bayoneting a scarecrow

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a coward’s cult.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 20th February 2007

“You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the New World Order … bought and paid for.”(1) “Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and the Special Branch recruit agents?”(2) “Shill, traitor, sleeper”, “leftwing gatekeeper”, “accessory after the fact”, “political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all.”

These are a few of the measured responses to my article, a fortnight ago, about the film Loose Change, which maintains that the US government destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Having spent years building up my left-wing credibility on behalf of my paymasters in MI5, I’ve blown it. I overplayed my hand, and have been exposed, like Bush and Cheney, by a bunch of kids with laptops. My handlers are furious.

I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by Al Qaeda, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents. I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a long-standing plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis.

But none of this is sufficient. To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile, while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the Twin Towers with explosives without attracting attention, and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly-timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception. It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes, and induce them all to kept their mouths shut, for ever.

In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy.

Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements which some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues – climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality – are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress; that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy; that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish.

The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the “9/11 truth movement” is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward’s fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don’t have the stomach to engage in real political fights.

Let me give you an example. The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts on Comment is Free, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious… The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted 467(2). On the same day I published an article about a genuine, demonstrable conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to Britain’s biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE. It drew 60 responses(3). The members of the 9/11 cult weren’t interested. If they were, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its hoard of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the “truth” movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don’t exist, they can’t fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow.

Many of those who posted responses on Comment is Free contend that Loose Change (which was neatly demolished in the BBC’s film The Conspiracy Files on Sunday night) is a poor representation of the conspiracists’ case. They urge us instead to visit websites like 911truth.org, physics911.net and 911scholars.org, and to read articles by the theology professor David Ray Griffin and the physicist Steven E. Jones. Concerned that I might have missed something, I have now done all those things, and have come across exactly the same concatenation of ill-attested nonsense as I saw in Loose Change. In all these cases you will find wild supposition raised to the status of incontrovertible fact; rumour and confusion transformed into evidence; selective editing; the citation of fake experts; the dismissal of real ones. Doubtless I will now be told that these are not the true believers: I will need to dive into another vat of tripe to get to the heart of the conspiracy.

The 9/11 truthers remind me of nothing so much as the climate-change deniers, cherry-picking their evidence, seizing any excuse for ignoring the arguments of their opponents. Witness the respondents to my Loose Change column who maintain that the magazine Popular Mechanics, which has ripped the demolition theories apart, is a government front. They know this because one of its editors, Benjamin Chertoff, is the brother/nephew/first cousin of the US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. (They are, as far as Benjamin can discover, unrelated, but what does he know?(4)).

Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements. If I were Bush or Blair, nothing would please me more than to see my opponents making idiots of themselves, while devoting their lives to chasing a phantom. But as a controlled asset of the New World Order, I would say that, wouldn’t I? It’s all part of the plot.

monbiot.comReferences:1. Gary Allen, 911truthnc.org, 6th February 2007. Email.
2. “sirarthurchichester”, 8th February 2007. On Comment is Free.

  1. George Monbiot, 13th February 2007. The parallel universe of BAE: covert, dangerous and beyond the rule of law. The Guardian. guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … 51,00.html

  2. Quoted by Will Sullivan, 3rd September 2006. Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll., US News and World Report. usnews.com/usnews/news/artic … piracy.htm

Source: monbiot.com/archives/2007/02 … scarecrow/

what do you think?

-OKComp

Very nice. I don’t suppose Gobbo will like it, though.

yeah, it’s an interesting viewpoint. i’m not out to convince anyone though, just trying to display a different side to an important argument.

-OKComp

Monbiot is a cretin if he thinks that the BBC’s conspiracy files show did anything to demolish the ‘conspiracy theories’ about 9/11.

Just to give you an impression of how the show’s argument was structured, they spent about 40 seconds discussing the biggest smoking gun of them all (the failure of the military to respond and the three different excuses that they’ve given for these failings) and spent over 5 minutes interviewing a guy who wrote for the X-Files.

Now, had Monbiot actually read the work of David Ray Griffin, he’d know all about this. If he had a modicum of rationality, he’d realise that there is a lot of evidence that the military lied (the contention of ‘Without Precendent’, co-authored by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton) and that if they are lying then they are at the least covering something up (i.e. making them accessories after the fact, if not worse). But instead,
he’d rather just call it

.

Fine, if that constitutes a refutation, Monbiot’s article is ill-attested nonsense.

In truth, it is. Once again, the focus is one WHO the 9/11 Truthers are, rather than the evidence itself. So, this is little more than an extended piece of ad hominem from a man who thinks Noam Chomsky is God. As with Chomsky, I used to take Monbiot seriously. No longer, and not really because of the 9/11 issues. Much more because of his inability to mean what he says about socialism, but the same hypocrisy and illogic is present in this article.

