Commentary: Following the terrorist murder of a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. this week by a white supremacist, anti-Semite and 9/11 "Truther" I was curious to hear how the most prominent of the 9/11 "Truthers," Alex Jones, would try to explain it away. It turns out I shouldn't have wasted my time. The explanation he gave to Coast-to-Coast AM host George Noory was absolutely predictable, defiant of reason and exasperating, in complete harmony with both Jones past pronouncements and the 9/11 "Truth" movement since its inception.
According to Jones, there has never been a violent incident attributable to a 9/11 "Truther". Instead he offered his completely unsubstantiated theory that incidents of violence involving 9/11 "Truthers" would be manufactured. That is, of course, the one way the wackiest conspiracy theorist can always get out of any situation, simply manufacture a larger conspiracy. Disagree with the "Truthers"? Well then, according to Jones and his ilk, you must be a government agent, a Zionist or brainwashed.
Of course, Jones himself was involved in an incident, which he and his posse initiated that could easily have resulted in violence in Denver at the Democratic Convention, when he "confronted" Fox New's Michelle Malkin at the attempted levitation of the Denver Mint organized by ReCreate '68. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/991808/alex_jones_dnc_confrontation_with_michelle.html?cat=9
Assuming it has not been removed or tampered with video of the event is contained in a YouTube link at the end of the article.
That event was big for a couple of days in the news cycle, and to the unbiased observer should prove at least a couple of things. The first is the behavior of Jones and his posse (all of the YouTube footage of the incident that I could find was taken by Jones disciples), was boorish at best, definitely bullying of a diminutive Asian woman reporter and therefore an attempt to impose his opinions through verbal abuse and perhaps more. Whether or not it was Jones or just someone in the crowd that started the chant of "Kill Michelle Malkin," is not entirely clear from the video.
By the way one of the more annoying things about the 9/11 "truther" movement is how they hijacked the language and through the Goebbel's technique of constant repetition got to have themselves referred to as "truthers," when there is absolutely no truth whatsoever to their assertions. From here on out I will refer to them by a phrase which is a good deal more accurate and, unlike the term which they prefer, not an attempt to prejudge the veracity of their claims. I will refer to them, as I have before, as adherents to the 9/11 Grand Conspiracy theory.
That is, of course, because quite obviously 9/11 was a conspiracy. The only question outstanding is the identity of the conspirators.
According to any real evidence, including, videos where Al Qaeda spokesmen take quite clear credit for 9/11, even becoming testy to the point of accusing anyone who refuses to give them credit of being "Iranian" agents, the answer is quite clear. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/728809/what_should_be_the_last_word_on_the.html?cat=9That is, of course, the 19 hijackers and the others in Al Qaeda or allied organizations, including possibly, members of the Pakistani intelligence services, some rich adherents to radical Islam and others, some of whom are guests of the government at Guantanamo and others who are presumably residing in whatever degree of comfort in the tribal areas of Pakistan, or perhaps somewhere we haven't even thought to look.
To be fair there was a brief period when the Al Qaeda leadership did, in fact, deny responsibility for 9/11, prior to deciding that there was no point in denying their masterpiece. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/50427/911_conspiracy_theorists_echo_early.html?cat=16
I have since theorized that that position was based on Al Qaeda strategic thinking that was unsure of what the American response to 9/11 might be and hoping to thereby weaken that response. After the response was clear there was, at that point, no more use denying what was their most spectacular accomplishment.
Of course, the 9/11 Grand Conspiracist answer to videos where Al Qaeda takes credit for 9/11 is to claim that there is a bigger conspiracy at work, that the videos are made with actors made up to look like bin Laden or Al Zawahri. Of course, that would seem, to me at least, to raise the question of, if Al Qaeda is being falsely accused of orchestrating 9/11, why they are not all over the net protesting their innocence. It was a question I asked Jones when we "met" in Denver to which he had no answer and may have been at least part of the reason he decided to take his posse and run off.
