FlatPlanet.net

Islamic Research Foundation (IRF), in Mumbai, India, held a conference titled, “Is TERRORISM A Muslim Monopoly? By Dr. Zakir Naik.”It was covered by Islamic Indian satellite TV station “PeaceTV.” The man speaking is Dr. Naik.

YouTube: (transcript mine.)

Just a few days back, there was an article, that 75 professors of US, they say, they believe, that 9/11 was an inside job. In that article, it was mentioned, [inaudible] on 7th september, they say, 75 professors and scientists belonging to different universities from different parts of US, they believe that 9/11 was inside job. They say that there was politicians and White House who have engineered the destruction of the twin towers. And they say the main reason was so they could attack, and they could have control of the oil rich countries.
[applause].

One of the professors by the name of Steve Jones, he says, that “we do not believe that 19 hijackers and a few men in the cave in Afghanistan could have done such a professional job alone. They could not have done it. We don’t believe. And by God we’re going to come to the truth and we’re going to expose. We don’t believe in the theory of the government.”

They don’t believe the theory of the government!

And he further goes on to say, “we as being professors and scientists, we know, that the steel beam of the twin towers, they couldn’t have melted at the temp at which the jet ful was there. And there was systematic bomb explosions which caused it to come down otherwise it cannot come down. there are many tapes there are many books written against it. I happen to watch many of them, I happen to watch the video recording of this professor Steve Jones. … In the news three days later, Steve Jones, sent on paid leave. [audience laughter] Imagine. Paid leave.

There are many tapes if you happen to watch one of the tapes by the name of Loose Change 9/11. It was done by a young American of 21 years old. He makes a one hour documentary. There are many, many out there.

This 9/11 documentary, it has collected clips from the various, off CNN, off Fox Channel, all the news clipping, interviews, etc. and made a one-hour documentary. And then he says that people who saw the airplane, they say, it cannot be a passenger carrier, it looked like a military plane, it didn’t not have any windows. And when it shows the shooting - when it comes close to the tower - there another firing gun from the wing - which hits the twin tower before the plane. Then further he goes on to prove, he says, that he has statements of the management, the construction company, which are constructed the twin towers, they say it’s impossible, the twin towers are made to withstand storm, to withstand tornado. This plane cannot knock it down. And it cannot come down because because the fuel burned at 1000 degrees temperature. This for even 2000 degrees temperature for hour nothing happened to it. Then years later he changed his statement and say, oh it’s possible. Jet fuel can cause damage to the beams. The other professor [Steve Jones] didn’t withdraw his statement, so he was sacked. [audience chuckle].

Continues (9 minutes).

I do recommend you view the video because you need to see for yourself how large the audience is at this conference. I find it disturbing that the Islamic Research Foundation did nothing but reference films in stead of sharing the facts themselves. In the YouTube video called “911 The View from India”, it features a Muslim man who makes not one reference to India. Instead he speaks of claims made by “75 scientists,” particularly Steven E. Jones, and the dubious Internet blockbuster, Loose Change, first edition, referencing the the most dubious points therein (military plane which fires a missile prior to impact). All or most of the claims he recites are dead wrong. He goes on but I turned him off because he was babbling about conspiracy films and using it as proof of an inside job. If he had a case for Inside Job shouldn’t he have presented the evidence itself?

Interestingly, as the speaker describes what Loose Change is, a crane camera pans across the audience, and lifts, to reveal a large auditorium Muslim listeners. It was a visual representation of the number of Muslims being exposed to 9/11 lies. They have no reason not to trust the speaker, or the Americans who make these videos. They swallow misinformation as fast or faster than any truther.

Sounds Like Bill O’Reily has a new Talking Points Memo to write. If not, allow me to fictionalize:

“Tonights Talking Points Memo. How long is this government going to allow 9/11 nutbags to give aid and comfort to the enemy? The Islamofascists want nothing better than to destroy America and bring us to our knees, and they’ve got friends here in America, the 9/11 moonbats, who spread their Internet propaganda films. This has an affect on the morale of our troops and our people, which is a problem, but not the only one. The real concern is how this is picked up in the Muslim world. Take a look at the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) which hosted a symposium called “Is Terrorism a Muslim monopoly?” Leading to ludicrous and completely debunked claim that 9/11 was an inside job. His proof? Internet 9/11 film Loose Change, and out of work professor Steven Jones, who was abandoned by his own colleagues, now being used by moderate Muslims to wash the blood clean from Islam’s hands. But the facts are the facts and no matter what the Loose Change bozos or the Islamic moderates say, 9/11 was an attack on freedom by Islamic extremists. Case closed. But here’s the problem. If 9/11 lunatics are being heard in the moderate Muslim world then the extremists are having a field day with propaganda films like Loose Change 9/11. I know people out there will get on their blogs and e-mail me saying I’m against free speech, but what I’m talking about is aiding the enemy, and Loose Change and nuts like Steve Jones, do just that. Lets just hope it won’t take another 9/11 to prove that the Islamic threat is the real one. That’s the memo. “

