By Greg Szymanski
June 24, 2005
What happened to William Rodriguez the morning of 9/11 is a miracle. What happened to his story after-the-fact is a tragedy.
But with miracles and tragedies comes truth. And truth is exactly what Rodriguez brings to the whole mystery surrounding 9/11.
Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors.
He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions.
All these events occurred only seconds before and during the jetliner strike above. And through it all, he now asks a simple question everybody should be asking? How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man’s arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?
Rodriguez claims this was impossible and clearly demonstrates a controlled demolition brought down the WTC, saying "Let’s see them (the government) try to wiggle out of this one."
Well, they haven’t wiggled out of it because the government continues to act like Rodriguez doesn’t exist, basically ignoring his statements and the fact he rescued a man burnt and bleeding from the basement explosions.
His eye witness account, ignored by the media and the government, points the finger squarely on an official cover-up at the highest levels since the government contends the WTC fell only from burning jet fuel. And after listening to Rodriguez, it’s easy to see why the Bush administration wants him kept quiet.
Bush wants him quiet because Rodriguez’s account is ‘proof positive’ the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition, not burning jet fuel. And Bush knows if he’s caught lying about this or caught in a cover-up, it’s just a matter of time before the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
In fact, Rodriguez’s story is so damaging – so damning – it literally blows the lid off the government story, literally exposing the whole 9/11 investigation as a sham and a cover-up of the worst kind.
And it appears the cover-up also extends to the media.
NBC news knew about his story several years ago, even spending a full day at his house taping his comments. But when push came to shove, his story was never aired. Why?
His eyewitness account, backed up by at least 14 people at the scene with him, isn’t speculation or conjecture. It isn’t a story that takes a network out on a journalistic limb. It’s a story that can be backed up, a story that can be verified with hospital records and testimony from many others.
It’s a story about 14 people who felt and heard the same explosion and even saw Rodriguez, moments after the airplane hit, take David to safety, after he was burnt so bad from the basement explosion flesh was hanging from his face and both arms
So why didn’t NBC or any other major news outlets cover the story? They didn’t run it because it shot the government story to hell and back. They didn’t run it because "the powers that be" wouldn’t allow it.
Since 9/11, Rodriguez has stuck to his guns, never wavering from what he said from day one. Left homeless at times, warned to keep quiet and subtly harassed, he nevertheless has continued trying to tell get his message out in the face of a country not willing to listen.
Here is his story:
The Miracle
It’s a miracle Rodriguez, 44, who worked at the WTC for 20 years, is even alive. Usually arriving to work at 8:30am, the morning of 9/11 he reported 30 minutes late. If he’d arrived on time, it would have put him at the top floors just about the same time the jetliner hit the north tower.
"It was a miracle. If I arrived on time, like always, I’d probably be dead. I would have been up at the top floors like every morning," said Rodriguez about the quirk of fate that saved his life.
But since he was late, Rodriguez found himself checking into work in an office on sub-level 1 when the north tower was hit, seemingly out of harms way. However, the sound and concussion of a massive explosion in the sub-levels right below his feet changed that.
"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office.
Rodriguez said Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Co., was one of the people in the room who stands ready to verify his story.
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."
But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"
David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.
"He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.
"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up.
"I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can’t even say a word."
After Rodriguez escorted David to safety outside the WTC, he returned to lead the others in the basement to safety as well. While there, he also helped two other men trapped and drowning in the basement elevator shaft, another result he says of the explosives placed below the tower.
In fact, after leading these men to safety, he even made another trip back into the north tower, against police orders, in order to rescue people from the top floors.
"I never could make it to the top, but I got up to the 33rd floor after getting some of my equipment and a face mask out of the janitor’s closet," said Rodriguez, adding he heard a series of small explosions going off between the 20th and 30th floors, unrelated to the airplane strike, while making his way through the stairwell to the top floors.
"Also, when I was on the 33rd floor, I heard strange sounds coming form the 34th floor, loud noises like someone moving and thumping heavy equipment and furniture. I knew this floor was empty and stripped due to construction work so I avoided it and continued to make my way up the stairs."
