion is so narrow that there is no way to even begin to talk about anything in what, in another era, would have been considered intelligent conversation.

And that’s the real problem: I see little if any intelligent conversation about anything at this period of history that has any bearing on politics or even economics—that is, anything of public concern. I know people who talk about spiritual subjects, UFOs, ghosts, intuition, prophetic dreams but I am continually warned not to mention “politics” by my wife and others. Why? Isn’t our common public concern about who has power important?

People often accuses me of being a “know-it-all” because I assert what I know about life, about culture, about politics and, worse, about history. For some reason, history, is one subject Americans of all cultures seem to hate because understanding origins of events puts depth into subject matter—instead we seem to prefer fantasies about good guys and bad guys a term universally used by the military and law-enforcement community which shows the childishness of their view of life. Here’s an idea—there are no good guys and bad guys as such—if there is I’d like to see proof—because I’ve not seen it yet. When I presented the results of my research into the events surrounding 9/11 (I read numerous books, researched official writing including the NIST reports on the building collapses) and put in the time and effort and presented my findings to two people on separate occasions one who had a Masters from Harvard, another several Masters from University of Chicago and UC Berkeley, said the same thing to wit, “even if what you say is true, I refuse to believe it.” Why did they say this and why is it, in a sense, logical to say that? The answer to this lies in social science originating with the work of Leon Festinger with an idea called “cognitive dissonance” which is a state of discomfort that happens when two separate ideas clash within us and we must find a way to resolve it. That’s why people like me are called “conspiracy theorists” (a term coined by the CIA in response to those who questioned the Warren Commission report on the JFK murder). When you lump us into a class of people suffering from paranoid delusions or sheer illiteracy, you don’t have to look at our arguments for our position—you just dismiss us. This has happened to me time after time when my arguments were dismissed simply because they lie outside officially recognized reality.

The explanation for why 9/11 did happen is startlingly simple. In the late 90s a group of what we now call “neoconservatives” came together to form “The Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) which laid out the following argument: the USA, without a Soviet threat, is liable to “degrade” into a country lacking purpose and drifting into culture wars, regionalism, and hedonism ruining causing rapid decline. They reasoned that without a “new Pearl Harbor” event it would be very difficult to provide a common purpose to the American people; of course, the only worthy “common purpose” was world conquest and a universal “Pax Americana” similar to what Rome provided in much of the world back in the day. This dream of a “New Rome” had been a constant in Western Civilization since the fall Rome. A look at the cast of characters in PNAC will tell you all you need to know about their war-like intentions. Those characters that still are alive and their successors still survive in Washington and continue to dominate our foreign policy to this day—though they’ve moved from “terrorism” to “Russia/Iran/China” their aim is the same—by whatever means necessary they have the goal of complete domination, politically, of the world by Washington. Because they pursue a specific and meaningful goal (rare in our society these days) they always have recruits and supporters at all levels of power and in both political parties.

We are now living in a post-Constitutional time and a post-reason world. I can write this stuff till my fingers are exhausted and I doubt I will change anyone’s mind. But, I feel it is my duty to write what I know and feel in my heart. I want a world ruled by love and compassion not hate and fear. I believe this is not only possible but natural to humans. Social science teaches us how, in fact, most people are agreeable and naturally compassionate unless traumatized of coerced. We live in a trauma- and fear-based culture. Before we can address events like 9/11 or the various wars we’ve engaged in we need to see that clearly.