Of course, I don’t agree with Bill O’Reily’s world view but the reason I wrote the fictional talking points memo was to demonstrate how easily it will be for them to tie together Islamic extremism with “9/11 truth” when moderates such as I’ve written about tonight do nothing but rehash the faulty information of a laptop film maker and his bargain basement research team.

If the IRF conference featured the probing thoughtful question that have made 9/11 truth such a relevant topic I would have no problem with Muslims speaking about 9/11 truth. What concerns me, deeply so, is the readiness of this speaker to share his findings without doing any research of his own. It seems he swallowed the premise of the film, digested all of its bad information, and went on to share bad information with his religious brethren, with little regard as to the validity of the claims. The mere fact that an American was saying something against America made it credible, and the fact that Muslims want to be vindicated from 9/11 means they are willing to accept any information, true or not, if it will give them that peace of mind. They went home after that conference thinking they learned something. Their opinions were validated but the facts were wrong, and that presents a huge problem. The inside job premise itself might still be correct but the evidence given to get to that conclusion was entirely faulty, so how can that premise be accepted? It seems that the “9/11 truth” religion is growing but the truth itself is ever elusive.

Help control the human population. Have your Spouse Spayed or Neutered. This woman believes that she aborted her pregnancy for the good of environment!

UK Daily Mail:

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible “mistake” of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - “relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35. (emphasis mine)

“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

Continues

That she is not having children for “the environment” implies that if it wasn’t an issue then she would have no problem with bearing her unborn child. Taking her argument at face value one could assume that she wanted her baby but she just couldn’t bear it - for the sake of our planet.

Thanks Toni. If only her lack of reproduction meant her stupidity would die with her. But it won’t because she’s simply responding to a common idea: we’re dooming ourselves.

My feeling is that Toni simply doesn’t want children (as is her choice and I have no problem the decision itself). Perhaps she doesn’t want children truly because of the environment, or maybe she needed a way to justify to her parents why she has decided to abort the pregnancy - a reason that didn’t include all the expectations and pain of childbearing. For her to think that somehow she is doing the planet a favour is shifting the attention away from her guilt of the abortion. Just an excuse to make her seem altruistic while she is anything but. Plain fact is that she didn’t wanna be a momma. She actually reveals her own selfish motivations later in the article…

“I’ve never doubted that I made the right decision. Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children.

“We love walking and hiking, and we often go away for weekends.

“Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we’ve just come back from South Africa.

“We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.

So there it is. They love life without the responsibility of a little rascal. Many couples have made the same decision to not have children for lifestyle reasons, but they simply say they don’t want children. Toni saying she is saving the environment by not having kids is like people who say they turning off the lights when they leave the room to saves the environment, when the real reason they turn off the lights is simply to save on the electricity bill.

The reason she has given is rubbish and pure fantasy. Her “sacrifice” has little practical benefit or consequence for the planet.

Although I do give the babies=pollution premise some credence. Certainly human kind is causing a stress on the environment, and I don’t dispute the environmental issues. Reproduction of our species does result in of more use of land, fuels, trees, and more creation of pollution and greenhouse gases. And in her words, “adds to the problem of over-population.”

If she was taught her baby would ruin the world, then so too can we be taught that there needs to be global reformation or there will be global death. Not only is our own species’ future at stake but so too is all life on Earth. If the Earth’s biosphere is in jeopardy and our rootin’ tootin’ pollutin’ will actually result in the death of our planet, and everything on it, what is the only moral thing to do?

If she indeed aborted her child and was sterilized for the environment then what we are seeing in Toni is a volunteer who has sacrificed her genetic contribution at the altar of sustainability, and has been fooled into sterilizing herself. This story could be an footnote the nexus of environmentalism and population reduction. Is this what happens when you accept the premise that humans are bringing about planet-wide destruction? That the only way to solve the problem is to remove humans from the equasion? That is stark.