Rodriguez said he finally reached the 39th floor before being turned back by fire fighters and then, reluctantly, started his descent back down and his own flight to safety while, at the same time, hearing explosions coming from the South Tower.
The Tragedy
The concerted effort by the media and the government to silence Rodriguez is the tragedy behind this American hero’s story. And there is no question, Rodriguez is a "silent hero" for saving so many lives and for having the courage to continue telling his story against tremendous odds.
In an effort to open a fair and honest investigation as to why the WTC collapsed, Rodriguez has been ignored by government officials, the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST).
NIST, an independent investigative group funded by the government, put the finishing touches this week on its 2 year $35 million 9/11 investigation. This week Rodriguez made his final plea to have his story heard while testifying at the final public hearing held in New York.
" I disagree 100%with the government story," said Rodriguez. "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.
"And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers.
"Also, The FBI never followed up on my claims or on the other part of my story when I told them before 9/11, I encountered one of the hijackers casing the north tower."
Besides the explosions, Rodriguez also has provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission that he stumbled across one of the supposed 19 Arab hijackers inside the WTC several months before 9/11
"I had just finished cleaning the bathroom and this guy asks me, 'Excuse me, how many public bathrooms are in this area?'" Rodriguez told the 9/11 Commission. "Coming from the school of the 1993 [Trade Center] bombing, I found it very strange. I didn't forget about it"
Rodriguez, claims he saw United Airlines Flight 175 hijacker Mohand Alshehri in June 2001, telling an FBI agent about the incident a month after the attacks. Never hearing back from the bureau, he later learned agents never followed up on the story.
"I'm very certain, I'll give it 90%" that Alshehri was casing the towers before the attacks," said Rodriguez.
Regarding the media’s apathetic approach to his story, Rodriguez said immediately after 9/11 some newspapers picked it up but his words were never taken seriously and quickly forgotten.
"During the 9/11 hearings, NBC brought a crew out to my house and spent a day taping my story but they never did air a word of it," said Rodriguez. "Since then, some reporters and commentators have subtly warned me to keep quiet, told me my life could be in jeopardy and warned me that I really didn’t understand who I was dealing with.
"I have been receiving this type of subtle harassment for years, but I keep telling everybody I can’t be intimidated because I am on a mission. Whenever someone asks why I keep talking or warns me that I could be killed, I just tell them I have nothing to lose.
"I tell them I lost 200 friends and I am their voice now. I tell them I will do everything in my power to find out the truth since I am living on borrowed time since I probably should be dead anyway."
Besides trying to tell his explosive story, Rodriguez has been active raising money for 9/11victims, being involved with charity groups that have raised more than $122 million. He says he has used over $60,000 of his own money, originally earmarked to buy a new house, in order to get at the truth behind 9/11.
Also seeking justice at the highest level, Rodriguez is the lead plaintiff in a federal RICO lawsuit filed against President Bush and others, alleging conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes in the deaths of more than 3,000 at the WTC.
The case, filed last November in a Philadelphia federal district court, recently was moved to New York in a change of venue after a government’s motion to dismiss was overruled, allowing legal discovery to continue.
"Even if the case goes no farther, I feel we have scored a victory by winning this first battle," said Rodriguez. "At least the judge seems willing to listen which is a victory of sorts. However, I sincerely hope we can eventually take the case all the way to trial and reveal the truth to the American people about 9/11."
For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com where kind donations are also accepted to keep the truth flowing in the wake of media apathy.
Greg Szymanski
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Plans to Disassamble the WTC Towers and Rebuild Them in 1989
first published by Rense.com
From:
Karl W. B. Schwarz
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:22 PM
To:
Jimmy Walter
Hello Jimmy
You are going to wind up owing me the $100,000. :-)
The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired due to galvanic corrosion in air. Not what most think is possible but in ocean environments, very possible. Normally galvanic corrosion is only a factor in an electrolyte such as sea water and the stern drive on the boat - having steel and aluminum components - erodes, turns brittle and snap - it fails - if electrolytic grounding plates are not installed.
