|
|
When I did a post on the mindset surrounding Amendment E, I pointed to a number of people who are supporters of what has become known as the 9/11 Truth Movement. From that flowed a variety of comments and e-mails, ranging from the attacking to those who said I was being willfully ignorant. They might have been surprised to learn that I had read several books on the topic, including Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed’s The War on Freedom in the years following 9/11.
It started with magazine articles and a couple books but found its growth on the internet. On various web sites, newsgroups and forums, people raised questions and looked for answers to issues they felt were left unaddressed. More books and video exploring the same territory began appearing. It has now mushroomed to the point where it not only has a name, some of its conferences get airtime on C-SPAN. It calls itself the “9/11 Truth Movement,” a largely grassroots effort questioning what Americans have been told and believe about what occurred on September 11, 2001.
As I am not one to reject ideas out of hand without some thought and consideration, I decided to try a rational exploration of the issue recently. I picked up 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions, a generally highly regarded book dealing with the various streams of thought of those who have serious questions about what really happened on September 11, 2001. I also picked up Debunking 9/11 Myths, the paperback publication of a project by Popular Science magazine exploring some of the 9/11 conspiracy claims.
The bottom line? While the Truth Movement raises some questions and coincidences that appear interesting on the surface, its case is held together by a glue made up more of distrust of government and a willingness to make leaps between apparently unconnected events than science and facts.
9/11 Revealed, written by British journalists Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall, does a good job of summarizing many of the positions of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Although ideas and opinions are as diverse in that movement as in many others, there is one common point: some U.S.-based entity knew the attacks would occur. The prime suspect is the Bush Administration, whether as U.S. government policy or as a step toward the neocon agenda as enunciated by the Project for the New American Century. Some even lay the blame with some nefarious shadow government comprised of all or any parts of the foregoing and representatives of the military/industrial complex. Regardless of the suspect, views on the extent of government knowledge, awareness and involvement fall into two broad camps — they Let It Happen on Purpose (LIHOP) or they Made It Happen On Purpose (MIHOP). It is a sliding scale of responsibility. The “official story,” as Morgan and Henshall call what most Americans believe to have happened, is one of negligence on the part of the intelligence community, the FAA and other government entities. LIHOP means some in the government knew the attacks were coming and either did not prevent them or took steps to avoid them being prevented. MIHOP assigns the most guilt, saying 9/11 was planned and carried out by a cabal inside or with deep ties to the Bush Administration.
If proponents of either theory have a problem, it is that they rely too much on inconsistencies and what seems to be a willing desire to substitute belief or leaps in logic for facts. For example, one reason frequently cited to demonstrate the “official story” is false is that it is impossible to make cell phone calls from airliners at the altitudes these planes were at when the calls were made. Yet when it comes to presenting evidence to support other criticisms of the official version (e.g., how could the hijackers take control of the planes using only box cutters), there is little hesitancy to cite the contents of the calls that supposedly could not have been made. Those in the MIHOP camp say that when it gets down to the nitty gritty, it wouldn’t take a great number of people to pull it all off. There would be an “A Team” of key senior officials who “paralyze” the government and oversee the ensuing cover-up. There would be a “B Team” of other officials and journalists who would help propagate the cover-up, often unwittingly. Then there would be the “X Team,” a small group of “operatives” who would actually carry out the plan. But as you wade through the various items the 9/11 Truth Movement points to, it becomes readily apparent that the members of the conspiracy, particularly the B Team, would grow geometrically with time.
It is impossible to summarize the bits and pieces brought together to support the conspiracy approach because they come from so many directions. At least currently, the 9/11 Truth Movement seems to focus most heavily on three elements: (1) the collapse of the Twin Towers and, in particular, the nearby World Trade Center 7 building, show evidence of having been brought down by preplanted explosives; (2) the Pentagon attack is far more consistent with a missile strike than an airplane; and (3) the evidence and scenario regarding the crash of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania indicates the plane was shot down, not brought down by the passengers attacking the hijackers. In support of these scenarios, the 9/11 Truth Movement points to a variety of facts and what it sees as major inconsistencies or flaws in the official version. These various snippets would cause reasonable persons to stop and think. There is, however, a huge leap between that and offering what is ultimately a convincing case.