If science feels it can prove that humans are the plague of Earth, and if they feel they can prove that we are bringing certain death to ourselves and everything else, then the only moral thing to do is quickly and mercifully reduce our entire population. If we are killing our planet, to the point where there will be no life on Earth, then is it not paramount and moral to dispose of the unwashed masses? Are you willing to accept that human kind needs to die to save the planet?

This is the final solution when you believe humans will inevitably cause environmental catastrophe. This concept described by Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola in a metaphor in which limited seating on a life boat would cause drastic but necessary action.

“Those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot.” while “those who love and respect life will take the ship’s ax and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat,” Linkola said.

That’s hardcore.

Are we truly clamoring for a seat on a sinking boat? I’m not willing to accept that. I don’t believe the doom sayers. I smell what could be an agenda. After all, in the overfilled boat who weilds the ax?

The environment is being trashed and we need to fix the way our lifestyles impact the environment, but for us to think that the world would be better off if there were simply fewer of us doesn’t address the solutions we have available. There are methods of efficient, clean uses of resources and technology.

We can not continue to blame individuals for consumerism. It is the structure of society on a whole, a consumerist society, and we are their byproducts. We have learned to hate our society, and ourselves for even existing, while those who have put us in this position are let off the hook.

There is a billboard that has Canadian ecologist David Suzuki. He is holding a new energy efficient lightbulb with the phrase, “You have the power.” To do what?

Do you have the power to turn off the factories and shut down the systems of poison? Can you reverse affects of millions of cars? Can you stop China or India from developing? Do you have the power to replace factories with cleaner ones? Do you have the power to convince everyone to abandon plastic waste?

Our authorities are the ones who are fostering these problems, waiting for our reactions, and providing us with their solutions. If you buy the premise that, if left unchecked, the human species is inevitably going to kill Earth, do you realize that is enough justification for mass genocide to become a viable option once all other attempts have failed?

In November 1991, Jacques-Yves Cousteau in an interview with UNESCO Courier.

Interviewer: “Some snakes, mosquitoes, and other animal species pose threats or dangers for humankind. Can they be eliminated like viruses that cause certain diseases?”

Cousteau: “Getting rid of viruses is an admirable idea, but it raises enormous problems. In the first 1,400 years of the Christian era, population numbers were virtually stationary. Through epidemics, nature compensated for excess births by excess deaths. I talked about this problem with the director of the Egyptian Academy of Sciences. He told me that scientists were appalled to think that by the year 2080 the population of Egypt might reach 250 million. What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It’s a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species. It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.” Bahgat Elnadi and Adel Rifaat, “Interview With Jacques-Yves Cousteau,” The UNESCO Courier, November 1991, p. 13, source

View the reply Chris has made by clicking ‘comments’

44 years ago today U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. I don’t know the circumstances and I obviously have no unique insights. But I can say that it is well regarded as an conspiracy. Anyways enough of my words. Let’s hear some of his words from a speech about secret societies and freedom of the press…

Watch on YouTube. Longer version on Google Video.

With transcript below courtesy of PhotoGabble (a blog).

The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far out weigh the dangers which are sited to justify them. Even today there is little value in opposing the threat of an enclosed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions.

Even today there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be ceased upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control and no official of my administration, weather his rank is high or low, civilian or military should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle decent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press or the public the facts that they deserve to know.

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that rely’s primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence. On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on gorillas by night instead of army’s by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed not published, its mistakes are buried not headlined, its dissenters are silenced not praised, no expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

No president should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary. I’m not asking your newspapers to support an administration but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people for I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers I welcome it. This administration intends to be candid about its errors, for as a wise man once said “an error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it”.

We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them. Without debate, without criticism no administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law maker Solan decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy and that is why our press was protected by the first amendment. The only business in America specifically protected by the constitution not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply give the public what it wants but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises’ and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion. This means greater coverage and analysis of international news for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission and it means finally that government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security.

So it is to the printing press, to the recorder of mans deeds, to the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news that we look for strength and assistance confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

JFK thought there was a conspiracy ? Ironic, or predictable, that he should die in one?

