Freedom of thought has no meaning for those who prefer the prison of their own prejudices

Canadian Arab News
September 7, 2006

Well, it’s that time of year again—academics, experts, witnesses and other respectable “credentialized” people are being paraded before us on radio, TV and in the press to commemorate the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

The term “commemorate” is important because the collapse of the Twin Towers and the attendant loss of life have been elevated to the realm of myth. It’s a discrete event that has been processed, packaged, propagandized and served up ready for consumption by people keen to exploit it for their own purposes. For the public, no thinking is required—just belief, commiseration and participation in an act of collective myth-building.

There are, of course, synaptically alert people like Barrie Zwicker who have steadfastly refused to swallow the conspiratorial nonsense about two aircraft being able to bring down steel framed buildings, or a passenger aircraft with a 125-ft. wingspan making a 16-ft. hole in the Pentagon.

But these people are still the exception rather than the rule. Most of us—those of us who aren’t sick to death of it—will willingly embrace the official narrative put forth by the official priesthood. We will put our critical faculties on hold as we sincerely and compassionately listen to the earnest testimonials and reflections of people who helped with the rescue, or just happened to be in New York that day.

In as much as collective grieving and commemoration are important to societal and cultural cohesion, those who accept the narrative as written will reinforce the cardinal dogma that the U.S. was a victim of a terrorist attack, not the perpetrator.

I can almost hear the guffaws of disbelief as some of you reading this column are doubtlessly preparing to shriek “conspiracy theory!” but is denying the official narrative really so outrageous? Apparently, it is.

A good friend of mine, who is otherwise intelligent and thoughtful, lives in a comfortable pseudo-reality in which the world of appearance is real. He tells me that no conspiracy—there’s that word again—involving thousands of people could be kept a secret this long, and if it were somehow true, a “respectable” journalist like Seymour Hersh would have written a book on it.

Here we see credentials elevated above evidence as the standard of accuracy, and truth stripped of all independent meaning. Let’s say I’m right, and my friend stews in impotent rage for five years, after which time Hersh comes out with a book like We Did it to Ourselves that supports my thesis entirely.

By my friend’s logic, my debunking of the official narrative will have been vindicated, even though my arguments would not have changed. Therefore, his initial hostility is irrational. Of course, this argument could be avoided if he addressed my evidence instead of ignoring it. For example:

• How could kerosene-based commercial jet fuel, which burns around 345° C in open air, melt steel, which has a melting point of approximately 1,370°C?
• Why did the exterior walls offer no resistance whatsoever to the collapsing floors?
• How could Muslims have been responsible for the collapse of WTC7 when New York firemen admitted they brought it down?
• How could WTC7 have been rigged for demolition in a mere 90 minutes after building owner Larry Silverstein gave the order?

These and other questions do not compute for him because his reality cannot cope with the answers.

Despite our great scientific achievements, we are not as far removed from the Middle Ages as we might think. It is often easier to believe a facile lie than a disquieting truth if the truth threatens to upset one’s world view. Problem is, facts do not go away because we choose not to believe them. Eventually, reality must adapt.

In the official narrative of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Subsequent forensic evidence has debunked this theory, though we still do not know the names of everyone involved. Yet in the beginning, our experts and trusted public figures sold us a fabrication.

The report of the 9/11 Commission did little more than confirm the official White House narrative and justify the “war on terrorism.” This result is not surprising because that’s what it was expected to do. Just as the Warren Commission did not call key witnesses that could have challenged the lone-gunman theory, the 9/11 commission made no attempt to challenge the preconceptions of the White House.

The Greatest Lies Ever Sold
In each case, what the world saw—or thought it saw—more or less corresponded to the findings in the respective reports. For many people this is comforting because it seems to reinforce the essential rationality of the world of appearance. Only, it isn’t rational. It’s rational because that’s what the authorities and your senses tell you.

Put yourself in the place of a peasant in 12th-century France. The church—the “mainstream media” of the time—said the Sun revolved around the Earth; the Earth was flat; and Adam and Eve produced mankind. These “facts” accorded perfectly with a person’s common-sense view of the world. The sun moved across the sky from sunrise to sunset; a person walked in a straight line; and since children came from parents, it stood to reason that there had to be an original man and woman.

Even though none of these three points is taken seriously today, at the time one dared not criticize them for fear of ridicule, torture, death or excommunication.

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) never articulated the heliocentric theory of the solar system during his lifetime because he was so afraid of ridicule. Only on his deathbed did he give permission to have his great work De Revolutionibus printed posthumously.

In 1915, the German meteorologist Alfred Lothar Wegener (1880–1930) published The Origin of Continents and Oceans, in which he argued that all continents at one time belonged to one large landmass he called “Pangaea,” and then drifted apart. For his efforts he was mercilessly ridiculed. Leading geologists refused to take him seriously, dismissing him as a meteorologist who was meddling in their field.

Yet Wegener’s science was impeccable. He had long been intrigued by the curious “fit” of the coastlines of South America and Africa and proceded to gather geological and paleontological evidence to support his hypothesis of a primordial continent. Wegener persisted despite the derision, and today his theory of continental drift is an established fact. It is a fact, not because Wegener said so, but because the evidence says so.

The injustice that happened to Wegener is happening to critics of the official narrative of Sept. 11. They are being condemned not for what they say but for who they are.

The Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission were all made up of respectable people who were dead wrong. Anyone who challenges official fictions deserves respect. Thanks will come later.

For a definitive refutation of the so-called lefitist defenders of the official narrative, see David Ray Griffin’s Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?

For a refutation of the "couldn’t keep a secret" lie, see Susan Lindaur CIA Told New York Times About 9/11 Warnings