by Home home
86
A Dangerous Ideology
[50]:http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_24_Specia
l_Issue_December_2012/24.pdf
[51]:https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-school-of-the-
americas-is-still-exporting-death-squads/204655/
[52]:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/apr/18/u
k.northernireland1
[53]:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/sep/10/u
k.northernireland1
[54]:http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/12/content
s
[55]:https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-
amnesty-launches-appeal-calling-judges-boycott-sham-
inquiries
[56]:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/17/isr
aelandthepalestinians
[57]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_pro
gram)#Programs_sharing_the_name_PRISM
[58]:https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-
cables-secret-world-communications-nsa
[59]:https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/salman-abedi-
manchester-attack-reported-family-imam-friends-did-
nothing-a7757726.html
Recommended Reading:
Sophie's World – By Jostein Gaarder
American Conspiracy Theories - by Joseph Uscinski &
Joseph Parent
Why People Believe Weird Things – by Michael Shermer
The Open Society and Its Enemies – by Karl Popper
Crossfire – by Jim Marrs
87
A Dangerous Ideology
Part 2:
Twin Pillars of Deceit
88
A Dangerous Ideology
Chapter 5
9/11 – Disrespect or True Respect?
In the preface I warned those who take offence easily
not to continue. Seeing as you have read this far, I assume
you are not one of them. That's good, because many people
are offended by even suggesting what we are about to
discuss in some depth.
At the time of writing we appear to be perilously close to a
global conflict. Most Western governments are blaming
Russia, and, to a lesser extent, China and Iran for the
world's ills. Russian plots are constantly reported by the
mainstream media. There seems to be no aspect of our
existence the Russians aren't intent upon corrupting.
From our elections to the use of social media, we are being
encouraged to accept, without much evidence it has to be
said, that Russia are obsessively meddling, hell bent upon
destroying our 'way of life.'
As are the Islamist extremists apparently, though they
favour a more direct and bloodier approach. While the
89
A Dangerous Ideology
Islamists in Syria appear to have largely been defeated, the
Islamist threat continues unabated. The 'war on terror'
shows no sign of ending. Our leaders and the mainstream
media persistently warn of further attacks. Perhaps with
good reason.
Those who insist this is all part of a managed agenda,
suggest we can collectively come to understand how the
mechanism of deception works by looking at the continuing
use of 'false flag' terrorism.
They say the evidence offered by the state to support the
official accounts of the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks is woefully
inadequate. It raises far more issues than it resolves. Some
relatively brief, independent research will enable anyone to
start asking pertinent questions.
In light of the long, proven history of government use of false
flag attacks to control public opinion, unless the state can
account for the huge number of anomalies, or at least
provide some credible evidence to back up their bizarre
stories, why should any of us think 9/11 and 7/7 were not
false flags?
9/11 and 7/7 appear to be the key components of a
constructed falsehood. They were seminal events along the
path to an international conflict with an array of amorphous
groups. As soon as you defeat one, another springs up
somewhere else. This is a war that can never be won. Even
the name itself, the 'war on terror,' suggests a battle against
an idea, a thought construct. Something intangible and
eluding.
Just as 9/11 started the gravy train so 7/7 perpetuated and
expanded the scope for further spending. The huge benefit of
an ideological enemy, whose shock troops fight an
international guerrilla war, is that they can strike anywhere,
at any time. Whenever the tax payers become squeamish
about underfunding health care in favour of defence
spending, an attack can soon remind them of the importance
of 'staying safe.'
Now, with alleged Russian and Chinese hacking providing
opportunities for increased spending in cyber security, the
90
A Dangerous Ideology
opportunities for greater investment in our defence, based
upon invisible, elusive threats, is practically limitless.
This, say the conspiracy theorists, was always the plan. It
ensures never ending profits for the military industrial and
intelligence complex. The multinational corporations keep
making the weapons and rolling out staggeringly expensive
cyber security 'solutions,' governments keep buying them,
the debt continues to rise and the banks profit from all of it.
However if enough of us can remove one of truth's protective
layers, overcome our cognitive dissonance and apply critical
thinking to the official narratives of 9/11 and 7/7, the
process of deception will become clear. Once the trick is
exposed, the lies won't work and perhaps we can all look
forward to a brighter future.