Let’s examine the most revealing paragraph. (pp5)

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that rely’s primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence. “

Actually, unless it’s that trademark JFK accent obscuring the word, PhotoGabble misprinted this. If you listen carefully, it’s not ‘covert means’ it’s ‘covet means.’ He’s saying the “monolitic conspiracy” seduces people using money and power. Monolithic means the “conspiracy” is singular, organized and cohesive. They are ruthless, but how do they operate? Kennedy continues, “On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on gorillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed not published, its mistakes are buried not headlined, its dissenters are silenced not praised, no expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

If this had even a shade of truth in 1961, how to describe the situation today? How much further has this subversive conspiracy spread its tentacles after 40 more years? How much more “tightly knit” is it now?

Does it really have a scientific establishment? If so, what are these agenda driven scientists saying?

The good news is while “preparations” are still concealed by the mainstream of media, and dissenters are still not praised, these days, rumours are printed, and secrets are revealed. The Internet has changed the equasion. At least a little.

Now a bonus Presidential quote, this time from Dwight D. Eisenhower as he made his farewell address.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

The Matrix could be seen as a suitable film metaphor for how 9/11 truth views the world and itself.

The Military Industrial Complex and the corporations are the endless hoards of self-replicating machines. The Matrix is the illusory prison of irrelevant ideas, unaware of the system that holds us, placed into diversionary jobs, routines, and fed a spectrum of lies in the various media, storylines and illusions which give us meaning and purpose. The agents are the talking heads of media and religion which ensure consistency in the synthetic reality.The masses, aka “sheeple,” are the acquiescent masses, hapless victims being drained of their inherent power, victimized only because they don’t realize they’re prisoners.

The leaders of the truth movement are the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar and everyone else who has “woken up” are the last city of humans, Zion. Oh yeah, and our reluctant but apt hero, Neo, is none other than wouldbe presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul (aka “The Last Best Hope for America”).

I think I just realized that I might be Cypher, or like him, who turns on the truth in favour of being inserted back into the matrix (only to be killed in the attempt, mind you..)

Edit (from comments): I guess the point is that they view the world as a movie and themselves as the heroes.

Greater thinkers than I have contemplated the ideas I am afflicted with. Most, if not all, have moved past these ideas. I am caught in a no-mans land between history and philosophy in a realm commonly called conspiracy. I want out of the trite conspiracy perspective, but the education I have given myself has created a monster: I believe 9/11 was an inside job.

This gives me great pause. If this is what I believe, then I believe a mere slogan - a slogan I have repeated for my friends, my employers, and strangers, like a devotee to a religion. For you to know the truth accept it into your heart. From there you will be informed by your new opinion since there is no shortage of biases custom-built for leftists, anti-establishment youth, and anarchists. As soon as you buy the premise of 9/11 being an inside job, you’re in, joining the “big umbrella” of an anti-establishment protest community which resembles a grassroots global religion.

Other than their obvious web video presence, “truthers” hit the streets in much the same way a church would reach out to “the lost.” Some of them hold signs. Some of them have pamphlets. Some appeal to your mind. Some appeal to your heart. Handing out DVDs, they want the people of the world to “wake up!” They have many talking points, or statements, which they call questions. They are blind to the way their behaviour looks to the outside world, with antics that are intent on spreading “the truth.” They want to swell their numbers, dethrone the King, and reinstate the republic. They are a youthful and radical political group who talks tough about really serious issues. No wonder I have joined them. But have I been suckered into subscribing to ideas which are better off discarded?

There’s a big industry in the United States, on the left as well. I mean, you should see the e-mails I get. This huge Internet industry, from the left, trying to demonstrate that this was all faked and it was planned by the Bush Administration and so on. If you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence.”
-Noam Chomsky

Sensible words from someone who has been regarded as one of the 20th century’s greatest thinkers. But certainly this alone is not enough to dissuade me. Instead I find it more appropriate to pick apart his statement than to internalise it as the truth. His arguments, that “this huge industry” attempts to demonstrate “this was all faked and it was planned by the Bush administration,” are easily spotted “straw man arguments.” A straw man is a dubious idea which is set up to be knocked down, bringing the associated argument down with it.

“All faked” is an allusion to the no-plane/digital-plane theory which has been wholly rejected by all earnest researchers as lunacy, or worse, intentional misinformation. “Planned by Bush” is quite far fetched given his apparent idiocy, and (as elaborated at the tail end of a previous post) it could have been planned outside of the oval office while nevertheless suiting the agenda of those in power. Of course that is speculative but let’s keep moving. Neither of Chomsky’s straw men have much traction because they are indeed instantly discounted. Notably he chose to debunk only the claims which are not actually promoted by conspiracists.