One of the worst things about the 9/11 Grand Conspiracy theory is that it attacks that great sense of national solidarity so many of us felt the day after 9/11 and poisons the American psyche. Almost as bad is the fact that it has provided cover for a rogue's gallery of anti-Americans, anti-Semites, other sociopaths, the forever paranoid and the mentally-ill who insist on foisting their skewed outlook on the rest of us.
I first came into contact with the 9/11 Grand Conspirator's while doing a screenplay I had written entitled Remember Flight 93: A True Story of American Courage, which was based on a reconstruction of events aboard United Flight 93 (the hijacked plane that did not reach its target) on 9/11. While doing the research for the screenplay I interviewed a relative of one of the Flight 93 heroes, who had, tragically, in my opinion, been won over by Grand Conspiracists. In addition, to having me read the inane New Pearl Harbor, she now viewed the wonderful reception that the Flight 93 families had been given at the White House and Congress, not as a wonderful honor for the families but instead a contemptible act of duplicity.
For a conspiracy to be minimally credible it needs to offer a plausible, if not compelling motive, and a convincing method by which it would have been pulled off. The 9/11 Grand Conspiracy offers neither. The alleged motives offered by Grand Conspirators seem dubious at best. There is the argument that 9/11 was pulled off in order to subvert the Constitution and silence all dissent in the nation. Yet somehow Jones and his cohorts are allowed to continue their diatribes.
Then there is the theory that 9/11 would lead to the construction of an oil pipeline across Afghanistan. But the economics don't quite add up. In order to clear the way for a pipeline that would result in $100 billion gain at best, would an attack on the economy be orchestrated that ended up costing at least a trillion dollars, crippled air transportation for years to come and thus demand for airline fuel and so on?
Finally, there is the idea that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the American Military-Industrial complex needed a new enemy and decided that that enemy ought to be the Islamic world. Yet nothing could have been further from the agenda of "Bandar Bush," so named because of his family's close ties with the Saudi Arabian royal family. It also would fly in the face of years of pro-Islamic foreign policy including interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, an attempt to stop starvation in Somalia and, of course, the arming of the Islamic rebels of Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. Of course, the case can be made that 9/11 was, in fact, unintended blowback from that operation, the premise of an Annette Bening movie which now seems almost prophetic entitled The Siege.
As far as the means that the Grand Conspiracy could have been pulled off, the mind ought to be boggled at the notion that the Twin Towers could possibly have been wired for controlled demolition without anyone, not one tenant, not one security guard, not one police officer, no one, no one at all noticing. As far as addressing every contention of the Grand Conspiracists, that exercise would seriously tax the patience of my readers and exhaust me, especially when others have already done the job better. http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
ad nauseum.
Finally, if ever given the chance I would need to ask the Grand Conspiracists if they attribute all of the terrorist attacks attributed to Islamic terrorists to the US Government. If so that list would have to include the London Subway bombing, the Madrid train bombing, the Bali nightclub bombing, the horrific attack on the Russian schoolhouse, all of the suicide bombings that have occurred in Israel, Iraq, Pakistan and so on, the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, the first World Trade Center attacks, the murder of Theo Van Gough in the Netherlands, the Achille Lauro, etc., etc., etc. If that is the case why hasn't a single individual ever had an attack of conscience and come forward? But of course if you were to attribute all of the attacks of Islamic terrorists to the United States government that argument would break up on the slopes of the Hindu Kush mountains.
The term Hindu Kush means Hindu death or Hindu slaughter and was created to memorialize or celebrate, depending on your point of view, the massacre of approximately 80 million Hindus, Buddhists and others by the Islamic armies that conquered Pakistan and Afghanistan for the crescent. Unfortunately for the Grand Conspiracists, that massacre occurred almost a thousand years prior to the existence of the US government.
No comments:
Post a Comment