9/11 Truth deniers are just like Holocaust deniers. See, anyone can make such silly arguments, but if they are a published journalist, people take them seriously. Pathetic.

I am under the impression that Monboit avoids addressing any of the real issues.

But I am also under the impression that there is little real investigative in the 911truth community. It seems they mostly rehash whats already on the table, which makes you wonder if they are looking to get to the bottom of things.

This guy seems to be one of the few who do any real research. Maybe because he is a (true) journalist.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn_intro-to-911.html

http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html

On another note:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=546&sectionid=3510303

Last I checked, anybody who declared themselves a “True XYZ” expouses an opinion that should be immediately discarded.

Obviously, many questions remain unanswered because there has been and is blatant obfuscation on the part of gvt agencies. Family of victims say that 70% of questions to 911 Commission remain unanswered.

Nevertheless, the most “outrageous conspiracy theories” of all is the official one.

The very unusual activity in several airline stock options markets in the week before the event, took place in Japan, Europe and the US. In each case, investigations were DROPPED. Which suggests that this is something that goes well beyond the actual tenant of the W House.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/wtc-unusualtrading.html

http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/israelis-in-911-short-selling/

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

It irritates the hell out of me that the 9/11 Truthers so often live up to the stereotype of conspiracy theory quacks, and that very few of them employ serious critical faculties. It makes it easy for Monbiot and the BBC to ridicule the bad research and thereby imply that the whole thing is nonsense.

On the other hand, the writer of the Loose Change Guide/Screw Loose Change doesn’t employ serious critical faculties either. It’s amusing that if no one had made Loose Change, he’d have very little to talk about and hardly any hits on his blog.

Speaking of quacks : BIG LOL!

VIDEO: BBC WAS HALF AN HOUR TOO EARLY REPORTING ON WTC7 COLLAPSE
On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed.

This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.

9/11 was unusual enough, without BBC World being able to foretell the destiny of WTC 7.

What is even stranger, is that the women reporter is telling the world that the building had collapsed when you can see it in the background over her left shoulder.

Then at 5:15pm EST, just five minutes before the building did actually collapse, her live connection from New York to London mysteriously fails.

So the question is, on 9/11 how did the BBC learn that WTC7 collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did.

Building Seven was 47 storeys, modern in design with structural steel throughout, yet symmetrically collapsed in 6.5 seconds, was someone leaking information.

No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, most people who find out about WTC7, believe it was brought down by a controlled demolition, even demolition experts agree.

Go to minute 15

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096&c=1

CNN reports an hour too early

"This report was carried at “about 4:15 eastern daylight time” (according to the CNN anchor), over an hour before the building actually collapsed at 5:20. Who told them the WTC 7 building “has either collapsed or is collapsing.”? Keep in mind he did not say it was going to collapse, he said it either had or was in the process of doing so. The anchor says is “we are getting information now”, who is giving him this information? If you pay close attention you can see after the anchor announces this he turns around and sees the building as clear as day still standing, he then proceeds to backtrack on the initial information which informed him clearly the building “has either collapsed or is collapsing.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o

Let’s see if I can wrap my head around this one.

  1. No steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire B4 ninoleven.

  2. Moreover there were other steel framed buildings (WTC6 and 4?) which had much more pervasive fires and damage to them.

  3. Therefore WTC7 must have been brought down purposefully (ie controlled demolition).

  4. As the owner of the building (also of WTC1 and 2) confirms belatedly.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q

  1. Yet such an operation takes at a minimum several days and more realistically several weeks to set up (and only a few specialized companies in the world do this work).

No seriously, this is obviously too deep a mystery, even for Columbo, let alone a conspiracy nut like Sven.

Heaven knows why I even doubted the official line.

Sven,

I remember the BBC report from watching the news on the day that it happened, but not thinking much of it (due to not realising the significance). Now, of course, it looks like a major fuck-up on the part of the information merchants.

Good find.

You guys slay me! I’m American and I couldn’t tell those dozens of fucking identical buildings apart. How’s some head-up-her-ass limey fuck supposed to do it? #-o WTC #7? WTF does that mean to you?

WTC7 is easy to spot when you’ve watched plenty of videos of the three buildings collapsing. It has a distinctive penthouse sticking out the top of it.

This is irrelevant - no other building collapsed that day, so it can’t have been a case of mistaking another building for WTC7. The fact remains that the BBC reported the collapse of a building approximately half an hour before it collapsed, which is suspicious and smacks of stories being leaked too early.

Not to mention the transmission mysteriously failed 5 minutes B4 WTC7 actually collapsed over her left shoulder. :laughing: I wonder if she put 2 and 2 together? :laughing:

Well, perhaps not her, but the producer of the show. Absolutely. It’s not even funny.

Well, actually it is funny.