Follow on TwitterGov’t Accountability: The Only Antidote To Conspiracy Theories
Lately there’s been a deluge of conspiracy theories seeping into the American political discourse. Outside the JFK Assassination, the 9-11 conspiracy theory is perhaps the most popular of them all. There are varying themes, depending on who’s doing the advocating. Some suggest the government actually organized 9-11; others believe the government knew something of an impending attack, but ceased to do anything about it. Both of these theories are built upon the idea that the attacks were a necessary spark for implementing an ideological shock doctrine (i.e. a precursor to launch a war) .
Disclaimer: for the record, I do not advocate for 9-11 conspiracy theories. Additionally, I am not a structural engineer, and thus have little knowledge about the validity of their ‘evidence’, other than what I’ve stumbled upon online and seen on television.
However, in an attempt to demonstrate there is some plausibility, at least in part, to their assertions, consider the third building to collapse that day: World Trade Center Building #7:
Building #7 was not hit by any of the planes, but somehow managed to collapse in a perfect free-fall acceleration that afternoon. The collapse itself has some historic significance: it is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires — something previously deemed impossible. That’s the official record — it was brought down by fires — the first of its kind. The National Institute of Standards & Technology fact sheet highlights this point, as well as some other findings on the collapse of WTC7.
And now the plot thickens, as far as conspiracy is concerned: The owner of WTC7, Larry Silverstein, stated in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY jointly decided to pull the building:
“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
WATCH the clip of the documentary:
I’ve read that for a building to collapse into its own footprint, as WTC7 did, ALL of the load bearing members must fail at the exact same moment — something achieved in controlled demolitions. Assuming this is true — again, I’m not a structural engineer — there wouldn’t be enough time (in the hours between the plane attacks and building 7′s collapse) to rig such a massive building for controlled demolition. It would have had to have been rigged with explosives well before the attacks, etc. etc.
See how these conspiracy theories are born? But Again — just for the record — my knowledge in structural engineering is non-existent, so I can’t guarantee the validity of the statements I’ve made towards that end. This is merely an attempt to provide a bird’s eye view into a common 9-11 conspiracy theory.
We’ll probably never fully understand all that transpired on 9-11, outside the official record, but as you can see, there are often compelling questions that underline these conspiracy theories; enough to make a reasonable person sit up, scratch his head, and wonder, WTF? Which, of course, isn’t to say there aren’t legitimate answers out there that could, once and for all, put each and every one of these questions to rest.
This is why it is deplorable when the establishment sets out to destroy the reputation and marginalize anyone who doesn’t mechanically parrot whatever the establishment has deemed the ‘acceptable’ explanation for this Goliath of American disasters. Take Van Jones, who was pushed out of the Administration for having reservations, at one time or another, about 9-11:
Jones, who joined the administration in March as special adviser for green jobs at the CEQ, had issued two public apologies in recent days, one for signing a petition in 2004 from the group 911Truth.org that questioned whether Bush administration officials “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war” and the other for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.
And of course, as these conspiracy theories have spread like wildfire, the Administration has resorted to appointing people, like Cass Sunstein, to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which oversees policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs. Sunstein advocates for the “cognitive infiltration” of groups who advocate for “conspiracy theories” like the ones surrounding 9/11:
[Sunstein] argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.
But doesn’t Sunstein and others miss the point by not addressing the underlying cause of all this paranoia? The point is that our government consistently acts in ways that erode public confidence in the accountability of government officials. This results in an environment that actually fosters paranoia and suspicion — an environment primed for incubating conspiracy theories.
There would be very few conspiracy theories if the government routinely launched independent investigations in a timely and transparent manner; thereby exemplifying its commitment to the rule of law. This is about bridging the trust gap between the people and their government. Attempting to infiltrate American conversations with government shills will only exacerbate public distrust — not quell it.
U.S. FAILURES IN INVESTIGATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Despite the fact the WTC Building #7 conspiracy theory has floated around since 9-11-2001, the government actually delayed its investigation of the building for half a decade. The reason?: It decided NOT to hire new staff to support such an investigation. This meant much of the evidence on the ground had been hauled off and disposed of years before the investigation was actually completed, thereby ensuring other independent sources couldn’t verify the government findings:
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. [...]
It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter. [...]
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
Considering the US government throws money to the wind daily, it would come as a shock to most Americans to learn their government scoffed at hiring new staff members to conduct a thorough and timely investigation into one of the most catastrophic crimes ever committed against the United States of America: 9-11. Do you see how this plays right into the hands of the conspiracy theorists? You couldn’t make this stuff up.
And now we have a new President whom we hoped would bridge that trust gap between government and people. And how has Obama responded? Whenever he is asked whether he will appoint a special investigator to investigate the most egregious crimes of the Bush administration, including misleading us into an illegal war, torturing detainees, warrantless wiretapping, and the controversial firing of eight U.S. federal prosecutors, he routinely answers:
I prefer to look forward, not backward.
Talk about obliterating the trust between government and people! But Obama took it yet a step further. He actually threatened the British government not to allow its High Courts to reveal Bush Administration crimes, and has also intervened to shut down similar lawsuits in US courts. Did you get that? President Barack Obama is conspiring with administration and DOJ officials to blatantly cover up Bush Administration crimes.