I should point out that this still proves nothing about the original “inside job” claim and, infact, my nitpicking is indicitive of truther thinking despite my outward attempt at fence sitting.

I have yet to decide how to make my case or even if I should make a case at all. It would be hard to argue for anything except inside job since that is what I believe. For that, if this were a court case and I was on a jury, I would be asked to leave. I want to be judicial not advocative. How can I objectively take a fresh look when what I already know is what will inform my opinion?

The problem isn’t the information, but the implicit conclusions which came as bias baggage to the information. Someone else’s conclusions have been implanted into my head. I’m not suggesting they are incorrect. I’m suggesting that they were not my own conclusions. They were suggested to me based on information from sources of varying authenticity. I should seriously re-examine the biases at work and the basis of each claim.

The “inside job” thesis may indeed be the factually incorrect propaganda of a new anti-establishment grass roots religion. A multimedia orgy of speculation and exaggerated statistics… a political movement with seemingly shoddy research and a bloviating cheerleader.The Internet is, in and of itself, synthetic, anarchistic, and distracting, and so too are its blockbusters. Internet films, forums and websites that fulfill the prophecy that “the medium is the message.”

9/11 truth is just one brand of the anarchist message of the Internet. Sharing 9/11 truth’s alternative history are extremists from both the right (my land, my gun) and the left (let’s share everything), as well as UFO watchers, New Age spiritualists, and some who claim shape-shifting reptilian aliens are our overlords.

A few steps further down the rabbit hole and you will come across neo-Nazis and their pledges to fight the New World Order. I don’t mean to exaggerate. Unfortunate for 9/11 truth, a great deal of their underlying views (the structure of the secret world) are shared - perhaps were pioneered - by white power anti-semites, in a century old book written as if by the conspiritors themselves called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Mentioned in the trailer of documentary of the same title (linked below) the book is rife with lies about Jewish customs of global domination. Suggestive that this ideology was formative for Adolf Hitler as he found “evidence” in Protocols that provided justification for doing away with the Jewish people all together. YouTube

I find it disturbing that that the underlying philosophy of 9/11 truth - that secret societies run the world - could be a secularized repackaging of the same antisemitism which was capable of convincing millions in the early 1900s of a verminous scapegoat. For now it is not “the Jews” but the “New World Order,” or, for more mystique, “The Illuminati.”

In the case of the shape shifting reptiles, the Anti-Defamation League accused reptilian-theory conspiracist David Icke of speaking in code. By reptile overlords, they say, he means Jews. I saw a documentary which took a look at this. “DAVID ICKE: The Lizards and the Jews” Google Video

To be clear, even if Icke is a closet anti-semite, and believes 9/11 was an inside job, that doesn’t mean the 9/11 inside job thesis is anti-semetic, nor reptilian. And even if a wide array of fringe groups, neo-nazis included, subscribe to the 9/11 inside job thesis, that doesn’t invalidate the thesis itself (although certainly does cast it in a new light, as if the reptile thing wasn’t enough.) The authenticity of the 9/11 truth thesis will take some examination for me to come to terms with. Ultimately facts will speak for themself and one day soon I will try to write a thoughtful presentation of the case for or against the inside job thesis.

Before I can build a case I want to examine all the biases I have swallowed in accepting it as my belief. I don’t think it is as cut and dry as it has been made out to be. I just don’t want to find myself accidentally reciting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion when I explain what the woes of the world are.

I need a thought from someone with more credibility. How about Aristotle.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle

The whole point of writing for FlatPlanet is to explore ideas and hopefully to discard the dubious ones. I don’t wish to be seen as promoting 9/11 truth. I am writing because it has affected me in a deep and important way and in the end my hope is that it will be either vindicated or evaporated.

A pop-up window interrupted my web browsing. It was from market research firm Angus Reid Forum (ARF) and it posed a question which I think is fundamental and each of us should ask our selves. What was interesting was the 20 options I had too chose from. It seemed there’s a tremendous number of disparate important issues facing the world today.

“What do you think is the most important issue facing the world today?”

