Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

The question is particularly puzzling since we know full well that numerous times in American history an investigation has been required to find the truth behind an official government story: Watergate, for sure. The official story of a third-rate burglary covered up the White House’s involvement so successfully that Nixon was overwhelmingly re-elected before the Congressional investigations began a year later and impeachment two years later.

And yet important 9/11 investigations are being carried out exclusively in America (not so in Canada, Europe and elsewhere) by private individuals, university professors, ad hoc nonprofit groups, and the editorial staffs of Hustler and Maxim. See for yourself: list of MSM coverage of 9/11 during 2006.

Most important, America's MSM, which have yet to devote any significant investigative resources to examaning the official story, are quick to label those who pursue investigations, write books, produce documentaries, and stage 9/11 Truth Conferences as "conspiracy nuts"--a label that also serves as a career warning to other writers and producers.

Thus, Hustler. Thus, Maxim.

But unless we are willing to call Woodard and Bernstein of the 1970s "conspiracy nuts," perhaps we should think twice about doing so to anyone who is serious and honest about the investigative work being done on 9/11.

Yes, there are 9/11 conspiracy nuts out there, just as there are other varities of wingnuts on the left and right--irrational folk who don’t deserve the time of day and probably wouldn’t believe it if you showed them your Rolex Oyster. But the nutcases dwell on the fringe of this conversation and play no substantive role in a serious consideration of a topic as important as 9/11.

But what about the "nut" charges against honest, productive people? Or as someone on DailyKos responded to me once when I merely mentioned in a comment a "9/11 cover up" as a reason for impeachment: "We don't do conspiracy theories around here." She then troll-rated me.

Such ridicule and thoughtless dismissals are tried-and-true political tactics, but often they are also the result of personal denial. The theologian and author David Ray Griffin, in one of his many presentations on 9/11, talked about two kinds of myths: (1) those that embody falsehoods and (2) those that embody our most cherished beliefs.

The official story of 9/11 certainly captures a mythic America--a land of democracy and peaceful people attacked by evil haters of our shining accomplishments and steadfast morality. The honoring of that myth, woven into the fabric of good Americans, often precludes the doubting of the offical 9/11 story and the willingness to consider the consequences of government complicity, if proven.

I was among those who initially encountered significant personal difficulty when attempting to confront the official contradictions, uncertainties and outright falsehoods of the government's 9/11 story. The DailyKos diarist One Pissed Off Liberal captures many of the nuances of this personal challenge for me:

We all cling to certain untruths for a variety of reasons. They are comfortable or comforting, they are traditional, they are beloved, they are habitual, or they are kept in a place that does not allow them to be questioned. People tend to cling to these untruths with a ferocious tenacity. Not all of them are harmful of course, but many are. --Listening to the Grownups

In this regard we live today in a divided America, occupied by those who accept the official government story of 9/11; and the 60+ percent who suspect we do not know the truth about key events of that day or about our government’s possible role in them.

The 9/11 journey is about crossing a personal Rubicon into the land of questions, doubt and inevitable confrontation with those who wish either to hide the truth or to hide from it. Most important, the journey is about asking questions and examining information in a careful, responsible way. Without prejudgment. Whenever those questions lead.

Asking these questions and finding answers are as important now as they ever were in our history. More important in many ways, of course, since 9/11 has become the basis for major changes within and outside our borders, changes that include 100,000s of deaths in prolonged military conflicts based upon the "Global War of Terror" that was launched in response to the attacks of that day.

Because of 9/11, there have also been historic changes in American civil liberties, as well as changes in the kinds of acts that Americans will tolerate when committed in their name--kidnappings, torture, indefinite detentions, and more.

For those who do not believe that our government is capable of participating in the destruction and misery of the 9/11 attacks, consider what was allowed to happen to the fire fighters, residents, office workers and others who had to clean up Lower Manhattan. Documentation from the EPA's own internal watchdog detailed the risks of breathing air laced with micro-particles of asbestos, lead, and mercury--air with the alkalinity of Drano. Yet that documentation was "edited" by the White House, and workers were told the air was safe, Wall Street should reopen, and reconstruction should begin. Result? Today nearly 70% of 9/11 first responders suffer from debilitating respiratory illnesses. Most will have the illnesses the rest of their abbreviated lives.

"I am relieved to be able to reassure New York and New Jersey residents that a host of potential contaminants are either not detectable or are below the Agency's concern levels."
~ EPA Head Christine Tood Whitman, Sept. 21, 2001

"The air quality is safe and acceptable."
~ New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Sept. 28, 2001

"No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws. The allegations in this case of Whitman's reassuring and misleading statements of safety after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks are without question conscience-shocking."
~ Federal Judge Deborah Batts, Feb. 6, 2006, decision allowing class-action suit to move forward
and refusing to grant immunity to government officials

If someone told you that our Joints Chiefs of Staff were planning to stage attacks on US cities and kill 100s of Americans sailors with remote controlled hijacked planes in order to justify an invasion of a sovereign nation, you would call that person a "conspiracy nut."

But you would be dead wrong.

James Bamford's 2001 Body of Secrets reported on just such a plan from 1962 called "Operation Northwoods," which was drawn up and approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and delivered to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara by the Joint Chiefs Chair, General Lyman Lemnitzer. Now that's a conspiracy. And a nut.

An aberration, you say?

Sure. And if you like aberrations as well as coincidences, you're gonna love taking a peek behind the veil of the official 9/11 story. You might even fall in love.

Part II of this diary will examine the physical evidence presented in the Hustler article of controlled demolition being used to bring down the Twin Towers and WTC7.