This was posted
on August 30 on one of my GaryNorth.com site's forums regarding
the pancake-like collapse of all three World Trade Center buildings
three are clearly controlled demos. Everyone that views it knows
I cannot imagine
a more inaccurate statement. Hardly anyone who views them knows
"it." Almost every adult American has seen the videos
of the collapse of the North & South towers. On September 11,
2001, the videos were shown over and over on the networks, all day
Only a handful
of experts have ever publicly argued that the cause of the bildings'
collapse was a system of controlled demolition. Anyone who dares
to mention the pancake collapse of the third tower is rejected derisively
as a conspiracy theorist.
believers in the government's "Let's roll" version of
the crash look at the small empty hole and do not see what is missing:
debris. They see an empty hole and conclude that a plane crashed
there. In their case, not seeing is believing.
me to a conclusion: Seeing is not always believing. Not seeing
is very often believing.
This is why
conspiracies have gotten away with a great deal in history.
I have faced
this all of my adult life. I started out in 1958 with a high school
term paper on whether Roosevelt knew an attack on Pearl Harbor was
coming. I concluded that he knew an attack somewhere in the Pacific
was coming. I have not changed my mind. In 1972, when I was awarded
my Ph.D. in American history, as far as I knew, I was the only historian
age 30 or younger with a Ph.D. in history who believed this. Even
today, I am one of maybe a dozen men with a Ph.D in American history
who believe this and say so in public. I am guessing about the number.
The ones I can name fewer than half a dozen are so
old as to be retirement age. No one without tenure would dare to
teach Pearl Harbor revisionism as factually accurate in a college
classroom. He would not have his contract renewed. The account has
never gotten into a textbook. Yet as early as 1947, George Morgenstern's
Harbor: The Story of the Secret War, revealed a great deal
of the truth. It was published by an obscure right-wing publishing
house, Devin-Adair. He wrote it first as a series of articles in
1946 because he was employed by the Chicago Tribune, owned
by Col. McCormick, who hated Roosevelt. The book is still unknown.
The most widely
known books on Pearl Harbor that forcefully argue the case for FDR's
prior knowledge of the attack are John Toland's Infamy,
which is 25 years old, and Robert Stinnett's Day
of Deceit, which is over a decade old. Neither of the authors
was a Ph.D.-holding scholar.
"conspiracy theorist," is literally a career-killer in
that a hard-nosed analysis is put forth of who our rulers are,
of how their political and economic interests interlock, it is
invariably denounced by Establishment liberals and conservatives
(and even by many libertarians) as a "conspiracy theory of
history," "paranoid," "economic determinist,"
and even "Marxist." These smear labels are applied across
the board, even though such realistic analyses can be, and have
been, made from any and all parts of the economic spectrum, from
the John Birch Society to the Communist Party. The most common
label is "conspiracy theorist," almost always leveled
as a hostile epithet rather than adopted by the "conspiracy
It is no
wonder that usually these realistic analyses are spelled out by
various "extremists" who are outside the Establishment
consensus. For it is vital to the continued rule of the State
apparatus that it have legitimacy and even sanctity in the eyes
of the public, and it is vital to that sanctity that our politicians
and bureaucrats be deemed to be disembodied spirits solely devoted
to the "public good." Once let the cat out of the bag
that these spirits are all too often grounded in the solid earth
of advancing a set of economic interests through use of the State,
and the basic mystique of government begins to collapse.
In a recent
interview on the offbeat RT channel, a reporter questions the theories
of a man who thinks the #1 of motive for NATO's toppling of Qadaffi
was Qadaffi's policy of not borrowing from Western banks or the
IMF. She pressures him: "Are you a conspiracy theorist?"
He denies it, calling himself a "deep geopolitics" thinker.
Nice try; no cigar. He is a conspiracy theorist.
was one of the first to broadcast videos with comments on the collapsing
Building 7. He is openly a conspiracy theorist. The fact that he
promoted the event as a conspiracy pretty well dooms others who
also promote the official account's implausibility. This is why
the producer of the forthcoming DVD on the controlled implosions
hastened to assure viewers that he is not interested in conspiracy
Yet he is inescapably
a conspiracy theorist. When your video presents experts who argue
that the buildings were blown up from inside by means of explosives
planted weeks or months before, rather than caused by fires started
by the planes, your explanation inherently must rely on the existence
of a conspiracy and a subsequent government cover-up. The elephant
in his living room is his denial of offering a conspiracy theory.
SPIN, AND COVER-UPS
My point is
simple: every Establishment rules in terms of lies, spin, and cover-ups.
Most of the citizenry is vaguely aware of the lies and the spin
on this or that minor matter, but voters side with the regime on
the big lies. To do otherwise is to call into question their own
wisdom. It is to admit that you were successfully taken in on some
major matter you and millions of others. This undermines
the religion of democracy. It means that republican patriotism is
based on widespread gullibility. "Fool me once, shame on the
government. Fool me 20 times, shame on me." So, once the masses
have adopted the Official Party Line, to abandon it means abandoning
your old self and your old world of political legitimacy. It means
that you are now on your own an outlaw, a pariah.
from Communism who went into print about their defections all described
this gut-wrenching, soul-searching loss of faith in Stalin's Party
Line. The most famous account was (and remains) Whittaker Chambers'
(1952). Different events triggered these defections: the Nazi-Soviet
pact of 1939, Khrushchev's 1956 "secret" speech on Stalin,
or the Soviet Union's invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.