I was in China when a July Harris Poll reported that 50 percent
of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when
Bush invaded that country and that 64 percent of Americans still believe
that Saddam Hussein had strong links with al-Qaida.
The Chinese leaders and intellectuals with whom I was meeting
were incredulous. How could a majority of the population in an allegedly
free country with an allegedly free press be so totally misinformed?
The only answer I could give the Chinese is that Americans would
have been the perfect population for Mao and the Gang of Four, because
Americans believe anything their government tells them.
Americans never check any facts. Who do you know, for example,
who has even read the report of the 9-11 commission, much less checked the
alleged facts reported in that document. I can answer for you. You don't
know anyone who has read the report or checked the facts.
The two co-chairmen of the 9-11 commission report, Thomas Kean
and Lee Hamilton, have just released a new book, "Without Precedent: The
Inside Story of the 9-11 Commission." Kean and Hamilton reveal that the
commission suppressed the fact that Muslim ire toward the United States is
due to U.S. support for Israel's persecution and dispossession of the
Palestinians, not to our "freedom and democracy," as Bush propagandistically
claims. Kean and Hamilton also reveal that the U.S. military committed
perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners. The
commission even debated referring the military's lies to the Justice
Department for criminal investigation. Why should we assume that these
admissions are the only cover-ups and lies in the 9-11 commission report?
How do you know that 9-11 was a Muslim terrorist plot? How do
you know that three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because two were
hit by airliners? You only "know" because the government gave you the
explanation of what you saw on TV. (Did you even know that three WTC
buildings collapsed?)
I still remember the enlightenment I experienced as a student in
Russian studies when I learned that the Czarist secret police would set off
bombs and then blame those whom they wanted to arrest.
Story Continues Below
When Hitler seized dictatorial power in 1933, he told the
Germans that his new powers were made necessary by a communist terrorist
attack on the Reichstag. When Hitler started World War II by invading
Poland, he told the Germans that Poland had crossed the frontier and
attacked Germany.
Governments lie all the time -- especially governments staffed
by neoconservatives whose intellectual godfather, Leo Strauss, taught them
that it is permissible to deceive the public in order to achieve their
agenda.
Some readers will write to me to say that they saw a TV
documentary or read a magazine article verifying the government's
explanation of 9-11. But, of course, these Americans did not check the
facts, either - and neither did the people who made the documentary and
wrote the magazine article.
Scientists and engineers, such as Clemson University Professor
of Engineering Dr. Judy Woods and BYU Professor of Physics Dr. Steven Jones,
have raised compelling questions about the official account of the collapse
of the three WTC buildings. The basic problem for the government's account
is that the buildings are known to have fallen at free-fall speed, a fact
that is inconsistent with the government's "pancaking" theory in which
debris from above collapsed the floors below. If the buildings actually
"pancaked," then each floor below would have offered resistance to the
floors above, and the elapsed time would have been much longer.
These experts have also calculated that the buildings did not
have sufficient gravitational energy to accommodate the government's theory
of the collapse. It is certainly a known and non-controversial fact among
physicists and engineers that the only way buildings can collapse at free
fall speed into their own footprints is by engineered demolition. Explosives
are used to remove the support of floors below before the debris from above
arrives. Otherwise, resistance is encountered and the time required for fall
increases.
Engineered demolition also explains the symmetrical collapse of
the buildings into their own footprints. As it is otherwise improbable for
every point in floors below to weaken uniformly, "pancaking" would result in
asymmetrical collapse as some elements of the floor would give sooner than
others.
Scientific evidence is a tough thing for the American public to
handle, and the government knows it. The government can rely on people
dismissing things that they cannot understand as "conspiracy theory." But if
you are inclined to try to make up your own mind, you can find Jones' and
Woods' papers, which have been formally presented to their peers at
scientific meetings, online at www.st911.org/
Experts have also pointed out that the buildings' giant steel
skeletons comprised a massive heat sink that wicked away the heat from the
limited, short-lived fires, thus preventing a heat buildup. Experts also
point out that the short-lived, scattered, low-intensity fires could barely
reach half the melting point of steel even if they burned all day, instead
of merely an hour.