"""The galvanic reaction between iron and copper was originally mitigated by insulating copper from the iron framework using an asbestos cloth soaked in shellac. However, the integrity and sealing property of this improvised insulator broke down over the many years of exposure to high levels of humidity normal in a marine environment. The insulating barrier became a sponge that kept the salted water present as a conductive electrolyte, forming a crude electrochemical cell as Volta had discovered a century earlier."""
In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went.
Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so.
The exterior skin of the building - in being aluminum and connected directly to the super structure - was making the building weaker every day.
That could explain why there appears to be explosives set only about every 25 floors. Once the failure started, the brittleness of welds, rivets, bolts, etc would fail much easier as the loads became progressively greater on the way down.
That same process would also explain why the concrete was "powderized" over time because electrolytic processes weaken concrete too by "debonding" the Portland that causes concrete to bond in the first place. However, bear in mind that the "concrete floors" were not load bearing reinforced concrete. They were supported by what was a weakening by the day superstructure and cross members.
There was a 1989 meeting and the folks at the architectural firm [Emory Roth, the project architect that took over after the design architects completed the conceptual drawings] that had their office, records, plans and specs seized - were told that the $5.6 billion "take it down, rebuild it" project was cancelled and in about "10-12 years" they would "blow it up and start over". Consider that - and consider that NYC and the US Govt could not stand the global embarrassment of being so stupid or negligent that they did not consider the effects of galvanic corrosion on the superstructure. That is structural design 101 in architectural school and why they want architects to take physics and chemistry for Christ's sake. I did.
I am an architect by the way, quit practicing in 1988.
Here and here,
see bimetallic corrosion to get to the two links above.
Guess what?
The fat lady HAS SUNG. You know, the one in New York Harbor with the torch of Liberty and Freedom held high.
I want to find the sick bastard that thought it would be a cute idea to have close to 3,000 in the building and use that as an excuse to go take on a whole new energy policy, war policy, and lining the pockets of just certain people.
I think a Statute of Liberty hanging for that person would be most appropriate.
best regards,
Karl W. B. Schwarz
President, Chief Executive Officer
Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC
From:
Karl W. B. Schwarz
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:22 PM
To:
Jimmy Walter
Hello Jimmy
You are going to wind up owing me the $100,000. :-)
The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired due to galvanic corrosion in air. Not what most think is possible but in ocean environments, very possible. Normally galvanic corrosion is only a factor in an electrolyte such as sea water and the stern drive on the boat - having steel and aluminum components - erodes, turns brittle and snap - it fails - if electrolytic grounding plates are not installed.
"""The galvanic reaction between iron and copper was originally mitigated by insulating copper from the iron framework using an asbestos cloth soaked in shellac. However, the integrity and sealing property of this improvised insulator broke down over the many years of exposure to high levels of humidity normal in a marine environment. The insulating barrier became a sponge that kept the salted water present as a conductive electrolyte, forming a crude electrochemical cell as Volta had discovered a century earlier."""
In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went.
Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so.
The exterior skin of the building - in being aluminum and connected directly to the super structure - was making the building weaker every day.
That could explain why there appears to be explosives set only about every 25 floors. Once the failure started, the brittleness of welds, rivets, bolts, etc would fail much easier as the loads became progressively greater on the way down.
That same process would also explain why the concrete was "powderized" over time because electrolytic processes weaken concrete too by "debonding" the Portland that causes concrete to bond in the first place. However, bear in mind that the "concrete floors" were not load bearing reinforced concrete. They were supported by what was a weakening by the day superstructure and cross members.
There was a 1989 meeting and the folks at the architectural firm [Emory Roth, the project architect that took over after the design architects completed the conceptual drawings] that had their office, records, plans and specs seized - were told that the $5.6 billion "take it down, rebuild it" project was cancelled and in about "10-12 years" they would "blow it up and start over". Consider that - and consider that NYC and the US Govt could not stand the global embarrassment of being so stupid or negligent that they did not consider the effects of galvanic corrosion on the superstructure. That is structural design 101 in architectural school and why they want architects to take physics and chemistry for Christ's sake. I did.