Most people readily scoff at this notion. For the vast majority
there is no doubt about either event. We all saw what
happened. The subsequent investigations and examinations
of evidence have been extensive. The public debate has been
thorough and hasn't shirked from asking 'the difficult
questions.' The evidence which substantiates the
mainstream accounts of both 9/11 and 7/7 is entirely
consistent with independent acts of terrorism, perpetrated by
gangs of Islamists extremists.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that the facts don't
support them. So conspiracists either twist them or make
them up to justify their silly theories. What's worse is their
continual insistence we re-examine the horror, constantly
remindes the victims’ families of their loss. These loonies
refuse to allow the people who suffered most the closure they
need. This alone exposes the conspiracy theorists callous
egotism. They think they know something the rest of us
don't. In reality they understand nothing other than their
own illogical, unfounded mythology.
Conspiracy theorists point out that the public perception of
both 9/11 and 7/7 stems from one source. The state.
Everything people think they know has been provided to
them by governments on both sides of the Atlantic. The
narratives that emerged in the first few days, even hours
following the attacks, have n
ever altered. We think
91
A Dangerous Ideology
academia, the judiciary and the mainstream media have all
unwaveringly supported the 'official' accounts. In reality
there are plenty of academics, journalists, investigators and
even members of the judiciary, who have questioned the
state's version of events. They are all universally dismissed
as 'conspiracy theorists' and their objections rarely reported.
Perhaps all the evidence is entirely consistent with the
stories we've been given, but how many of us can truly say
we've examined it? How many of us have simply accepted
what we've been told, without ever questioning anything?
George Santayana[180] famously said "Those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Understanding our history isn't just some sterile, academic
pursuit. It informs the present and shapes the future.
Whether you dismiss so called conspiracy theories or not,
there is no doubt about the geopolitical significance of 9/11
and 7/7. They have been used to justify further conflict, like
it or not.
The conspiracy theorists ask, why not examine the evidence?
If their opinions are nonsensical drivel, what harm does
discussing them do? However, if there is any chance that we
have been deceived, we have also been compelled into
supporting war based upon a lie. If so, this wouldn't be
unusual.
Perhaps less known is Santayana's aphorism "Only the dead
have seen the end of war." While we passively accept the
reasons we are given for war, this will remain the case. It can
only be by increasing scepticism of official narratives that we
will ever improve our chances of resisting the next call for
conflict. Even if that scepticism is misplaced, what possible
reason can there be for not thoroughly examining the state's
claimed justifications, before we commit to mass slaughter?
Let's be clear about our objective. We are seeking a brief
analysis of the evidence people frequently labelled as
'conspiracy theorists' claim to supports their contention.
Namely, that the official stories of 9/11 and 7/7 cannot be
true.
We are doing this because we recognise the fundamental
92
A Dangerous Ideology
importance of evaluating this claim. If it is true then it
clearly indicates that we have some significant social and
political problems to address. Problems which will potentially
remain hidden unless we open our minds to the possibility.
But fearing the implications of asking the question is no
reason not to ask it.
Look at it this way. If you didn't know you had cancer would
you want to find out?
Whenever the subject of so called '9/11 truth' is raised the
predominant response is merely to dismiss this as
delusional. Such criticisms may well be justified, but the
only way we can assess this is by checking the evidence.
Another common, illogical response is to express offence.
Some, for example, are offended if anyone ever states the
'fact' that the official story of 9/11 is a 'conspiracy theory.'
The story of 19 hijackers plotting to kill thousands is the
definition of a conspiracy and all explanations constitute
theories, including the official one.
Many conspiracists cite 9/11 as the single incident which
prompted them to first start questioning the official
narratives of global events. Some express regret they ever did
so. Once awakened, they say, you can't go back. Nothing is
ever the same again.
Those who oppose their world view claim this demonstrates
their misplaced intellectual elitism. They assume a baseless
sense of enlightened martyrdom, seeing themselves as
Hofstadter's 'militant leaders.' They deserve the label
'conspiracy theorist' and all its negative connotations.
For our purposes the term 'conspiracy theorist' signifies
nothing other than a way of collectively referring to those
who question official narratives.