Don't ask me to tell you what happened on 9-11. All I know is
that the official account of the buildings' collapse is improbable.
Now we are being told another improbable tale. Muslim terrorists
in London and Pakistan were caught plotting to commit mass murder by
smuggling bottles of explosive liquids on board airliners in hand luggage.
Baby formula, shampoo and water bottles allegedly contained the tools of
suicide bombers.
How do we know about this plot? Well, the police learned it from
an "Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border several weeks
ago." And how did someone so far away know what British-born people in
London were plotting?
Do you really believe that Western and Israeli intelligence
services, which were too incompetent to prevent the 9-11 attack, can uncover
a London plot by capturing a person on the Afghan border in Pakistan? Why
would "an Islamic militant" rat on such a plot even if he knew of it?
More probable explanations of the "plot" are readily available.
According to the Aug. 11 Wayne Madsen Report, informed sources in the United
Kingdom say that "the Tony Blair government, under siege by a Labor Party
revolt, cleverly cooked up a new 'terror' scare to avert the public's eyes
away from Blair's increasing political woes. British law enforcement, neocon
and intelligence operatives in the United States, Israel and Britain, and
Rupert Murdoch's global media empire cooked up the terrorist plot, liberally
borrowing from the failed 1995 'Oplan Bjinka' plot by Pakistan- and
Philippines-based terrorist Ramzi Ahmad Yousef to crash 11 trans-Pacific
airliners bound from Asia to the U.S."
There are other plausible explanations. For example, our puppet
in Pakistan decided to arrest some people who were a threat to him. With
Bush's commitment to "building democracy in the Middle East," our puppet
can't arrest his political enemies without cause, so he lays the blame on a
plot.
Any testimony against Muslim plotters by "an Islamic militant"
is certain to have been bought and paid for.
Or consider this explanation. Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush
and Blair are war criminals. Bush is so worried that he will be held
accountable that he has sent his attorney general to consult with the
Republican Congress to work out legislation to protect Bush retroactively
from his violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Tony Blair is in more danger of finding himself in the dock.
Britain is signatory to a treaty that, if justice is done, will place Blair
before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
What better justification for the two war criminals' illegal
actions than the need to foil dastardly plots by Muslims recruited in sting
operations by Western intelligence services? The more Bush and Blair can
convince their publics that terrorist danger abounds, the less likely Bush
and Blair are ever to be held accountable for their crimes.
But surely, some readers might object, our great moral leaders
wouldn't do something political like that!
They most certainly would. As Joshua Micah Marshall wrote in the
July 7 issue of Time magazine, the suspicion is "quite reasonable" that "the
Bush administration orchestrates its terror alerts and arrests to goose the
GOP's poll numbers."
Marshall proves his conclusion by examining the barrage of
color-coded terror alerts, none of which were real - and, yes, it all fits
with political needs.
And don't forget the plot unearthed in Miami to blow up the
Sears Tower in Chicago. Described by Vice President Cheney as a "very real
threat," the plot turned out to be nothing more than a few harmless wackos
recruited by an FBI agent sent out to organize a sting.
There was also the "foiled plot" to blow up the Holland Tunnel
and flood downtown New York City with seawater. Thinking New Orleans, the
FBI invented this plot without realizing that New York City is above sea
level. Of course, most Americans didn't realize it, either.
For six years, the Bush regime has been able to count on the
ignorant and naive American public to believe whatever tale that is told
them. American gullibility has yet to fail the Bush regime.
The government has an endless number of conspiracy theories, but
only people who question the government's conspiracies are derided for
"having a conspiracy theory."
The implication is even worse if we assume that the explosive
bottle plot is genuine. It means that America and Britain by their own
aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by enabling Israel's war crimes in
Palestine and Lebanon, have created such hatred that Muslims, who identify
with Bush's, Blair's and Israel's victims, are plotting retaliation.
But Bush is prepared. He has taught his untutored public that
"they hate us for our freedom and democracy."
Gentle reader, wise up. The entire world is laughing at you.