I am an architect by the way, quit practicing in 1988.
Here and here,
see bimetallic corrosion to get to the two links above.
Guess what?
The fat lady HAS SUNG. You know, the one in New York Harbor with the torch of Liberty and Freedom held high.
I want to find the sick bastard that thought it would be a cute idea to have close to 3,000 in the building and use that as an excuse to go take on a whole new energy policy, war policy, and lining the pockets of just certain people.
I think a Statute of Liberty hanging for that person would be most appropriate.
best regards,
Karl W. B. Schwarz
President, Chief Executive Officer
Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Left Denial On 9/11
WHY THEY BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT
by
August West:
March 1, 2002
A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine presented to the Infoshop site an article he had posted on several indymedia sites regarding the real story of 9/11. He's posted before at Infoshop, in fact was highlighted. He was surprised to get back a response from site "master" Chuck O, saying "I have a low tolerance for any kind of conspiracy theory. As far as I'm concerned, a bunch of Osama's buddies conducted these attacks. I'm not going to post anything that says otherwise." He got a similar, if less straight-forward response, from Anarchy Magazine's Jason McQuinn, who said circumstantial evidence is not enough for him to print such a story (though it’s good enough for deciding Osama did it?).
One can argue that such attitudes violate basic anarchist principles of openness and refusal to censor unpopular views. But beyond that, Chuck O's response is a good example of what is a very common response on the part of the Left to questions about the official story, let alone alternative explanations: a lack of interest, often expressed in dismissive terms. I prefer to not discuss the critiques of the official story, and refer people to where these are thoroughly analyzed.
Instead, I will focus on why the Left seems so eager for once to accept official reality, and accept it from the administration of the Thief in Chief (he stole the election, remember?), who couldn't even tell the truth about his drunken driving arrest, whose father headed the CIA and was involved in Iran-Contragate, and whose grandfather Prescott was a banker for the Nazis. It's important to answer “why", because this shows the barriers we're up against in raising such questions, well beyond any matter of getting the facts out.
Denial lies at the heart of this unusual Left reaction. Many activists have looked at the questions, thought about the answers for a bit, and retreated in horror in the face of implications. If the government had foreknowledge and let the attacks happen, or worse, actually took part in facilitating them, then the American state is far more vicious than they could have imagined. And if so, what would happen to them should they vocalize this? Needless to say, this would greatly raise the stakes of political action well beyond the relatively superficial level that even many leftists operate at. It would be impossible to go on living as before, being essentially a spectator whose life is work/shopping/entertainment, with the occasional political rally, lecture or movie to spice things up and make one feel involved. People like that, or even ones more involved with some regular effort at political reform, could no longer feel that the political situation could be changed for the better through small, incremental steps, a 100 year or even 500 year plan. This prospect is thoroughly unsettling, and is easier to deal with if simply dismissed outright.
The events of that day in September were no doubt very traumatic, especially for those who happen to live in New York or Washington, or who have friends or family there. There used to be a saying in the 60s that a conservative was a liberal who just got mugged. While this is rather incomplete, there is an element of truth in it: Being subject personally to a crime means one’s survival instincts go into action, and people who would never get violent otherwise may do unimaginable things. This is quite necessary in the cause of immediate self-defense, but it can have repercussions well past the actual situation. In the same way, those who were in close proximity to the 9/11 attacks were traumatized. I know a radical performance artist who was in New York then and told me that the day after, had he been given a rifle and told to shoot certain people, he would have done so. He now dismisses any talk of a different explanation of 9/11. Like him, many leftists feel like they were personally attacked and demand revenge. In a more extreme version, this has led people like Christopher Hitchens to assert that the attacks represented an unprecedented level of evil, cannot be compared to anything that came beforehand, and a forceful response by the American state is therefore totally just and stands above criticism.
