FlatPlanet.net

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.

It was 1999 and we were 16.  The original idea was built on the concept that everyone’s point of view has a place, and that the little guy deserves a voice. We were to be a platform for the public to air their ideas and their rants. To let the world know how they feel. We wanted to be part magazine, part blog. But of course, the word blog didn’t exist yet. We were teenage internet rockstars. At least in our own minds.

Then things happened and the old website died a slow and quiet death. Bygones. We’re back and all that matters is we’re here. What can you expect from FlatPlanet.net, circa 2007?

Links. Ideas. Something funny, maybe? Oh, the possibilities. It’s a blank slate.

I finally have a point of view I want to share (in non rap form). Basically I’ve been caught up following the so called 9/11 Truth movement. It’s been more than three years since the idea of an “inside job” was first cracked over my head and I haven’t recovered since. Indeed in the six years since 9/11 I have not recovered. If I was a “news junkie” before college then I am completely “cracked out” on news now. Mainstream. Alternative. Left. Right. Black. White. Right. Wrong…. I transit the extremes.. Oh the misery it brings me .. for it is up to me to decide what is true and after all this time where have I arrived? Square one. I spend hours upon hour reading article after article but the more I learn the less I know. I hate to admit that I still know nothing except philosophical ponderances. Oh well. Hopefully it will make for interesting Blog fodder.