“Truther”

27Sep07

I consider myself, a reasonable person.  Just as any other human, I have at times a preexisting bias about particular subjects.  I temper this, human characteristic, with a curiosity of different perspectives.  It is a virtue to approach everything in life with the intent of learning something new.  Indeed, if exposure to a new phenomena does not create a question within your mind, then you are confined to the borders of your own skull, running circles in a self imposed Dark Age.

Over the last two months, I’ve undergone a process of exposure to something new, questioning that idea, seeking more information, and revising my original public opinion.  It started with a bumper sticker, and took very clear progressive steps, each one being critically questioned and leading, through justified reasoning, to another step.  I now find myself so far from where I started, that I chastise myself for not being more open minded before.  I seek to make up for this by encouraging others to ask questions and providing answers when I feel I can do so.

I am now what any given media outlet would call a conspiracy nut, theorist, traitor, or “truther”.  The last term I find kind of flattering given the etymology.  Like calling someone “The Pope” as an insult.  “Why thank you large unnamed media conglomerate.  I like to feel that I propagate truth, though I would never be so self centered as to presume that I always know the truth.  I’ll leave that for you.”  Something tells me the creator of this phrase is unfamiliar with Bolshevik history.

What I’ve read, and what I believe are two different things.  I find myself unwilling to support some of the wildest conclusions out there – Directed Energy Weapons, Nuclear Weapons, Jewish Sympathy Plot – but exposing myself to so much, has left a few reasonable questions that I believe should be addressed.  I think it not only obligatory of our government to exhaust all leads with investigation, but also appropriate for the people that lost, and that will lose their lives because of 11 September 2001.

It did start, or in hindsight, was catalyzed by a bumper sticker.  It was for a website, LooseChange911.com, which I wrote down among a few other things I wanted to remember.  It must have been a few days later that I found my note, as I had also forgotten other said items, a few of which I no longer needed.  So I traversed the internet, passed the news, forums, blogs, porn, and junkmail, and found a video.  This is the same video I linked in a previous entry.  I sat for 90 minutes, and took in a well developed idea, moderately well supported for the medium, and came out amazed at how much I had never seen, or didn’t recall.  On that day, after the towers fell, the television was shut off for a few weeks.  The only thing I saw was the end of Seattle’s 116 win season, and people singing between innings at Yankee Stadium.  This 90 minutes, left my mouth dry, and my head running a four-minute mile.  So much was new.

I turned to the web, searching for information on a few key items – thermite, PNAC, FDNY Oral Histories – most of which led me to a few mainstream underground (dig the oxymoron) websites.  I managed to find a few sites that operated under the rules of academic peer-review.  I wanted more than just webheads yelling at each other, quoting media sources without citation.  Steven Jones, Frank Legge, David Gordon, Jerry Lobdill, and Laurie Manwell; all established academics in their fields speaking out, with reason, against the version of events propagated by NIST, FEMA, and the 9/11 Commission.

Apparently, there are a lot of events that I forgot, or that didn’t receive coverage on that day or during the weeks following.  Today, the events only get covered as part of an anti propagation motive – they are associated with a conglomerated idea of “conspiracy theories” that have varied levels of probability.  The result is the inclusion of legitimate scientific questions and research into true crack-pot and nutcase theories.  The distinctive marker, that gets ignored, is the stated purpose of presenting these theories.  If a theory ends with a call for impeachment, then it likely overestimates it value.  The reasonable theories simply point out discrepancies and call for further investigation, something that a fully candid government should, ideally, have no fear of.

I’ll give a short description of the troubling theories, and save in depth analysis for later entries.