That is where Debunking 9/11 Myths is at its best. In 2004, Popular Science launched a project to investigate the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The results were published in March 2005 and the online version of that article is the most visited page at the magazine’s web site. Now expanded into book form, it takes a rational and scientifically based approach toward many of the issues, including not only the three major ones outlined above but much of the evidence upon which the skeptics rely. It demonstrates just how and why the scientific evidence and experts in the relevant fields support the “official story.” Yet this is science and analysis for the layman. Thus, it points out that the evidence the 9/11 Truth Movement relies upon to claim the Twin Towers were imploded is not only inconsistent with what an implosion would involve but is also rejected by the types of companies who do such work. (As an example of how the various teams the Truth Movement’s believes existed would be ever increasing, conspiracists claim the government either “got to” the management of the companies or they are most likely to have been involved in bringing down the buildings.) It points out that the plane that hit the Pentagon struck the most reinforced portion of it (which is cited by the conspiracy theorists as evidence of the conspiracy) and would have disintegrated on impact. Likewise, it details how the evidence in Pennsylvania is wholly consistent with the official version and not indicative of an explosive demise.
As James Miegs, Popular Science’s editor-in-chief, indicates in an afterword, the response to the original article was such that it became a part of the B Team. The magazine came under attack as essentially a tool of the cabalists. It was criticized for relying on officials who, of course, had to support the official version or else. Yet as Miegs also notes, the 9/11 skeptics cross ideological lines.
In truth, the views of far-left- and far-right-wing conspiracists differ little. Both think that vast, malevolent forces have hijacked American democracy. And both believe that the press, our elected officials, and the American people — or “sheeple,” — as conspiracists like to call them are too timid and ignorant to speak up.
Miegs also commented on what I agree is the style of proponents of a 9/11 conspiracy theories: “the tone of outraged patriotism, the apocalyptic rhetoric, the casual use of invective.” The conspiracists demonize and try to marginalize any who may disagree and prefer attack over rational debate.
Yet this does not mean the 9/11 Truth Movement can or should be ignored. It is a hallmark of American society and democracy that citizens feel free to test, challenge, investigate and demand support for “the official story.” Moreover, it is impossible to say no interesting questions remain. How is it possible that given the fact the bodies of many on the planes that struck the Twin Towers were vaporized and the amount of paper and debris generated by the collapses Mohammed Atta’s passport is found in one piece on the street? Why has there been little exploration or explanation of reports appearing days after 9/11 that several of the men claimed to been the hijackers turned up alive in other countries? Why have various surveillance tapes reportedly seized by investigators near the Pentagon never been released? How could the hijackers gain access to locked airplane cabins without a mayday or hijacking alarm going out from the flight crew?
There is plenty of blame to go around in the government for 9/11, starting with the intelligence failures and horrendous reaction to the hijacking reports that day. Add the growth and allure of the 9/11 Truth Movement to that list. The Bush Administration’s resistance to an investigation of the events of that day and its penchant, if not love, for secrecy have helped provide fertile ground for the conspiracy movement. While many in that movement will never accept the conclusions of past or future investigations and certain questions may be impossible to answer definitively, hiding information or ignoring demands for it only makes the conspiracy theories more palatable. Thus, while it does not appear the Truth Movement can prove its case, it undoubtedly will remain with us forever.
The American public has every right to demand answers and all too many reasons to lack confidence in government. Sadly, in such a climate, the fantasies of 9/11 conspiracists provide a seductive alternative to facing the hard facts and difficult choices of our time.