Beyond specific individual reactions we run into the social character of an individual who lives in this society. This is the individual psychic structure which transforms feelings and sensory inputs into social behavior. This structure generates the behavior pattern one needs to fit into this society, to do things such as hold down a job while suppressing your utter disgust at the daily humiliation, exploitation and degradation this entails, shop for overpriced necessities in often-overcrowded neon-lit metal and concrete structures, and compete with others for space and timely progress in ever longer commutes. In all this activity, we are surrounded by an increasingly advertising-saturated environment, populated with people who look like ads or tv "soaps" characters, whose conversations and general ways of being reflect self-absorption, short attention spans, and a cynical withdrawal from politics coupled with conformist materialist strivings.
The social character of the current era is programmed to go along with the flow. Under such circumstances, even leftists are under pressure to adapt or go insane (or broke). Most of their time is spent as good citizens (obedient workers/shoppers/commuters), regardless of what they say and think when acting in consciously political ways. They therefore manifest authoritarian ways towards others, e.g., censoring "their" website, and in general act so as to reproduce the basic patterns of behavior of this society. If everyone around us talks about nothing but sports or movies or music shows, we feel pressure to fit in if we don’t want to be left out. And if the dominant message that everyone picks up from the organs of propaganda and replicates in their conversations is that we are under an external terrorist threat, the unconscious drive is to accept this and adapt; better that than getting even more isolated than we already are, and risk ostracism from even long-time friends or associates, an even more impoverished social life (who wants to date someone who’s always creating waves? No fun), and ridicule.
Beneath unconscious motivations also lie some conscious agendas. Those on the Left who have embraced "critical support" for a "limited response" war will no doubt not wish to have their political bankruptcy exposed. But even most of those who oppose the War have nevertheless accepted the notion that the U.S. was attacked by a vicious enemy. For some, this represents an opportunity to promote their moralistic approach: let us respond in an appropriate, moral and non-military manner. Others, such as Chomsky, Michael Albert, Howard Zinn and Alex Cockburn, simply trot out the payback explanation: this horrible attack happened because America has done bad things, has not listened to us (wag, wag the finger), and better start changing its policies (as if an empire can be run in a nice way!). Yet others who disagree with war boosters like Katrina van den Heuvel of The Nation nevertheless buy their thesis that the war promotes increasing state powers (e.g., making airport baggage inspectors federal employees), and this amounts to a move towards "socialism". If the events of 9/11 were not what they seemed to be, this takes away the chance to promote these political programs, perhaps to even advance certain careers.
Others on the Left have such an intense hatred of Islamic Fundamentalism (which is indeed a reactionary force, though hardly one contending for global supremacy) that they want to see it crushed, and so what if this promotes the interests of the American-led global empire of capital? A group of former situationists, including Tom Ward who used to write for the Village Voice, have even articulated the notion that there is a struggle for world domination between Western Capitalism and Islamic Fundamentalism, and that "we" should choose the West as the lesser of two evils, the side whose victory is more likely to promote the long-term interests of general social transformation.
Peter Hudis, writing in News and Letters, articulated a viewpoint which, while not quite as extreme as this, nevertheless asserts that the attacks happened because Fundamentalism hates freedom: sounds a lot like an echo of Bush. In addition, there are those on the Left who believe European "civilization" is a beacon of human development in an otherwise savage world, have an outright racist hatred of the people of Central Asia and the Middle East ("goatfuckers" is what one marxist i know keeps calling them), and don't mind seeing the West bring some "civilization" to those savages. Were the commonly-accepted notions of what happened on 9/11 to be contradicted, all these political stances would be exposed for the foolishness and perversity they embody.