Controlled Demolition of WTC1, 2, and 7:
The best supported argument involves the use of thermite, a chemical substance that, once catalyzed, will burn hot enough to melt steel without an outside source of oxygen.  Pieces of steel found in the wreckage show, after preliminary examination, cause to suspect the use of thermite.  The key here is to realize that the fires caused by the planes hitting WTC 1 and 2 could not have burned hot enough to melt steel, but molten steel was found within the building rubble.  Secondly, WTC 7, which I see as the smoking gun, was never hit by a plane, but collapsed later in the evening.  FEMA released a diagram of the damage, which was confined to one side of the building.  Why then did the entire building come down at the same time?  The Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma occurred on one side, and only half the building collapsed.  The other half, stood until it was demolished.  It seems hard to believe that random damage from falling debris would have produced more of an immediate effect than an intentional bombing.  In short, there are unanswered legitimate questions that have yet to be addressed by any official government investigation and a FEMA report on WTC 7 even calls for further investigation.

FDNY Oral Histories:
From 1 October 2001, until 1 February 2002, statements from emergency service workers present or involved were taken and transcribed.  503 histories were collected, about 12,000 pages according to the New York Times.  But these statements were classified until 2005.  The immediate question is what would necessitate the classification of these statements, that were only released after legal action by the New York Times?  Within these statements, about 23% of them, are references that could be enough to warrant the consideration of secondary explosives.  There are vivid descriptions of blasts occurring on the lower floors, from within the building and outside, that are not attributed to an aircraft impact or a building collapse.  But no official report considered the statements in an effort to explain them.  It is difficult to determine the source of the explosive-like sounds, only further investigation yield the truth.  Initial examination of the statements also reveals something else troubling.  The witnesses, within their statements, first describe what they heard, and then revise their interpretations of events while making reference to an outside source of information, suggesting a massive re-education of public interpretation strong enough to alter even the perceptions of people that saw the events with their own eyes.

Project for a New American Century (PNAC):
As a historian, I find arguments with value consider evidence within a wider context.  PNAC is an organization that, prior to the events of 11 September, stated a need for increased military spending and capabilities but conceded that this would not be likely without a massive catalyzing event, such as Pearl Harbor.  This connects to our modern government through social networks within the defense industry and politicians, most notable Vice President Dick Cheney, whom was the CEO of Halliburton and Secretary of Defense before he was Vice President.  This stated need for a massive event, and then the occurrence of such an event, should cause suspicion to a reasonable person.  Much like the statements of al Queda, followed up with attacks.  But PNAC was never investigated by an official commission, and they remain outside the sphere of suspicion in public media discourse.  Certainly a historian fifty years from now that studies this context will see some conflict of evidence and the official version of events and find sufficient reason to investigate further.

Beyond these reasons to be critical, there is something of an established history of the US Government intentionally deceiving Americans for the purposes of conflict: USS Maine bombing precipitated Spanish American War in which the US expanded further westward; Pearl Harbor which was used as a patriotic motivator, as well as the flag on Mt Suribachi, to influence public opinions in favor of the war; the Gulf of Tonkin incident orchestrated by the CIA and DOD to provoke Congress into allowing the Executive to wage war without declaration (Blank Check); clear signs of the Japanese Emperor willing to surrender in the summer of 1945 were either ignored or not investigated to allow the use of an atomic bomb to intimidate Stalin on the precepts of saving American lives by avoiding an invasion.

Within a context, the participation of the US government in yet another False Flag event isn’t beyond the realm of reasonable possibility.

So I am skeptical, reasonable, and candid.  There are theories that are beyond reason, but truth is larger than any one piece.  Reality is a puzzle, and every perspective is a piece of a larger picture.  The mainstream response to Truthers, is to isolate a piece of the puzzle that seems immediately outlandish that all other associated pieces are dismissed. And the discussion moves on.

I am a patriot. The US can be the height of civilization, a leader in human rights, equality, charity, and morality.  I want so much for this to be so, but I am at times ashamed of things done in the name of idyllic agendas.  The American Hegemony does not need to be a bad thing.  To prevent the evils of Imperialism, all we need to do is hold our government accountable, as the Founding Fathers intended us to.  In the mean time, I will allow all questions to enter my mind in a public attempt to find a truth, be it the current story, or one revised through reason.

Filed under: General   |  Leave a Comment