TERRORISM
CRIME
GLOBALIZATION
EDUCATIONAL ISSUES
RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM
UNEMPLOYMENT
WARS&CONFLICT
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
POVERTY
HUMAN RIGHTS
CORRUPTION
HIV/AIDS/OTHER DISEASES
DRUGS AND DRUG ABUSE
OTHERS [PLEASE SPECIFY]

This was followed up with a series of questions which asked me to rate my opinion from “highly agree”, through to “highly disagree.” Essentially the questions were composed of a variety of “Left wing” ideas and the purpose of the survey was to see how much I believed in each given idea, giving them a rating of how liberal or conservative I am. Next up they wanted to rate how much I consume media: through what media do I get my news, what kind of gadgets do I have, and what is more important to me, sports or entertainment. Then of course they got personal and asked for my income, if I have kids, if I rent, how much I pay. Essentially they built a full profile but I stopped short of giving them my name and address. It was typical stuff but their offer of $1500 prize in exchange for my name and address didn’t seem worth it. They already had enough pure demographic gold.

Not that I’m their target victim audience. They only discovered in me an obvious consumer outlier. Hardly worth having my head hacked into by marketing demagogues. I’m sure they’re not terribly upset that I didn’t sign up for a user account but they do wish that their carrot $1500 prize could have swayed me to give over my identity.

The reason I filled out the survey is because I wanted to see what they would ask. I wasn’t surprised but I thought it would be interesting because they invite users to “participate in forming Canada’s public policies, shaping consumer products and defining our nation’s values.”

What struck me about the 20 choices which started this survey is how many different outrages there are in the world. My goodness! With all these “separate issues” facing us how ever are we to find the unity to face the root of these issues? Is it not possible that these various outrages have a root cause? Anyway, as suggested in a conversation with my girlfriend, the best answer from the 20 above is probably “Educational Issues” which we agreed would do the most to solve the other important issues. Or if you’re like me you selected “other,” my little pet issue, “9/11 truth,” but it could be argued that said issue is actually educational, specifically political and historical education.

What caught my ire in this survey is the idea of what I’ve termed the Demographics of Outrage: If you can nail people down into their demographics you then can sell it right back back to the angry consumers. Promoted as separate problems with separate solutions, you can sell laws, products and programs to people on their ability to solve crime, fight corruption, end poverty, enhance education, save the environment. etc. You can offer unique options to distinguish yourself. You can get passions involved and get people committed to your cause. As one person fight for one thing, and someone else fights for another, neither fight together.

Why? Because each cause has it’s own final solution which can be alienating to the other causes. These are walls that separate action groups from dropping all their petty issues and working together to, for example, dethrone King George W. Bush or to drag the bankers and CEOs out into the street by their socks with the demand that the workers get their fair shake, that the environment stops getting destroyed, and that honest, clever, sustainable solutions are much more preferable than dirty profits, polluting lifestyles, and injustice…

Injustice. Is that the word which we could latch onto?

The way we treat each other is an injustice. The way we treat the planet is a potentially apocalyptic injustice. The way 9/11 is used as justification for the erosion of civil liberties and the waging of wars is certainly an injustice. That one per cent of the world’s population owns 90 per cent of the world’s wealth is an injustice. All of these things may be solvable, but only through education and patience, and we have large deficits of both.

I have heard the claim that the American government’s (lack of) reaction to Katrina means the American government would be incapable of executing and covering up an “inside job.”

“If the government couldn’t get it together [for Katrina] then they certainly wouldn’t have the wherewithal to plan and execute 9/11,” I’ve seen written in message boards.

This does nothing to prove or disprove the idea of an inside job because they’re not related. It’s a false comparison. It assumes “the government” is a singular, monolithic entity, a problem with many theories in that it is oversimplified. FEMA is not the White House which is not the CIA. Ok, they are related, and you could say any of them have “incompetent leadership,” but they can, and do, operate separate from each other.

The government consists of various smaller governments and many more agencies (federal, state, municipal) with each consisting of a hierarchy of people who obviously could act intentionally or incompently depending on who they are. So how “the government” reacted to Katrina versus how “the government” could have orchestrated 9/11 is apples and oranges. Two different ideas about two different event.