Certain organizations such as ZMag have the perspective that a discussion of possible U.S. government foreknowledge and/or complicity is at odds with critical theory. An analysis of institutions is what's necessary, they say, and talking about government involvement is a form of conspiracy theory, whose focus is corrupt individuals rather than the overall structure of the system, and whose promoters often espouse simplistic if not all-out right wing politics. True enough, all events happen in the context of global capitalism and its dynamics, especially the accumulation imperative. But within these constraints, corporate and state managers act to facilitate their ends. And pretending that they don't act deliberately and in secret to promote their goals flies in the face of history, such as the events of Pearl Harbor, or the Gulf of Tonkin pseudo-attack which led to dramatically-escalated U.S. involvement in Indochina. A determination to not deal with what the elites actually do to enforce their policies is a good way to disarm yourself and let them have their way.
And to top it all, there is the popularity factor. Bush's war seems to be more popular than Jesus right now. Many on the Left simply don't want to oppose what appear to be widely accepted views and alienate new readers/listeners/viewers of their media projects or potential recruits to their organizations. So even opposition to the war has to be couched in terms of "but we are also patriots", or at least "we are responsible critics". As if people who accept the premises behind this expansion of the Orwellian military/police state would nevertheless be open to a critique of capitalism. This is opportunism of the worst sort.
Whatever the reasons, a refusal to look honestly and fully at the reality we face and discuss all the questions raised about the official 9/11 story can only mean living life as a lie, living on a false basis in a fantasy world. The refusal of much of the Left to permit open discussion of this topic undermines the credibility and security of those who do see the need to examine the situation and raise questions. It undermines the solidarity of opposition to capital and the state. In many cases, denial may simply be a dishonest attempt to protect one's self and let others take the heat; "Don't murder me" . I see striking parallels between the Left’s reaction in the present situation and its reaction in 1914, as the supposedly socialist Second International turned its back on numerous pledges to never allow a war, and its constituent parties joined the various national war efforts. This amounted to sending many of their own particularly working class) members to be slaughtered on behalf of a struggle for markets and the "national (capital) interest".
This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain’t no fooling around. We are up against a global capital which is facing mounting barriers to its very survival, and it's reacting predictably like a cornered animal. Those who believe that the U.S. government due to some uniqueness would not kill so many of its own people to promote the objectives of its masters, and would not engage in such perverse behavior, are setting themselves up to be lambs ready for the slaughter. Now more than ever is the time to assert the truth in the face of overwhelming official lies, to face the tsunami wave without fear. Public opinion, especially as presented by the mass media, is no more than a reflection of the sum of official lies, and cannot be used as a gauge for what is the correct course of action.
This article was posted on 1.19.04 on Left Gatekeepers.com
by
August West:
March 1, 2002
A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine presented to the Infoshop site an article he had posted on several indymedia sites regarding the real story of 9/11. He's posted before at Infoshop, in fact was highlighted. He was surprised to get back a response from site "master" Chuck O, saying "I have a low tolerance for any kind of conspiracy theory. As far as I'm concerned, a bunch of Osama's buddies conducted these attacks. I'm not going to post anything that says otherwise." He got a similar, if less straight-forward response, from Anarchy Magazine's Jason McQuinn, who said circumstantial evidence is not enough for him to print such a story (though it’s good enough for deciding Osama did it?).
One can argue that such attitudes violate basic anarchist principles of openness and refusal to censor unpopular views. But beyond that, Chuck O's response is a good example of what is a very common response on the part of the Left to questions about the official story, let alone alternative explanations: a lack of interest, often expressed in dismissive terms. I prefer to not discuss the critiques of the official story, and refer people to where these are thoroughly analyzed.
Instead, I will focus on why the Left seems so eager for once to accept official reality, and accept it from the administration of the Thief in Chief (he stole the election, remember?), who couldn't even tell the truth about his drunken driving arrest, whose father headed the CIA and was involved in Iran-Contragate, and whose grandfather Prescott was a banker for the Nazis. It's important to answer “why", because this shows the barriers we're up against in raising such questions, well beyond any matter of getting the facts out.