Afterword, Debunking 9/11 Myths
Just a note that posting will be sporadic at best in the near future. Various commitments will leave me with uncertain and likely limited internet access, leading to this collection of miscellaneous linkage from the past week:
Gonna travel the world is what I’m gonna do
Then come back and see you
All I ever do is struggle and strive
If I don’t do anybody any harm, I might make it back home alive
“Nettie Moore,” Bob Dylan, Modern Times
Richard Jones is a paranoid schizophrenic and recovering drug addict who also seems to be more than a tad bit obsessed with sex. That said, he actually comes off as a relatively likeable guy in Dan Martin’s Journey Back, which seeks to explore the impact of schizophrenia and drug addiction. Yet Jones still can’t save this debut novel.
When we first meet Jones, he leaves New York City and drives to San Francisco in 48 hours because “they knew where I was and how to find me.” Once there, Jones changes his name to Mitch James and embarks on a new life. The story is told in chapters that alternate between Jones and James. James tells his story in the first person. Jones’s story is told from the third person.
Martin, an attorney and psychotherapist, is familiar enough with the struggles facing those who suffer from paranoid schizophrenia or addictions to provide sufficient details to make the stories of the impact of those afflictions generally credible. The problem is a significant lack of internal consistency.
Jones was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic as a freshman in high school following a mental breakdown. Medication helped control his symptoms and he graduated with few suspecting his illness. Jones, who wants to be a writer, can’t afford his medication after moving to New York City. He discovers (or comes to believe) that he is more creative without it. Like so many others, he feels the medicine dulls his senses and intellect. Yet the psychosis into which he descends shortly after going off his medication leads to his arrest. He goes back on medication but, shortly after meeting and moving in with the equally troubled Anna, he quits taking it once more. His obsession with Anna results in him being committed to an institution for the criminally insane.
There, the medication again brings the mental illness control. Jones quits taking it, however, three days before escaping from the institution. Following his escape, he no longer takes the medicine and quickly descends into yet another breakdown, having only a “tenuous” grasp of reality. His agitation and paranoia increase until he sets off for San Francisco, fleeing the omnipresent “they.” And this is where Journey Back goes astray.
Granted, any story told by a mentally ill or unstable person may be nonsensical, particularly when their mental state has so deteriorated. That explains how, after initially returning to New York City following his escape, Jones can spend a week and a half driving and end up only 160 miles upstate. His paranoid state might even explain his ability to later drive to San Francisco in less than 48 hours. Yet the first person account of life in San Francisco presents a paranoid schizophrenic who has been unmedicated for months and barely in touch with reality “living a slow, comfortable domestic life.”
James, the new persona, almost immediately obtains a job writing for an alternative weekly. Not only is he coherent enough to come up with this new identity and hold onto this job, he ends up living with Cheryl, the newspaper’s assistant editor. She is unaware of his background and they carry on life working, socializing and entertaining like any other couple.
The story of life in San Francisco is very lucid despite the fact there is no indication James ever goes back on medication. Aside from occasional marijuana usage, James also stays free of illicit drugs. But then he learns about secret experiments with a new hallucinogen that allegedly can help cure alcoholics and drug addicts. To write about the drug, James must become part of the experiment, requiring him to leave Cheryl and move into a underground community created and run by the charismatic and mysterious leader of the project. His pursuit of this story and the truth about the drug is what leads to Journey Back being promoted as one of “psychological suspense.”
There is no doubt Martin writes with clarity given the fact his novel explores psychosis. But to classify either of the book’s two threads as a thriller or suspense novel is to overstate. Far more damaging, though, is the marked difference in coherency and rationality between Jones and James. Even though “as long as [Jones] took his medication he was able to function,” it is as if the mental condition that afflicts him seemingly vanishes once he reaches San Francisco. This dichotomy is reinforced by the use of the two narrative voices. The third party approach to pre-San Francisco life reinforces that Jones was too mentally unstable to tell his story. But why James has the mental wherewithal to narrate his “life” coherently is basically unexplained, if not inexplicable.
