Living in Infamy (Part II)

Now we move from sunlight to shadow... from light into darkness... from the obvious to the threatening and mysterious. The discussion in Part I was predicated, at least for the sake of argument, on the 9/11 attacks having been precisely as described by the organs of the Regime – i.e. both the Bush and Obama administrations, the government in general, and the MSM: “Only this, and nothing more”, as the raven quoth. I venture to summarize their position thusly:

1.The 9/11 attacks (I've never heard of anyone denying that they were, in fact, attacks and not just pieces of guerrilla theatre) were initiated by Islamic terrorists, who hijacked passenger planes to be used as weapons. There were four planes hijacked, of which three reached their (presumed) targets – two for the World Trade Center in New York City and one for the Pentagon building in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth plane – target unknown (but suspected to have been either the Capitol or the White House) – crashed in Pennsylvania after the hijackers were themselves attacked and overcome by the passengers and crew.

2.The WTC towers fell solely as the result of the fires that broke out when they were hit by the planes... those fires having compromised the structural integrity of the buildings at and above the point of impact, resulting in the upper floors collapsing and causing a chain-reaction collapse of the lower floors.

3.The attacks were completely unanticipated by everyone, including the U.S. intelligence agencies and foreign intelligence.

4.The attacks were planned and carried out by Islamic radicals, possibly with the aid of various rogue (i.e., ones we don't like) regimes in the Arab/Islamic world. No government or governmental entity outside the Arab/Islamic world was involved, or had any knowledge of the plan.

OK – I think that about sums it up. Now – without passing judgment one way or the other on the official position, I will sum up (and I do mean “sum up”, since there are, by now, thousands of web sites and millions of web pages devoted to this matter, which has long since surpassed the JFK assassination as “the” all-time conspiracy), in a sort of hierarchical way, what I will call “alternative” interpretations of the events of 9/11. (“To learn more” -- as they say on PBS – just start rooting through the Internet. Bring coffee.)

CT (Conspiracy Theory) Level 1: All of the above happened as stated, except that certain elements of the government did, in fact, know in advance that something of this sort was likely to happen. This level can be subdivided as follows:

1a: Intelligence agencies had an inkling that this sort of thing might be in the works, but did not have sufficient evidence to do anything about it. (This is not a particularly controversial notion, and many people who qualify as “insiders” have as much as admitted it. You can't just go out and arrest anybody who “might” be a terrorist. Well, I mean, you can now, but you couldn't back then.)

1b: Intelligence agencies knew with a reasonable degree of certainty that these attacks were planned, but opted not to take preventive measures for political and/or foreign policy reasons. (This position will be known henceforth as the “Van Jones position”.)

1c. Intelligence agencies knew the precise means, day, times, and locations of the attacks in advance, but, again, did nothing to prevent them (for the reasons given above). (This is the “Van Jones licking a crack pipe position”.) One of the best pieces of evidence for this position is the rapidity with which the government – and the media – produced the names and photographs of all the terrorists. How did they know? Even if they had combed the passenger lists (which don't include photographs anyway), how did they know right away who was a terrorist and who wasn't? Did the terrorists radio a cast of characters from the planes once they had been hijacked? I don't think so. So – in its zeal to “pin” the attacks on certain Islamic fanatics, and no one else, the Regime tipped its hand.

1d. Intelligence agencies not only knew the precise means, day, times, and locations, but actually did things to facilitate the attacks, for the reasons, etc. (This is the “Where the heck did Van Jones go, he was here just a minute ago, position”.) And by “facilitate”, I don't mean direct physical involvement in the attacks so much as clearing a path – the way government agencies do it all the time in so-called “sting” operations. In other words, you provide the right people with the right information at the right time... you facilitate contacts... you open doors (ones that the persons involved might not have known were there)... and so forth.

CT Level 1.1 (and 1.1a through 1.1d): Same as level 1 etc., except substitute “Israeli intelligence agencies”.

CT Level 1.2 (and 1.2a through 1.2d): Same as level 1 etc., except _add_ “Israeli intelligence agencies”. They may have been acting in complete coordination with U.S. agencies, but not necessarily. (Given that the U.S. and Israel are indistinguishable foreign policy-wise, the intel agencies still like to "play the game" from time to time.)