And yet, isn’t that essentially the cornerstone of 9-11 conspiracy theories? — that the government has allegedly engaged in a conspiratorial cover-up of a heinous crime which members of the political establishment either orchestrated, or knowingly allowed to be carried out? You don’t need to appoint Cass Sunstein, Mr. President. You need to appoint special investigators to vigorously enforce the laws of this land.
Conspiracy theories will continue to thrive and flourish as long as accountability remains non-existent in our nation’s Capitol.
What Makes America Safer: Fiscal Stability, Or Chasing 100 Terrorists Around Afghanistan?
In Obama’s Afghanistan speech at West Point, he announced he would be escalating our troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000-35,000 to ensure those who attacked us on 9-11 are resoundingly defeated. ABC News notes that Obama conveniently left out a very significant fact, when making his case:
A senior U.S. intelligence official told ABCNews.com the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations.
So, Obama is committing 30,000-35,000 new U.S. troops — at $1 million per soldier per year, which comes to $30-35 billion dollars in more U.S. national debt — to defeat 100 Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan? That works out to $300-350 million per Al Qaeda operative! Has he lost his marbles?!
Al Qaeda is a loosely affiliated network with operatives all over the world: Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Germany, Britain, Spain, United States, etc. and we’re to dig ourselves into an even greater financial ditch chasing after just 100 of these operatives who may very well be somewhere beyond the Pakistani border, or possibly now in Somalia, or Saudi Arabia?
Al Qaeda can nearly claim themselves ‘victors’ in their war against the world’s last superpower. Not because of anything they did — 9-11 was mostly about inadequate airport security and a Bush Administration unwilling to read their national security memos, like the one entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” — a memo which sat on Condi Rice’s desk for one month and a week before the planes hit the twin towers.
Rather Al Qaeda is winning, because of our ineffective, money-bleeding, military occupations. We have effectively self-destructed as the world’s largest financial power. Essentially, we became so shortsighted — so determined to fix a menacing fly buzzing around our face, we reached for a twelve gauge shotgun, targeted the fly resting upon our forehead — and pulled the trigger.
American al Qaeda figure Adam Gadahn — no, I didn’t say Afghan, I said American — gloated in a recent video about how they were defeating the West:
Gadahn called on Muslims to support jihad with “men and money,” while claiming that the West was now on the verge of collapse under the strikes of the militants.
“The enemy under the leadership of the unbelieving West has began to stagger and falter, and the results of its unabated bleeding has began to show on its economy, which is on the brink of failure,” said Gadahn.
All they have to do is keep some operative alive, in some Muslim country, and America will fiscally come apart looking under every single rock until he’s found.
Is it any wonder that Americans have had enough of this lunacy? New polls show Americans are turning sharply towards isolationism:
At the very moment when President Barack Obama is looking to thrust the U.S. ever more into global affairs, from Afghanistan to climate change, the American public is turning more isolationist and unilateralist than it has at any time in decades, according to a new poll released Thursday.
The survey by the Pew Research Center found a plurality of Americans — 49 percent — think that the U.S. should “mind its own business internationally” and leave it to other countries to fend for themselves.
It was the first time in more than 40 years of polling that the ranks of Americans with isolationist sentiment outnumbered those with a more international outlook, Pew said. [...]
The shift in sentiment comes after more than eight years of war in Afghanistan and almost seven in Iraq, as well as the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Just 32 percent of the public favors increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and only 46 percent say it’s likely that Afghanistan will be able to withstand the threat posed by the Taliban.
The Hill reports that a significant majority of Americans now view overseas war expenditures as a direct threat to fixing a collapsing economic system here at home:
Seventy-three percent told Gallup in its latest measure, released Friday, that they were “very” or “somewhat” fearful the White House’s newly announced troop surge would make it difficult for Congress and the president to tackle such issues as healthcare and the economy in the coming months.
By contrast, only 26 percent signaled they were not concerned the new strategy’s cost — estimated to be about $30 billion — would in any way complicate domestic policymaking.
It would be wise to remember the former U.S.S.R.’s experience in trying to militarily tame Afghanistan:
It was Moscow’s Vietnam, we have come to accept. A bloody quagmire with disastrous consequences that left a million Afghans dead and a generation of Soviet men pulverised by trauma, as had happened to their American counterparts in southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s. The conflict lasted 10 years and the Soviet army retreated only to see its very existence crumble a few years later with the collapse of Communism.
Mr. President, it’s time to bring our troops home, rebuild our economy and our health care system, and get our financial house in order. I’ve never felt so insecure as an American in my life, and it has absolutely nothing to do with those 100 Al Qaeda cave-dwellers in Afghanistan. Claim victory, and withdraw already.
UPDATE (Dec. 6, 2009):
Here’s a good read by Sam Stein / Huffington Post on Senator Russ Feingold’s appearance on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos this morning. Feingold makes a similar point:
Pakistan, in the border region near Afghanistan, is perhaps the epicenter [of global terrorism], although al Qaida is operating all over the world, in Yemen, in Somalia, in northern Africa, affiliates in Southeast Asia. Why would we build up 100,000 or more troops in parts of Afghanistan included that are not even near the border? You know, this buildup is in Helmand Province. That’s not next door to Waziristan. So I’m wondering, what exactly is this strategy, given the fact that we have seen that there is a minimal presence of Al Qaida in Afghanistan, but a significant presence in Pakistan? It just defies common sense that a huge boots on the ground presence in a place where these people are not is the right strategy. It doesn’t make any sense to me.
Follow AlterPolitics on Twitter
Most Recently Commented Posts