In regards to Katrina, there is the suggestion that lackluster response to the aftermath of the storm could have been “intentional policy,” and what looked like executive-level disregard towards the lives of its citizenry. It appeared they were letting people die with no official reaction. On live television Kanye West revealed, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

The government’s defense was that various agencies screwed up and it was, of course, unintentional. The bureaucracy failed us. Incompetent leadership. The mayor. Brownie. The bridges between federal, state and municipal levels were broken. These issues are probably higher on the list than “blame Bush first,” however, Katrina revealed Bush administration cronyism. “Heckuva Job” Brownie had been installed as the head of FEMA despite being completely unqualified for emergency management. He was there simply because of political favouritism. A bureaucracy of Bush’s creation.

And Bush is still the the guy who stayed on vacation while New Orleans took a swim.

One problem. Why would they intentionally hurt their political image? In the environment of Post-9/11 and an Iraq Quagmire, Bush already had credibility problems. It seems unlikely that the lack of reaction to Katrina would be intentional per se - this is where the “incompetent leadership” theory resurges - with Bush hurting in the polls why wouldn’t his administration act as if this was a top priority, if for nothing else than to show leadership in time of crises? Ask Kanye. He seemed to have a good enough answer for millions of Americans.

At the time of Katrina I speculated the reason for their negligence. When no one could pick themselves up out of the swamp, all hands were reaching up for “the government,” predictably, to be tasked with the rescue. Outrage in the lack of government response only made people wish a more robust government able to respond faster to the next event. Even if this was not their intention it may have become the result: People demand a better FEMA; FEMA gets more money.

Is that really so cynical?

When Katrina hit, Bush let the bureaucracy handle it. They failed. Bush left it up to FEMA, which left it up to the state, which left it up to the city, and so evacuations didn’t happen, and then in the days after Anderson Cooper cared more than the president, who, again, stayed on vacation a day after the storm wreaked its damage. Bush is responsible for his lack of leadership or reaction, especially once it was clear that there was a problem with the government response.

Obviously, he is a huge dick head, but I would stop short of saying his administration intentionally neglecting the issue in some sort of Stalinist power grab to “make them weak so that they will beg the government to protect them.” Not because I don’t think it’s possible but I don’t have enough information to adequately explain why they would intentionally sink their approval rating.

Unless, of course, approval ratings are meaningless?

As for 9/11, Bush was clearly left out of the loop on the morning of Sept. 11. His administrative competency has nothing to do with what is being examined now as a clandestine military operation. Planned outside of the White House and beyond Bush’s knowledge but nevertheless undertaken by elements working for the same agenda. Bush of course plays along. He did sit there in that Florida classroom like a pet goat. It is somewhat absurd to think 9/11 was the handy work of the junior president and his lapdog administration. So if there is an inside job, it wasn’t inside the oval office.

Sidebar: Of course George Bush doesn’t care about black people. After all, which racial group had their right to vote disproportionately challenged in 2000 and 2004? Black voters were 900 per cent more likely than white voters to have their ballots “rejected, lost, mangled, uncounted, spoiled.”In the video linked bellow, Investigative Reporter Greg Palast spoke in New York City from his book “Armed Mad House 2nd edition” and was followed up by Robert F Kennedy Jr. who says the corporate owned media is a big part of the problem. If memory serves me correctly Palast makes note of the Katrina-affected districts that also had had reams of voters scrubbed, but I’m the blogger and he’s the reporter. Google video

As a Canadian there isn’t much I can actively do about American politics, but that doesn’t take away my desire to keep an eye on the issue.

Apparently, George W. Bush had the 2000 election rigged in his favour

Greg Palast is an investigative reporter from the states who works for BCC. He made a report in 2001 called “Hail to the Theif” in which he provides evidence that the election was rigged in favour of Dubya in his brother’s state of Florida (incidentally Palast’s new work Armed Madhouse talks at length about 2004 “elections” as well and minces no words about the racial line that has been drawn in voter scrubbing.)

Apparently the Neo Conservatives were gunning for hegemony from the start of this “stolen” administration.

In Sept. 2000 Neo Conservatives (some of who would soon-to-be members of the Bush administration) penned an infamous document for The Project for the New American Century titled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” It called for America to seize its unique opportunity in a post-Cold War era and grasp an American unipolar world. Hegemoney at hand.

On land, in the sea, in the air, and in space, the U.S. should have no adversaries. They called this “Full Spectrum Dominance.” But for this idea to be realized they would need to do something about “rogue nations” such as Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea. By do something I mean transform into a military empire, and regime change. But that’s expensive. According to Rebuilding America’s Defenses, “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” It goes on to say “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

One year later “A new Pearl Harbour” premiered on televisions world wide.