And why Israel? Well, this goes back to the “cui bono” argument. The wars in the Middle East are being fought, by us, primarily (if not exclusively) for the benefit of Israel, i.e. to preserve its “right to exist” as well as its actual existence. Would we be over there (i.e. in Iraq and Afghanistan) if they weren't? Possible, but unlikely. Would be we over there if it hadn't been for the 9/11 attacks? Possible, but unlikely. The existence of the State of Israel combined with the attacks shifted the balance overwhelmingly (or so the government contends) in favor of initiating a war on Islam – the WMD argument was just frosting on the cake, but, as we have seen, not really necessary. So, did the attacks work in Israel's interest? Of course – and so much so that it's easy to imagine that Israel might have, let's say, placed its thumb on the scale. But it doesn't take imagination, since there is evidence as well. (This, by the way, has nothing to do with the rumor that Jews working at the WTC were advised to stay home that day. Obviously, the willingness to sacrifice a few thousand Americans for political gain would not stop at sacrificing a few of your own tribe. It's always about long-term gains.)

OK – now so far, the specifics of the attacks remain untouched, the only question being who, if anybody other than the terrorists, knew anything in advance, and if so, what did they know and when (and how) did they know it... and what did they do, or not do, with that knowledge?

But now we move on to CT Level 2 – I call it the “hamburger helper” level. Under this scenario, the attacks occurred as represented by the house organs of the Regime, except that the effects were, let's say, augmented in some way. This would have involved, for example, the placing, ahead of time, of demolition charges in both WTC towers and/or the portion of the Pentagon that was struck. The purpose? To insure maximum impact – not only physical but also psychological, and, ultimately, propaganda-wise. How many armies would march into battle with the cry, “Remember the top twenty floors of the World Trade Center!” ? But “Remember 9/11!” ? Ah yes – much better.

(Reality check – there is an impressive body of evidence supporting this position when it comes to the WTC towers. Regarding the Pentagon, it's not so obvious, and, IMO, the degree and type of damage does not call for an “augmentation” theory of this sort. Besides, the WTC towers were much less ambiguous targets than the Pentagon; you could have hit them anywhere and gotten about the same effect. Is someone claiming that the Pentagon was hit precisely where it was according to some plan? This seems a bit far-fetched. Note that the Pentagon is a very large, flat building. It's a big target, but how precisely a strike could be aimed at it – at that speed and with considerable maneuvering – is another matter.)

So, to sum up – Level 2 contends that the attacks were as described, but they got help – at least for the WTC if not the Pentagon. But now we move on to Level 3 -- and please put your oxygen masks up to your face at this point, and breathe steadily even if the bag doesn't fully inflate -- because guess what, the buildings were not hit by passenger planes at all, but by missiles... or, at the very least, by some other types of planes than the ones alleged. There is striking evidence for this (other types of planes) when it comes to the WTC; again, check the Internet. When it comes to the Pentagon, there is a quite intriguing case for a missile.

But hold on! There's another possibility for the Pentagon – call it Level 3.1. This is the notion that the Pentagon was hit by neither a plane nor a missile, but only by a pre-set demolition charge. And what is the evidence for this? I would rather call it a “no evidence” case. What I have always find most fascinating about the Pentagon situation is that, for one of the most highly-fortified, and guarded, and secured, and watched buildings in the world there are NO photographic (still or video) records – at least none that we know of – that actually show an airplane, or missile, or anything else, flying into the building. This, I find, totally staggering. And – if photographic evidence does exist, why has it never been released to the public? The Level 3 CT will say, it's because the images show a missile and not a plane. The Level 3.1 CT will say, it's because there was nothing but an explosion. Well... the only way for the government to debunk this is to show us the pictures, and it hasn't as yet. So we have a kind of Mexican standoff.

And I should also point out that the attack on the Pentagon occurred toward the end of morning rush hour, and the plane (or whatever) would have to have flown directly over the busiest highway in the DC area, typically jammed with bumper-to-bumper traffic. But no drivers saw anything. And – the part of the Pentagon that was struck is in clear view of scores of high-rise hotels and apartment buildings, plus other government buildings, like the Navy Annex. And you're telling me that no one – not a single government worker, for instance – was gazing out the window toward the Pentagon at that precise point? Please. On any given morning at that hour, mid-to-high-grade (because that's what it takes to have a window) government employees are standing, coffee cup in hand, looking out the window, waiting for the day to begin. And what better to stare at than the Tower of Power itself – the Death Star – namely the Pentagon? But no one saw a thing. So I say again, incredible.

So to sum up for the Pentagon, we have at least three competing scenarios – the plane, a missile, and demolition. The “plane plus demolition” scenario, while possible, seems less likely. And the best evidence – or non-evidence – for the demolition scenario is the incredible lack of photographic evidence or eyewitnesses.