Denial lies at the heart of this unusual Left reaction. Many activists have looked at the questions, thought about the answers for a bit, and retreated in horror in the face of implications. If the government had foreknowledge and let the attacks happen, or worse, actually took part in facilitating them, then the American state is far more vicious than they could have imagined. And if so, what would happen to them should they vocalize this? Needless to say, this would greatly raise the stakes of political action well beyond the relatively superficial level that even many leftists operate at. It would be impossible to go on living as before, being essentially a spectator whose life is work/shopping/entertainment, with the occasional political rally, lecture or movie to spice things up and make one feel involved. People like that, or even ones more involved with some regular effort at political reform, could no longer feel that the political situation could be changed for the better through small, incremental steps, a 100 year or even 500 year plan. This prospect is thoroughly unsettling, and is easier to deal with if simply dismissed outright.
The events of that day in September were no doubt very traumatic, especially for those who happen to live in New York or Washington, or who have friends or family there. There used to be a saying in the 60s that a conservative was a liberal who just got mugged. While this is rather incomplete, there is an element of truth in it: Being subject personally to a crime means one’s survival instincts go into action, and people who would never get violent otherwise may do unimaginable things. This is quite necessary in the cause of immediate self-defense, but it can have repercussions well past the actual situation. In the same way, those who were in close proximity to the 9/11 attacks were traumatized. I know a radical performance artist who was in New York then and told me that the day after, had he been given a rifle and told to shoot certain people, he would have done so. He now dismisses any talk of a different explanation of 9/11. Like him, many leftists feel like they were personally attacked and demand revenge. In a more extreme version, this has led people like Christopher Hitchens to assert that the attacks represented an unprecedented level of evil, cannot be compared to anything that came beforehand, and a forceful response by the American state is therefore totally just and stands above criticism.
Beyond specific individual reactions we run into the social character of an individual who lives in this society. This is the individual psychic structure which transforms feelings and sensory inputs into social behavior. This structure generates the behavior pattern one needs to fit into this society, to do things such as hold down a job while suppressing your utter disgust at the daily humiliation, exploitation and degradation this entails, shop for overpriced necessities in often-overcrowded neon-lit metal and concrete structures, and compete with others for space and timely progress in ever longer commutes. In all this activity, we are surrounded by an increasingly advertising-saturated environment, populated with people who look like ads or tv "soaps" characters, whose conversations and general ways of being reflect self-absorption, short attention spans, and a cynical withdrawal from politics coupled with conformist materialist strivings.
The social character of the current era is programmed to go along with the flow. Under such circumstances, even leftists are under pressure to adapt or go insane (or broke). Most of their time is spent as good citizens (obedient workers/shoppers/commuters), regardless of what they say and think when acting in consciously political ways. They therefore manifest authoritarian ways towards others, e.g., censoring "their" website, and in general act so as to reproduce the basic patterns of behavior of this society. If everyone around us talks about nothing but sports or movies or music shows, we feel pressure to fit in if we don’t want to be left out. And if the dominant message that everyone picks up from the organs of propaganda and replicates in their conversations is that we are under an external terrorist threat, the unconscious drive is to accept this and adapt; better that than getting even more isolated than we already are, and risk ostracism from even long-time friends or associates, an even more impoverished social life (who wants to date someone who’s always creating waves? No fun), and ridicule.
Beneath unconscious motivations also lie some conscious agendas. Those on the Left who have embraced "critical support" for a "limited response" war will no doubt not wish to have their political bankruptcy exposed. But even most of those who oppose the War have nevertheless accepted the notion that the U.S. was attacked by a vicious enemy. For some, this represents an opportunity to promote their moralistic approach: let us respond in an appropriate, moral and non-military manner. Others, such as Chomsky, Michael Albert, Howard Zinn and Alex Cockburn, simply trot out the payback explanation: this horrible attack happened because America has done bad things, has not listened to us (wag, wag the finger), and better start changing its policies (as if an empire can be run in a nice way!). Yet others who disagree with war boosters like Katrina van den Heuvel of The Nation nevertheless buy their thesis that the war promotes increasing state powers (e.g., making airport baggage inspectors federal employees), and this amounts to a move towards "socialism". If the events of 9/11 were not what they seemed to be, this takes away the chance to promote these political programs, perhaps to even advance certain careers.