It was just a coincidence that those in power happened to have called for this event having said “A New Pearl Harbour” was necessary, or at least would expediate, the post-Cold War opportunity to transform the military for everlasting American dominance.

While the argument can be made that 9/11 benefited the Neo Conservatives, it is harder for me to make the arguement that the Iraq war itself has benefited the aim of hegemony. I could speculate. But I’ll leave you tonight with Debunkers Wisdom:

“Yeah right… they were cunning enough to plan 9/11 but too incompetent to plan for post-war Iraq.”

“The government couldn’t cover up a blow job.”

I thought it would be nice to take my grandparents out for dinner. Two of my cousins got together and we met the folks at Swiss Chalet for a dinner in honour of them. It was going quite well as my grandmother was impressed that we were paying for their meal. So just as things were going perfectly I thought this was the opportune time to ruin everything.

“Grampa,” I began, “Five years ago you asked me what I thought about Sept. 11. I didn’t know what I thought then. Today I have an answer: Inside job.”

I should have told them I’m gay it would have gotten a warmer reception. Anyways.

“I disagree,” my grandmother said, shaking her head.

I suppose I felt that I knew what I was talking about. I replied, “That’s because you haven’t looked into it. You watch CTV News, and read mainstream newspapers, but the fact is it is in their interest to maintain the official story.”

“Did you convert to Muslim, too?” my grandfather asked, referring to my mother who now lives in Lahore, Pakistan with her new husband. I replied, “No. I’ve just watched a lot of movies and read a lot of articles…”

My grandfather was displeased. He said, “That’s the sort of thing that people who deny the holocaust would say.”

I rebutted, “I don’t agree with that parallel because there’s evidence of the holocaust. You can visit the gas chambers. The Germans admit what happened. Whereas with 9/11 the rubble was immediately shipped off to China before there could be an independent investigation. It took 400 days for an investigation to start, they ended up getting their cronies to investigate themselves”

As any 9/11 truther knows, the big question mark is building seven.

“Did you know that at 5 p.m. on Sept. 11 a third building collapsed - at free fall speed? After the twin towers, it’s the third time in history fire has ever caused a building to collapse — ”

“That’s true,” my cousin Raymond agreed.

My grandmother could see the look on my grandfather’s face. I noted that it was getting a bright shade of red. Did I think, hey, maybe I should ease up? Maybe this isn’t the best dinner conversation? Not quite.

I continued, “The two towers also fell at free fall speed into their own foot print. Debris went flying in 100 meters symmetrically outward from the building. And then there is the question of molten metal in the basement. There is an ‘energy deficit’…the first time ever in history fire has caused a building to crumble.. to dust!”

Suddenly, there was a crashing noise and my cousin Raymond was covered in cola. The conversation paused while the young lad mopped himself up.My grandmother said, “You know, it’s Rachel’s birthday, so let’s talk about something else. It’s very interesting. Even though I disagree, I’d be willing to talk about this again.”

That was about six months ago and I haven’t had the chance to bring it up again. I’m not sure if I want to.

I’ve been heavily “indoctrinated” with 9/11 films and websites. It would seem I can regurgitate conspiracy theory like the best of them. At the time I thought my opinions were built on rock solid foundation.

What I didn’t realize then was that I was operating with what is known as confirmation bias: This happens when you have a preconceived notion which you seek to prove. It’s an information filter that means you only seek out information which reinforces your world view. I thought I was “more informed” because I read a lot, but it might be that I read a lot of crap. Might be. I’m now willing to reconsider my opinion and take a hard look at everything.

I have an open enough mind to say the official story could be a lie. But I should also admit that it’s as likely or more likely that the alternatives aren’t the truth either.

One of the purposes of this new FlatPlanet is to not only challenge the official reality as it is provided (eg. world is flat) but to challenge the alternative story because it too has it’s flaws.

I’m no longer willing to repeat the claims of conspiracy film makers but I am still not willing to buy the official conspiracy either.

The nascent concept which birthed FlatPlanet was to allow for individuals to speak their minds. All sides would have had a chance to speak and each argument would be factored in until finally a “unified theory of everything” comes into view. Clearly that idealistic experiment is not possible, but FlatPlanet also is about challenging the status quo.

As “9/11 truth” has become more mainstream and ever more controversial it appears I should double check my sources. I’m officially sitting on the fence. I will remake my opinion after I’ve objectively reviewed the evidence.