But before we leave Level 3, we have to deal with two of the major questions, or objections. The first is, if there were missiles or mystery planes involved, whose were they? Not Saddam's, I can tell you that much. Now we're moving into the “provocateur” area where, terrorists or no terrorists, the government – someone in the government -- wanted to shock the American people into fear-stricken, unquestioning obedience and cooperation with whatever schemes it might choose to cook up, both domestic and foreign policy-wise, for the foreseeable future. You know, stuff like the Patriot Act, and declaring war on Iraq and Afghanistan... and getting patted down by Indian grandmothers in airport security lines (that was before TSA took over – funny how no one remembers). This would be the “American Reichstag fire”, in other words. Unthinkable? Hey – relax and take a deep breath. Remember the World War I sedition acts? How about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? For that matter, remember Fort Sumter? Need I go on? People who think the government – any government – is incapable of “this sort of thing” clearly slept through history class, and are still sleeping.

The other objection, however, carries quite a bit of weight, IMO. Namely, if the buildings weren't hit by those three planes, then what happened to them (the planes, that is)? The “E-Z answer” is they were flown out over the Atlantic and either shot down or ditched (and if so, who flew them?). Of course, I guess they could also have been flown into the cargo bay of a UFO and are now in orbit around Jupiter along with Elvis. Like I say, this is a tough argument to make without sounding like a total wackball. But impossible? Well, nothing is impossible in this day and age.

A sidebar item, not necessarily belonging to any particular “level”, is the notion that the 4th plane – the one presumably headed for the Capitol or White House, was not brought down through the actions of a heroic band of passengers and crew, but was shot down by the Air Force. And actually, from a national security point of view, that's not as far-fetched as it sounds, and might even have been justified if it was known for certain what the intent was. But don't try telling this to anyone over in Shanksville.

And speaking of the 4th plane, there is also an argument that it didn't crash in Shanksville after all, but that something else happened at that site. Again, this leaves the fate of the 4th plane, like the other three, up in the air... so to speak.

And another sidebar item is the mysterious collapse of WTC 7 – one of the “other” buildings in the complex. This event, occurring hours after the towers' collapse, has yet to be satisfactorily explained – by anyone. One CT position is that it was the command center for the entire operation, and had to be demolished to destroy the evidence. There is also the intriguing fact – thoroughly documented – that many news outlets “knew” about the collapse of WTC 7 before it actually occurred. There are actual clips of newscasters describing the collapse with WTC 7 clearly visible -- and still standing -- behind them. Again -- did the Regime overdo it a bit in its "rush to judgment"?

So that about sums up, in extremely simplified terms, what I see as the major “9/11 conspiracy theory” elements. Obviously, any one theorist, or “school” of theory, can't hold to all the above positions at the same time – some choices have to be made. And let's admit that it's a logical fallacy to simply look at everyone who benefited from the 9/11 attacks and claim that, well, if they benefited they must have had something to do with it. There is such a thing as dumb luck – like if you just happened to own Halliburton stock on 9/11. (Never mind that Dick Cheney had a few million shares... in a “blind trust”, of course – ha ha.) But people who benefited in a systematic, predictable way – and who continue to do so... that's another matter entirely.

And, as I said previously, 9/11 was a non-accident waiting to happen; it was only a matter of time before we would get payback, big time, from the Arab/Islamic world, and radical militants with suicide on their minds were the logical people to provide it, and terrorism was the logical means. And what could be higher profile, and more shocking, and at once more damaging and more symbolic, than what actually happened? So what I'm saying is that, on the credibility scale, the attacks made perfect sense, and anyone who was surprised simply hadn't been paying attention. What doesn't make as much sense, however, is the government's – supported by the MSM – story about how the attacks actually played out, i.e. the details, and all the loose ends, inconsistencies, and unanswered questions – and mainly, if it all happened as it is supposed to have happened, why the massive cover-up (extensively documented, and which continues under Obama, you'll notice – because “it's time to move on”, as usual)? Why the relentless propaganda campaign – both “pro” the establishment view and “con” all the alternatives, and the people who are proposing them? Why all the flickering shadows in dark corners? Why are so many of the suspicions, and accusations, answered by, basically, silence, or the usual tactic of accusing the accusers of being nut cases?

It's funny how yesterday's oddball idea eventually becomes today's conventional wisdom... it has happened before in American history, and there is no reason to think that this will not be another case – perhaps the greatest of all, surpassing, as I said, even JFK (which has pretty much been settled, IMO – but that hasn't made a dent in the “JFK assassination industry”). But in the meantime, the skeptics have to fight on alone, in dim light and against the machine... while those that benefited, and continue to benefit, commit their crimes by light of day, with nary a word of protest to be heard.