Others on the Left have such an intense hatred of Islamic Fundamentalism (which is indeed a reactionary force, though hardly one contending for global supremacy) that they want to see it crushed, and so what if this promotes the interests of the American-led global empire of capital? A group of former situationists, including Tom Ward who used to write for the Village Voice, have even articulated the notion that there is a struggle for world domination between Western Capitalism and Islamic Fundamentalism, and that "we" should choose the West as the lesser of two evils, the side whose victory is more likely to promote the long-term interests of general social transformation.
Peter Hudis, writing in News and Letters, articulated a viewpoint which, while not quite as extreme as this, nevertheless asserts that the attacks happened because Fundamentalism hates freedom: sounds a lot like an echo of Bush. In addition, there are those on the Left who believe European "civilization" is a beacon of human development in an otherwise savage world, have an outright racist hatred of the people of Central Asia and the Middle East ("goatfuckers" is what one marxist i know keeps calling them), and don't mind seeing the West bring some "civilization" to those savages. Were the commonly-accepted notions of what happened on 9/11 to be contradicted, all these political stances would be exposed for the foolishness and perversity they embody.
Certain organizations such as ZMag have the perspective that a discussion of possible U.S. government foreknowledge and/or complicity is at odds with critical theory. An analysis of institutions is what's necessary, they say, and talking about government involvement is a form of conspiracy theory, whose focus is corrupt individuals rather than the overall structure of the system, and whose promoters often espouse simplistic if not all-out right wing politics. True enough, all events happen in the context of global capitalism and its dynamics, especially the accumulation imperative. But within these constraints, corporate and state managers act to facilitate their ends. And pretending that they don't act deliberately and in secret to promote their goals flies in the face of history, such as the events of Pearl Harbor, or the Gulf of Tonkin pseudo-attack which led to dramatically-escalated U.S. involvement in Indochina. A determination to not deal with what the elites actually do to enforce their policies is a good way to disarm yourself and let them have their way.
And to top it all, there is the popularity factor. Bush's war seems to be more popular than Jesus right now. Many on the Left simply don't want to oppose what appear to be widely accepted views and alienate new readers/listeners/viewers of their media projects or potential recruits to their organizations. So even opposition to the war has to be couched in terms of "but we are also patriots", or at least "we are responsible critics". As if people who accept the premises behind this expansion of the Orwellian military/police state would nevertheless be open to a critique of capitalism. This is opportunism of the worst sort.
Whatever the reasons, a refusal to look honestly and fully at the reality we face and discuss all the questions raised about the official 9/11 story can only mean living life as a lie, living on a false basis in a fantasy world. The refusal of much of the Left to permit open discussion of this topic undermines the credibility and security of those who do see the need to examine the situation and raise questions. It undermines the solidarity of opposition to capital and the state. In many cases, denial may simply be a dishonest attempt to protect one's self and let others take the heat; "Don't murder me" . I see striking parallels between the Left’s reaction in the present situation and its reaction in 1914, as the supposedly socialist Second International turned its back on numerous pledges to never allow a war, and its constituent parties joined the various national war efforts. This amounted to sending many of their own particularly working class) members to be slaughtered on behalf of a struggle for markets and the "national (capital) interest".
This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain’t no fooling around. We are up against a global capital which is facing mounting barriers to its very survival, and it's reacting predictably like a cornered animal. Those who believe that the U.S. government due to some uniqueness would not kill so many of its own people to promote the objectives of its masters, and would not engage in such perverse behavior, are setting themselves up to be lambs ready for the slaughter. Now more than ever is the time to assert the truth in the face of overwhelming official lies, to face the tsunami wave without fear. Public opinion, especially as presented by the mass media, is no more than a reflection of the sum of official lies, and cannot be used as a gauge for what is the correct course of action.
This article was posted on 1.19.04 on Left Gatekeepers.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