If we are to gain any measure of understanding of the
conspiracists’ evidence, we cannot allow someone else to
deny our right to examine it, simply because they have stuck
the 'conspiracy theory' label on it. It is up to us as
individuals to decide whether the evidence stacks up or not,
and we have the right to do so.
93
A Dangerous Ideology
The tendency of some, who don't accept 9/11 conspiracy
theories, to offer emotional objections is untenable. The
suggestion that those who question the official narrative of
9/11, or any other reported terrorist attack, are
disrespecting the lives lost or destroyed does not constitute
anything like a reasoned argument.
Let's say you witness a murder. You are certain the guy
wearing the red jacket stabbed the victim. Yet the guy
wearing the blue jacket gets convicted. As far as you are
concerned they've not only sent an innocent man to prison
for a crime he didn't commit, but the real murderer has got
away with it. Is it disrespectful to the memory of the victim
to challenge the court’s decision? Will staying silent show the
victim greater respect? Or is the real act of betrayal allowing
the injustice to go unchallenged?
From a moral perspective, the only thing that matters is that
you honestly believe an injustice has occurred. It makes no
difference whether you're right or wrong.
There is no doubt the 'truthers' genuinely believe 9/11 did
not happen the way the rest of us accept. They are not
showing disrespect to the victims. Indeed, from their
perspective, not saying anything demonstrates a callous
disregard for those who suffered.
The 'Jersey Girls' (Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie
Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg) were among many victims'
family members who questioned the official story. Arguably it
was the Jersey Girls who were instrumental in pushing for
the formation of the 9/11 Commission.[5] Similarly they
have been among the report's harshest critics.
No matter which account is nearer the truth, the appalling
reality is that many innocent men, women and children lost
their lives that day. The United States Centres For Disease
Control (CDC) issued the following casualty report in 2002.
[1]
As of August 16, 2002, a total of 2,726
death certificates related to the WTC attacks
had been filed. All but 13 person' died on
September 11;.....[This] data represent 97%
94
A Dangerous Ideology
of the estimated 2,819 WTC deaths; fewer
death certificates have been issued than the
estimated number of decedents because
some families have not yet requested
certificates, and investigations into several
requests are still in progress.
Other sources subsequently set this figure higher at 2997
(including the 19 named terrorists). Sadly, these people were
far from the last victims of the atrocity.
The people of New York, surviving first responders, attending
officials and many others, were also exposed to toxic debris
from the fall of the buildings. Following public outcry, in the
wake of the death of police officer James Zadroga, the 'James
Zadroga Health and Compensation Act' was passed in 2011
(reauthorised in 2015 to extend the compensation plan to
2075). The Act established a fund to pay the health care
costs for all those suffering illness as a result of their WTC
dust exposure.
In 2016 the UK broadsheet the Guardian reported that at
least an additional 1000 deaths could be directly linked to
9/11 toxic exposure.[2] In 2011 a study into the Firefighters
who were exposed, carried out by the U.S. National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health[3] found that they were
at least 19% more likely to develop related cancers than the
general population.
The problem assessing the scale of this catastrophe is that
the associated illnesses (primarily respiratory diseases and
cancers) can take many years to fully develop. Yet as early as
2016 the Victims Compensation Fund had already approved
16,942 claims.[4] The horrific reality is that the true death
toll may never be fully known, but long term estimates into
the tens of thousands are entirely feasible.
The visceral anger generated by 9/11 is understandable. It
was an outrage of staggering proportions. This was no
natural disaster, it was an act of obscene violence. This is
something that both conspiracy theorists and those who
accept the official account agree upon.
The 9/11 attacks obviously impacted on U.S. public opinion,
95
A Dangerous Ideology
strengthening calls for the military response which
immediately followed. Conspiracy theorists argue that this
was the intended purpose. Others maintain, it was simply
the sensible reaction of an administration discharging their
duty to protect its population.
Prior to 9/11 evidence shows[6] the American public felt
safer, less stressed and were less tolerant of government
surveillance and military spending. 9/11 changed this.
Interestingly, while patriotism measurably increased
following the atrocity, the public's reaction to immigration
and their perception of foreigners changed little. There was
increased antipathy towards people from the Middle East but