The obvious solution suggested by the book could possibly explain how James can so accurately recall what occurred prior. It does not, however, provide any sort of basis to enable him to lead a normal life given his state prior to arriving on the West Coast. Alternatively, perhaps the “slow, comfortable domestic life” Jones/James finds on the West Coast and the entire story is nothing more than a schizophrenic hallucination or his psychosis translating a troubled life into a good one in the mind only. If that is the case, though, then James is nothing but a fantasy created by an addled mind, completely undermining if not negating the book’s exploration and resolution of its core struggle — the one to overcome mental illness. In either case, Journey Back plainly demonstrates how significantly the choice of narrative voice can impact whether a book achieves its purpose.
What was there before the beginning? Something else.
Incan proverb quoted by Dan Martin, Journey Back
A couple of my regular stops in the blogosphere that also review books had some comments this past week I could plainly identify with.
Grumpy Old Bookman led off a post of short reviews acknowledging a problem similar to one of mine: “It has finally dawned on me that if I am ever to mention all the books in the increasingly large pile beside my desk, I am going to have to write shorter reviews than is my wont.”
Of course, some of that might be solved by the fact I apparently also suffer the same problem as Kevin Holtsberry at Collected Miscellany. He opened a recent review with the following:
One of the perils of reading books for review is that you lose some of the enjoyment by concentrating on what you will say in the review (or making sure you have something to say). While this does affect me on occasion (I more often feel pressure to read every book someone sends me), I generally don’t have this problem. Because I don’t get paid to write reviews I don’t approach fiction any different than if I were just reading for myself. The problem with this strategy – if you can call it that – is that on occasion I read a book, enjoy it, and then have very little intelligent to say about it.
My problem may be even worse. I read virtually every book I get as if I were reading it simply for pleasure. Couple that with my almost pathological aversion to writing in books and a tendency to scrawl short notes on whatever scrap of paper is handy at the time (and then leave that scrap wherever I happened to be) and even I am surprised that some reviews see the light of day. (As an aside, there was an interesting discussion of note-taking by reviewers at Critical Mass a couple months ago.) Of course, all this also means I spend perhaps an inordinate amount of time going back through the books to write a review. But then, that allows me to remind myself of how much I liked or disliked the book.
Perhaps I should quit worrying about this and simply get to either the stack of books to be read and the stack that have been read and need to be reviewed.
Literary criticism can be no more than a reasoned account of the feeling produced upon the critic by the book he is criticising.
“John Galsworthy,” D.H. Lawrence, Selected Critical Writings
So the South Dakota Supreme Court affirms the prior decision that only a minor change need be made in the ballot explanation for Amendment E, the J.A.I.L. amendment. Although brief, the decision is interesting in a couple respects.
First, it appears the only issue presented was whether the explanation should talk about deliberate actions. This confirms my prediction that deliberate is a new smokescreen upon which J.A.I.L.ers are going to rely heavily. That it is a new approach is reflected in the statement submitted by South Dakota J.A.I.L.er-in-Chief Bill Stegmeier in support of the measure that appears in the pamphlet the Secretary of State’s office is putting out about the ballot issues. That statement, which state law requires the Secretary of State to obtain from both proponents and opponents, makes no mention of deliberate or intentional conduct. Instead, it talks about a judge’s “courtroom procedures” or “courtroom behavior.”
Stegmeier’s statement also relates to the second interesting aspect of the Supreme Court decision. The Court specifically noted that Stegmeier “has abandoned the argument that Constitutional Amendment E applies only to judges.” Yet that isn’t what Stegmeier says in the pamphlet. He wrote:
Amendment E will not affect school boards, county commissions, and jury members. The Amendment is written to only address the unreasonable “doctrine of judicial immunity”, which presently allows for unchecked judicial misconduct.
As has been noted repeatedly on this blog and the courts have now clearly stated, judicial immunity does apply to jury members and to certain actions of school boards and county commissions. Since Stegmeier first said it applies to more than judges, then said it didn’t, then abandoned that claim in front of the Supreme Court and now reiterates it in the Secretary of State’s pamphlet, we are left with a basic question. When will man who now claims to have “authored” Amendment E going to make up his mind about what it says?
It is easier to say new things than to reconcile those which have already been said.
Luc de Clapiers Vauvenargues
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
